83 MTC Declaration re Joint Statement

Document Sample
83 MTC Declaration re Joint Statement Powered By Docstoc
					Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 1 of 207

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Eugene D. Lee SB#: 236812 LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Phone: (213) 992-3299 Fax: (213) 596-0487 email: elee@LOEL.com Joan Herrington, SB# 178988 BAY AREA EMPLOYMENT LAW OFFICE 5032 Woodminster Lane Oakland, CA 94602-2614 Telephone: (510) 530-4078 Facsimile: (510) 530-4725 Email: jh@baelo.com Of Counsel to LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE Attorneys for Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.

10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., 14 Plaintiff, 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff submits this Declaration of Eugene D. Lee pursuant to Local Rule 37-251(d) in lieu of a joint statement re discovery disagreement. // // // // /// DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE re: INABILITY TO SECURE COOPERATION OF DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL TO PREPARE AND EXECUTE JOINT STATEMENT 1 v. COUNTY OF KERN, et al., Defendants. Date: January 14, 2008 Time: 9:30 a.m. Place: U.S. District Court, Bankruptcy Courtroom 1300 18th St., Bakersfield, CA Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007 Date Set for Trial: December 3, 2008 DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE re: INABILITY TO SECURE COOPERATION OF DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL TO PREPARE AND EXECUTE JOINT STATEMENT Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 2 of 207

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

I, Eugene D. Lee, declare as follows: 1. I am counsel of record for Plaintiff. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth

below and I could and would competently testify thereto if called as a witness in this matter. 2. Pursuant to Local Rule 37-251, I attempted to secure the cooperation of Defendants’

counsel, Mark Wasser, to prepare and execute a joint statement re discovery disagreement. I had numerous, extensive meet and confer discussions with Mr. Wasser by phone, email and fax. On Friday, January 4, 2008, at around 4 p.m., I sent Mr. Wasser a draft version of the Joint Statement re: Discovery Disagreement by fax, requesting his input. I explained in the cover letter that the draft was a work in progress and remained subject to change. I also sent to Mr. Wasser, via first-class mail, a copy of the exhibits which I intended to attach to the Joint Statement. Later that day, at around 11 p.m., I sent Mr. Wasser another draft of the Joint Statement by fax, again requesting his input. 3. On January 9, 2008, I approached Mr. Wasser at a deposition he was conducting of my

client, Plaintiff David Jadwin, and asked him for his feedback on the Joint Statement. He responded that he intended to file a Declaration re Joint Statement stating that I had not delivered to him the exhibits to the Joint Statement for his review. I explained I had mailed the exhibits to him, per my fax of January 4, 2008. I also offered to give him an electronic version of the exhibits right then and there. Mr. Wasser refused. The exhibits consist exclusively of faxes, letters and emails exchanged between myself and Mr. Wasser, all of which Mr. Wasser already has in his possession. 4. 5. To date, I have not received any response from Mr. Wasser regarding the Joint Statement. Attached hereto as Attachment A is a true and correct copy of the draft Joint Statement

which I had prepared. 6. Defendants refuse to produce documents in response to Plaintiff’s request for production

set one unless and until Plaintiff reimburses Defendants for copy costs which Defendants incurred without once consulting with Plaintiff. Plaintiff had requested Defendants produce the documents for Plaintiff’s inspection and copying at its own cost, but Defendants’ refused, insisting on reimbursement for the copies which it had unilaterally made. Plaintiff has moved this Court to compel Defendants to produce the documents. 7. Defendants refuse to produce a privilege log unless and until Plaintiff reimburses 2

DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE re: INABILITY TO SECURE COOPERATION OF DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL TO PREPARE AND EXECUTE JOINT STATEMENT

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 3 of 207

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Defendants for the above-referenced copy costs. Plaintiff contends that the copy costs have nothing to do with the privilege log and Defendants should have timely produced it. 8. Defendants invoke peer review privilege based upon state law. Plaintiff contends that

state privilege law does not apply in federal question jurisdiction cases in federal court. Plaintiff also contends that there is no federal peer review privilege. 9. Defendants invoke numerous other objections and privileges which Plaintiff contends are

improper and/or baseless. 10. Briefing regarding Plaintiff’s above-referenced contentions is contained in the draft Joint

Statement, attached hereto as Attachment A.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the United States that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on: January 9, 2008

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE re: INABILITY TO SECURE COOPERATION OF DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL TO PREPARE AND EXECUTE JOINT STATEMENT 3 /s/ Eugene D. Lee EUGENE D. LEE Declarant

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 4 of 207

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 EUGENE D. LEE re: INABILITY TO SECURE COOPERATION OF DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL TO PREPARE AND EXECUTE JOINT STATEMENT 4 ATTACHMENT A

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 5 of 207

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Eugene D. Lee SB#: 236812 LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Phone: (213) 992-3299 Fax: (213) 596-0487 email: elee@LOEL.com Joan Herrington, SB# 178988 BAY AREA EMPLOYMENT LAW OFFICE 5032 Woodminster Lane Oakland, CA 94602-2614 Telephone: (510) 530-4078 Facsimile: (510) 530-4725 Email: jh@baelo.com Of Counsel to LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE Attorneys for Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 21 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 22 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., 23 Plaintiff, 24 25 26 27 28 JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007 Date Set for Trial: December 3, 2008 1 v. COUNTY OF KERN, et al., Defendants. JOINT STATEMENT RE: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT Date: January 14, 2008 Time: 9:30 a.m. Place: U.S. District Court, Bankruptcy Courtroom 1300 18th St., Bakersfield, CA Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG Bernard C. Barmann, Sr. KERN COUNTY COUNSEL Mark Nations, Chief Deputy 1115 Truxton Avenue, Fourth Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Phone: (661) 868-3800 Fax: (661) 868-3805 Email: mnations@co.kern.ca.us Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern, Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher, Jennifer Abraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smith, and William Roy. Mark A. Wasser CA SB #06160 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 444-6400 Fax: (916) 444-6405 Email: mwasser@markwasser.com

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 6 of 207

1 2 3 4

This joint statement re: discovery disagreement is submitted pursuant to Local Rule 37-251(a) in advance of the January 14, 2008 hearing on Plaintiff’s motion to compel production and further responses to Plaintiff’s requests for production, set one (“RPD1”). I. DETAILS OF THE PARTIES’ DISCOVERY CONFERENCES

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The parties engaged in a prolonged “meet and confer” process that was conducted by letter, email and phone over the course of several months as shown in the attached Exhibits. Plaintiff David F. Jadwin (“Plaintiff”) served RPD1 on Defendant County of Kern (“Defendant”) on October 11, 2007. After Defendant served initial responses to Plaintiff’s RPD1 (“Response 1”) on November 20, 2007, Plaintiff met and conferred extensively with Defendant in an attempt to resolve discovery disputes. As Defendant has admitted, Plaintiff has tried to be “flexible” with Defendant in extending deadlines and narrowing request language. Plaintiff even gave technological advice on optical scanning, OCR functions, and cost-efficient purchase of Adobe Acrobat 8.0. On December 17, 2007, four days before the agreed-upon December 21, 2007 deadline to produce documents, Defendant suddenly demanded Plaintiff pay $10,000 (later reduced to $3,765) in reimbursement of Kern County’s copy costs. Defendant stated that if it was not in receipt of such payment, Defendant would not produce any documents at all. Defendant admits it had not previously raised this issue with Plaintiff. Plaintiff initially agreed to pay under protest, but after researching case law and upon being further informed by Defendant for the first time that “Many of the documents you have requested have, at most, a very tenuous connection to any issues in the case”, Plaintiff hesitated to pay such a substantial and possibly wasteful sum for possibly unnecessary copies which Defendant had unilaterally made without consulting Plaintiff. Unlike Defendant Kern County, Plaintiff is an individual and cannot easily bear such a cost. On December 19, 2007, Defendant served supplemental responses (“Response 2”). As compared to Response 1, Response 2 raised new objections, contained overbroad objections, contained new refusals to produce, etc. Despite extensive meet and confers, Response 2 represented a step backward from Response 1. JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 2

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 7 of 207

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

In lieu of paying Defendant’s demanded sum of $3,765 for copies, Plaintiff requested Defendant produce originals for inspection and copying at Plaintiff’s office, as had been requested in Plaintiff’s RPD1. Defendants refused and, to date, continue to withhold documents and the associated privilege log. Following is a brief chronology of relevant events: October 11, 2007 Plaintiff serves requests for production, set one, on Defendant, requesting written responses by November 12, 2007 and production by November 16, 2007. Defendant requests extension of deadlines to December 21, 2007. Parties meet and confer by phone. Parties meet and confer by phone. Plaintiff agrees to permit both responses and production in three separate installments due November 16, December 7 and December 21. Defendant requests stipulation to delay pre-trial and trial deadlines by three months to accommodate Defendant’s document processing requirements. Plaintiff later agrees. Parties meet and confer by phone. Defendant confirms production/response deadlines. Plaintiff’s counsel, Eugene Lee, speaks by phone with Defendant’s counsel, Mark Wasser, and his assistant and guides them through the OCR and redaction functions of Adobe Acrobat 8.0. In an email, Mr. Lee advises Mr. Wasser on cost-efficient methods to purchase Acrobat. Defendant serves written responses (“Response 1”) indicating production dates of November 20, December 7 and December 21, and the first document production installment (“Production 1”). Production 1 contains up to 8 duplicate sets of the same documents. Parties meet and confer by emails. Parties meet and confer by phone regarding Response 1. Defendant agrees that Defendant’s objection “documents protected from disclosure by state or federal law” is overbroad and intends to revise its responses. Parties meet and confer by phone regarding Response 1. Defendant clarifies that its objection, “documents protected from disclosure by state or federal law”, refers specifically to HIPAA and peer review privilege. Defendant agrees to revise Response 1 accordingly by November 30. At Defendant’s request, Plaintiff narrows Request 33 by revising it to read: JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 3

October 31, 2007 November 1, 2007 November 7, 2007

November 14, 2007 November 15, 2007

November 20, 2007

November 21, 2007

November 26, 2007

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 8 of 207

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 December 19, 2007 December 17, 2007 December 14, 2007 December 7, 2007 December 13, 2007 November 30, 2007 December 3, 2007

“Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO complaints or grievances made by YOUR past or present employees against YOU for defamation, retaliation, disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and/or failure to engage in an interactive process RELATING TO Kern Medical Center and/or its officers or staff, including but not limited to any informal or internal complaints, grievances or charges to any state or federal agency, and complaints filed in any state or federal court from October 24, 2000 to date.” (redlined to show revisions) Parties meet and confer by phone regarding Response 1. Parties meet and confer by phone. Defendant reiterates production deadlines of December 7 and December 21. Defendant states that it will serve privilege log on December 6. Defendant fails to produce second document installment (“Production 2”) or privilege log. Defendant serves incomplete privilege log relating only to Production 1 (“Log 1”). Parties meet and confer by email regarding Response 1. Defendant makes no mention of reimbursement costs and states “I expect to produce the remaining documents before December 21”. Parties meet and confer by phone and emails. Defendant raises the issue of copy reimbursement costs for the first time and demands Plaintiff pay $10,000 in actual and “estimated” copy costs, otherwise, Defendant will not produce Production 2. Defendant sends fax to Plaintiff requesting Plaintiff’s payment of $3,765 in reimbursement of Defendant’s copy costs. Defendant admits “You are correct that we did not raise the issue of costs earlier.” Defendant serves supplemental responses (“Response 2”). Response 2 is deficient in that it: raises new objections which were waived in Response 1; fails to narrow Defendant’s overly-broad objection “documents protected from disclosure by state or federal law” as had been agreed on several occasions; adds several new refusals to produce documents, despite agreeing to such production in meet and confer; refuses to produce documents based on privilege instead of producing redacted versions; refuses to produce in response to Request 35 in disregard of Plaintiff’s narrowing of Request 35 that Defendant had requested and agreed to. conditions all production on receipt of reimbursement 4

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 9 of 207

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 II. January 4, 2008 January 2, 2008 December 28, 2007 December 31, 2007 December 21, 2007 December 20, 2007

of its estimated copy costs of $3,765. Plaintiff sends fax to Defendant refusing to pay the demanded reimbursement and requesting Defendant produce original documents for Plaintiff’s inspection and copying by December 21. Defendant tells Plaintiff that it is suspending production of documents. Defendant fails to produce second document installment or privilege log (“Log 2”). Plaintiff and Defendant exchange meet and confer emails regarding the cost reimbursement issue. Plaintiff and Defendant meet and confer by phone and emails regarding the cost reimbursement issue and the numerous deficiencies in Response 2. Plaintiff and Defendant meet and confer by emails regarding the cost reimbursement issue. Defendant admits to misremembering events. Plaintiff and Defendant meet and confer by emails regarding the cost reimbursement issue. Defendants states they have identified case citations which definitively establish the correctness of their position. Defendants ask Plaintiff to share case citations in support of Plaintiff’s position, but when asked to do the same, they refuse.

A STATEMENT OF THE NATURE OF THE CASE AND FACTUAL DISPUTES Plaintiff David F. Jadwin, D.O., F.C.A.P., former Chair of Pathology at Kern Medical Center

(“KMC”) and senior pathologist from October 24, 2000 to October 4, 2007, filed a Complaint with this Court on January 6, 2007. Plaintiff contends that various defendants retaliated against and defamed him for reporting his concerns about patient care quality issues at KMC. As a result, Plaintiff was forced to take medical and recuperative leave for disabling clinical depression in early 2006. While Plaintiff was on leave, Defendants demoted him in June 2006 to a staff pathologist for “unavailability” and refused to reinstate him upon his return to work on October 4, 2006. On December 7, 2006, he was placed on involuntary administrative leave and restricted to his home during working hours until May 1, 2007. Around May 1, 2007, Defendant informed Plaintiff of its decision to either “buy out” the remaining term of his contract (due to expire on October 4, 2007) or simply let the contract “run out”. On October 4, JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 5

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 10 of 207

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

2007, Defendants did not renew Plaintiff’s employment contract. Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges whistleblower retaliation, disability discrimination, medical leave interference and retaliation, defamation and deprivation of compensation and professional fees without procedural due process. Critical to Plaintiff’s case is evidence that Plaintiff was treated differently from other similarly situated individuals at KMC, i.e., so-called “comparators”, as a result of discrimination and retaliation by Defendants. Defendants contend that the dispute arose out of Plaintiff’s tenure as a pathologist at Kern Medical Center. Plaintiff’s relationship with other members of the medical staff deteriorated to the point of intimidation, hostility and antagonism. Defendants contend, to the extent that any hostile work environment existed, it was caused by Plaintiff. III. THE CONTENTION OF EACH PARTY AS TO EACH CONTESTED ISSUE Defendant’s Refusal to Produce Documents or Privilege Log until Plaintiff Reimburses Defendant for Copy Costs 1. Plaintiff’s Position

12 13 14 15 a. The Privilege Log 16 During a meet and confer call of December 31, 2007, Defendants stated that they refused to 17 produce the final privilege log, Log 2, until the cost reimbursement issue regarding production of 18 Production 2 has been resolved. Later that day, Plaintiff sent an email to Defendants stating: “Contrary 19 to what you said on the call, production of the privilege log should not be made contingent on actual 20 production of the documents.” Presumably Defendants are not asking Plaintiff to reimburse it for copy 21 costs associated with Log 2. As such, Defendants should have provided Log 2 to Plaintiff on December 22 21, 2007. Instead, nearly three months after Plaintiff had first served the requests for production set one, 23 they continue to withhold it. 24 The Court should deem all privileges asserted by Defendants waived. The Court has discretion to 25 reject a claim of privilege where an insufficient privilege log is provided. United States v. Construction 26 Products Research, Inc. (2nd Cir. 1996) 73 F3d 464, 473; United States v. British American Tobacco 27 (Investments) Ltd. (DC Cir. 2004) 387 F3d 884, 890–891. 28 JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 6 A.

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 11 of 207

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

b. Defendants Rely upon a Misreading of Caselaw Defendants have cited “page 11-236, section 11:1937 of the Schwarzer, Tashima and Wagstaffe handbook on federal practice” in meet and confers for the proposition that the requesting party must pay the producing party’s copy costs. Section 11:1937 reads: Ordinarily, the producing party bears the costs of reviewing and gathering documents while the requesting party pays for the costs of the copies only. [Continental Ill. Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago v. Caton (D KS 1991) 136 FRD 682, 690; Bills v. Kennecott Corp. (D UT 1985) 108 FRD 459, 462] CAFEDCIVP CH. 11(IV)-C. However, Defendants misconstrue this proposition. The proposition is not that requesting party must pay any and all copy costs incurred in whatsoever manner, no matter how exorbitant or wasteful, by any party, with or without prior consultation with the requesting party. This would give responding parties wide discretion to financially harass, ambush and drain the resources of the requesting party, particularly where, as here, the requesting party is an individual. That is exactly what Defendants have done by suddenly demanding Plaintiff Dr. Jadwin pay $10,000 in copy costs just four days before the final production deadline. The proposition correctly stated is that the responding party must produce documents to the requesting party, bearing its own costs of gathering the documents, while the requesting party must be permitted to inspect the documents and copy documents of Plaintiff’s choosing, bearing its own costs of copying and inspection. The Washington District Court articulates this exact proposition (citing both Continental and Kennecott) in Fryer v. Brown, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20830 (D. Wash. 2005): Any party may serve on any other party a request to produce and permit the party making the request to inspect and copy any designated documents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). Ordinarily, the producing party bears the costs of reviewing and gathering documents while the requesting party pays for the costs and copies only. Continental Ill. Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. Of Chicago v. Caton, 136 FRD 682, 690 (D KS 1991); Bills v. Kennecott Corp., 108 FRD 459, 462 (D UT 1985). [emphasis added]. Plaintiff’s requests for production set one had requested Defendants “produce and permit

24 inspection and copying of the documents described below [at the office of plaintiff's counsel]”. On 25 December 20, 2007, faced with Defendants’ sudden last-minute demand for payment of $10,000 in copy 26 costs (later reduced by Defendants to ~$3,000), Plaintiff had no choice but to reiterate its original 27 request that Defendants produce the original documents for inspection and copying by Plaintiff at its 28 JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 7

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 12 of 207

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

own cost. Defendants refused to comply, citing objections to the manner and place of production despite having failed to raise, and thereby having waived, those objections in Response 1. Instead, Defendants continued to insist Plaintiff pay Defendants for copy costs associated with a massive volume of documents which in Defendants’ own words “have, at most, a very tenuous connection to any issues in the case”, copy costs which Defendants unilaterally incurred without consulting or meeting and conferring with Plaintiff beforehand. c. Defendants Had a Duty to Meet and Confer with Plaintiff on Copy Costs Even if the Court determines Defendants are entitled to be reimbursed for their copy costs, Defendants are under a duty to meet and confer with Plaintiff regarding such costs. In Rodger v. Electronic Data Sys. Corp., defendant EDS, a large multi-national corporation, argued that plaintiffs’ requests for documents relating to multiple reductions in force over a number of years across 26 countries would impose a “mind-boggling burden” on defendant. 155 F.R.D. 537, 539 (D.N.C. 1994). The Rodger court found it appropriate to tax the costs of production to the plaintiff given the undue burden imposed on the defendant. However, the court further held that the parties should meet and confer so as to minimize those costs for the plaintiff: Defendant's counsel are directed to confer, after consultation with their client, to seek to minimize these costs by: (1) restricting the scope of materials as much as possible, and (2) using the lowest level employees who have the knowledge and skill required to retrieve the documents. Counsel shall attempt to agree on these expenses and only failing that, file a motion for taxation of these expenses with the court.”. Id. at 542. In meet and confers occurring over more than two months, Defendants repeatedly committed to producing Production 2 by December 21, 2007. It was only on December 17, just four days before the final production deadline, that Defendants raised the issue of copy costs with Plaintiff. As Defendants admit, this was the first time Defendants had done so. Defendants demanded Plaintiff pay Defendants $10,000 or Defendants would not produce Production 2 by December 21, as had been promised. However, on August 6, 2007, Plaintiff and Defendants had exchanged Rule 26 Initial Disclosures without either party making any mention of copy costs. Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures were more voluminous than Defendants’ Initial Disclosures. On November 20, 2007, Defendants served Production 1 on Plaintiff in the form of electronic files stored on CDs, again without a single mention of copy costs. Production 1 comprised over 12,000 pages of documents (much of it useless chaff). JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 8

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 13 of 207

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

By failing to consult with Plaintiff as to cost, Defendants acted on their own initiative in incurring processing costs of roughly 14 cents per page. Had Defendants informed Plaintiff earlier of the substantial costs involved, Plaintiff would definitely have worked with Defendants to narrow requests and/or suggest other less costly alternatives. As Defendants admit, Plaintiff had already narrowed numerous production requests in its meet and confers with Defendants in order to expedite Defendants’ production. 1. Defendant’s Position

8 [INSERT HERE] 9 10 11 12 1. 13 In Response 2, Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff requests nos. 12-15, 17, 23-30, 32-34, 36-43, 14 51, 54-58, 63, 65-67, 70-73, and 78 contain the following objection: “Defendants also object to this 15 request to the extent it requests information protected from disclosure by state or federal law . . . .”. On 16 November 20, 2007, Plaintiff sent an email to Defendants explaining why this objection, which was also 17 contained in Response 1, was overbroad and therefore defective. On a November 21, 2007 call, 18 Defendants admitted it was overbroad. Plaintiff wrote in followup to the call: 19 20 21 22 Yet, in Response 2, the objection remains just as overbroad as it had been in Response 1. 23 The objection does not comply with FRCP Rule 34 because it (a) is too broadly stated and (b) 24 fails to explain how the objection relates to the documents demanded. In Obiajulu v City of Rochester, 25 Dep't of Law (1996, WD NY) 166 FRD 293, the defendant City of Rochester had objected that each 26 request “seeks information and material protected by the attorney client, work product doctrine or other 27 privilege”. The court held that “Such pat, generic, non-specific objections, intoning the same boilerplate 28 JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 9 As you know, in that email, we had explained that defendants' oft-used objection, "documents protected from disclosure by state or federal law", does not comply with FRCP Rule 34 because it (a) is too broadly stated and (b) fails to explain how the objection relates to the documents demanded. During the call, you indicated that defendants would re-state this objection. Plaintiff’s Position B. Defendant’s Objection that Documents are Protected from Disclosure by State or Federal law

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 14 of 207

1 2 3 4 5 6

language, are inconsistent with both the letter and the spirit of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” The court further held: An objection to a document request must clearly set forth the specifics of the objection and how that objection relates to the documents being demanded. Roesberg v. JohnsManville Corp., 85 F.R.D. 292 (E.D. Pa. 1980). The burden is on the party resisting discovery to clarify and explain precisely why its objections are proper given the broad and liberal construction of the discovery rules found in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Other federal courts have reached similar holdings. Pulsecard, Inc. v Discover Card Servs.

7 (1996, DC Kan) 168 FRD 295 (Although FRCP 34, which governs production of documents and things, 8 does not provide any language with respect to specificity and waiver of objections, which FRCP 33, 9 which governs interrogatories, does, no reason exists to distinguish between interrogatories and requests 10 for production as to these matters); Rivera v Kmart Corp. (2000, DC Puerto Rico) 190 FRD 298, 45 FR 11 Serv 3d 1349 (asserting general objection to request for production of documents does not comply with 12 FRCP 34(b)). 13 In Hall v Sullivan, the court held that Rule 34 requires objections to document production 14 requests be stated with particularity in a timely answer, and that failure to do so may constitute waiver of 15 grounds not properly raised, including privilege or work product immunity, unless the court excuses this 16 failure for good cause shown. (2005, DC Md) 231 FRD 468. Defendants’ bad faith overbroad objection, 17 which Defendants themselves admitted is overbroad and had agreed to narrow in meet and confer, 18 should be deemed waived in all responses. 19 20 21 22 C. 23 1. 24 a. State Privilege Law Does Not Apply 25 In Response 2, Defendants invoke the “peer-review privilege” in response to Plaintiff’s requests 26 no. 12-15, 17, 26, 28, 32, 36-43, 45, 51, 54-58, 60, 61, 63, 65-74 and 78. Defendants state in boilerplate 27 fashion: “Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests . . . documents protected from 28 JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 10 Plaintiff’s Position Defendant’s Objection based on State-Law Peer Review Privilege 2. Defendant’s Position

[INSERT HERE]

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 15 of 207

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

disclosure by state or federal law, including . . . the peer-review privilege.” As Plaintiff has repeatedly made clear to Defendants in meet and confers, state privilege law does not apply to federal question jurisdiction cases in federal court. This principle is well-settled in federal law. In the oft-cited case, Wm. T. Thompson, Co. v. Gen. Nutrition Corp., Inc., the court held: Thus, under Rule 501, it is clear that federal claims asserted in a federal question case are governed by federal common law. Further, it is been held that where state law claims overlap with federal claims in a federal question case such that particular documents are relevant to both the state and the federal claims, federal privilege law also applies. 671 F.2d 100, 104 (3rd Cir.1982). The 9th Circuit cited Thompson Co. v. Gen. Nutrition Corp. with approval in Agster v. Maricopa County, holding that “Where there are federal question claims and pendent state law claims present, the federal law of privilege applies.” 422 F.3d 836, 839-840 (9th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). In the instant case, plaintiff is bringing federal question claims under FMLA, 42 USC 1983 (procedural due process), and FLSA. These federal law claims involve events spanning the entire period of Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant County of Kern. Defendants were on notice of Plaintiff’s depression disability as early as 2000. Plaintiff began raising patient care quality concerns as early as 2001 and the retaliation he suffered was almost immediate. As a result of the ongoing hostile work environment, Plaintiff required FMLA medical leave in 2006 in response to which the Defendants demoted him, placed him on 5-months involuntary administrative leave and restriction to his home, and did not renew his contract. Defendants explain their harsh conduct as being in response to Plaintiff’s “arrogance”. At a minimum, all these events establish the willful and malicious nature of the individual Defendants’ conduct in violation of federal laws. A single court has held that, where documents sought are relevant only to pendant state law claims and not to the federal claims in a diversity jurisdiction case, state privilege law applies: Platypus Wear, Inc. v. K.D. Co., Inc., 905 F. Supp. 808 (S.D. Cal. 1995). However, that case is distinguishable due to its extreme circumstances. There, plaintiff had brought exclusively state claims in federal court under diversity, not federal question, jurisdiction. The defendant then brought counter-claims which included a single federal counter-claim. On the slim basis of the defendant’s lone federal counterclaim, plaintiff argued that federal privilege law should apply to its state law claims. The court held in those extreme circumstances that state privilege law should apply to plaintiff’s state law claims. Id. at JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 11

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 16 of 207

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

812. The distinction between diversity and federal question jurisdiction should not be underestimated. In federal question cases, the state's interest is that of a litigant, and not, as in diversity cases, that of a sovereign whose law is being applied in a foreign forum. Reference to federal law in this case is necessary on the issue of the existence and scope of the claimed privilege. Heathman v. United States District Court, 503 F.2d at 1034; Fears v. Burris Manufacturing Co., 436 F.2d 1357, 1360-1361 (5th Cir. 1971); Carr v. Monroe Manufacturing Co., 431 F.2d 384, 387-389 (5th Cir. 1970); Colton v. United States, 306 F.2d 633, 636 (2d Cir. 1962). Even if the Court were inclined to find that state privilege law should apply to Plaintiff’s pendent state law claims, it should be noted that the task of discerning which evidence goes solely to Plaintiff’s state law claims vis-à-vis federal law claims will be impracticable and will engender unending disputes between the parties that will ultimately require excessive judicial resources to sort out. Under the well-settled holding in Thompson, Co. v. Gen. Nutrition Corp, the Court should hold that state privilege law does not apply. b. There Is No Federal Peer Review Privilege There is no federal peer review privilege, nor has a single case in the 9th Circuit yet recognized one. In Agster v. Maricopa County, the 9th Circuit refused to recognize a federal peer review privilege: No case in this circuit has recognized the [peer review] privilege. . . . We are constrained by two considerations, one general and the other particular to this case. We must be "especially reluctant to recognize a privilege in an area where it appears that Congress has considered the relevant competing concerns but has not provided the privilege itself." . . . . Congress has twice had occasion and opportunity to consider the [peer review] privilege and not granted it either explicitly or by implication, there exists a general objection to our doing so. 422 F.3d 836, 839-840 (9th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). The Defendants oft-invoked peer review privilege is baseless. The Court should order

23 Defendants to produce all documents requested. 24 25 2. 26 [INSERT HERE] 27 28 JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 12 Defendant’s Position

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 17 of 207

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

D.

Defendant’s Objection of Personnel Privilege 1. Plaintiff’s Position

In Response 2, Defendants invoke the “personnel privilege” in response to Plaintiff’s requests nos. 12-15, 17, 26, 28, 32, 36-39, 41, 51, 54-58, 63, 65-67, 70-73, 78. In Response 2, Defendants state in boilerplate fashion: “Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests . . . documents protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including . . . the personnel privilege.” Failing to object to a Rule 34 request within the time permitted waives such objections thereto, including claims of privilege and work product. Hall v Sullivan (2005, DC Md) 231 FRD 468; see also Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants (9th Cir. 1992) 959 F2d 1468, 1473 (“Failure to object to discovery requests within the time required constitutes a waiver of any objection”); see also Coregis Ins. Co. v. Baratta & Fenerty, Ltd. (ED PA 1999) 187 FRD 528, 529. Defendants failed to raise the personnel privilege in Response 1, and is raising it for the first time in Response 2. Plaintiff had met and conferred with Defendants in the hopes that Defendants would remedy the many deficiencies contained in Response 1. Defendants ostensibly served Response 2 as a product of the meet and confers. In fact, Defendants used Response 2 to make a mockery of the meet and confer process and raise new objections that had not been raised in Response 1. Moreover, as stated above, FRCP Rule 34 prohibits objections which (a) are too broadly stated and (b) fail to explain how the objection relates to the documents demanded. Defendants are under a duty to clarify and explain precisely why their objections are proper. The mere boilerplate assertion of “personnel privilege” with no further explication fails to comply with Rule 34. It fails to put Plaintiff on notice as to what the privilege is (Plaintiff has no idea), what its basis is, what it covers, etc. The Court should deem the “personnel privilege” waived in all responses. 2. Defendant’s Position

24 [INSERT HERE] 25 26 27 28 JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 13

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 18 of 207

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

E.

Defendant’s Refusal to Produce Due to Marginal Relevancy 1. Plaintiff’s Position

In Response 2, Defendants refuse to produce any documents in response to Plaintiff’s requests nos. 32, 36, 38, 39, 41, 54-58, 70-73, 78. In Response 2, Defendants state: “Defendants have determined that the burden of redacting privileged information outweighs the marginal relevancy of the remaining information in the documents”. Plaintiff requests the Court conduct an in camera review of the documents at issue to confirm that Defendants’ redactions are valid and that their refusal to produce any documents is justified. 2. Defendant’s Position

10 [INSERT HERE] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 F. Specific Contested Responses and Objections

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Kern Medical Center personnel directories or lists, including but not limited to names, direct work phone numbers, departments, etc. which were maintained by YOU during Plaintiff’s employment with YOU. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 11 Defendants will produce all non-privileged documents responsive to this request. Production is expected to be complete on or about December 21, 2007, depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants will redact privileged information as appropriate. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION FRCP Rule 34 prohibits objections which (a) are too broadly stated and (b) fail to explain how the objection relates to the documents demanded. Defendants are under a duty to clarify and explain precisely why their objections are proper. Defendants merely reference “privileged personal or confidential information”. This assertion of privilege fails to comply with Rule 34. It fails to put Plaintiff on notice as to what the privileges are (Plaintiff has no idea), what its basis is, what it covers, etc. Failing to object to a Rule 34 request within the time permitted waives such objections thereto— JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 14

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 19 of 207

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

including claims of privilege and work product. Hall v Sullivan (2005, DC Md) 231 FRD 468; see also Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants (9th Cir. 1992) 959 F2d 1468, 1473 (“Failure to object to discovery requests within the time required constitutes a waiver of any objection”); see also Coregis Ins. Co. v. Baratta & Fenerty, Ltd. (ED PA 1999) 187 FRD 528, 529. The Court should deem this assertion of privilege waived. DEFENDANTS’ POSITION [INSERT HERE]

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26 Any and all DOCUMENTS maintained by Plaintiff at Kern Medical Center during his employment by YOU, including any and all e-mails, Groupwise calendars, memoranda, written materials, and computer files stored on Plaintiff’s computer at Kern Medical Center’s servers. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 26 Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain confidential personnel information, documents protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA, the peer-review privilege and the personnel privilege, and documents that are subject to the attorneyclient privilege. After diligent search, Defendants believe Groupwise calendar information was deleted many months ago as part of the routine 90-day cycling of the Groupwise software. Defendants are continuing to search for materials that were on the computer that was assigned to Plaintiff. Some material was archived before the computer was reassigned and Defendants will produce copies of the material that was archived by December 21, 2007, depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants will redact privileged information, if any, as appropriate. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION Failing to object to a Rule 34 request within the time permitted waives such objections thereto— including claims of privilege and work product. Hall v Sullivan (2005, DC Md) 231 FRD 468; see also Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants (9th Cir. 1992) 959 F2d 1468, 1473 (“Failure to object to discovery requests within the time required constitutes a waiver of any objection”); see also Coregis Ins. Co. v. Baratta & Fenerty, Ltd. (ED PA 1999) 187 FRD 528, 529. JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 15

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 20 of 207

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

Defendants are for the first time raising objections of “confidential personnel information”, “documents protected by disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA, the peer-review privilege and the personnel privilege”, and “attorney-client privilege”. Defendants did not timely raise these objections or privileges in Response 1. The Court should deem these objections waived. DEFENDANTS’ POSITION [INSERT HERE]

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO complaints or grievances made by YOUR past or present employees against YOU for defamation, retaliation, disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and/or failure to engage in an interactive process, including but not limited to any informal or internal complaints, grievances or charges to any state or federal agency, and complaints filed in any state or federal court from October 24, 2000 to date. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 33 Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in this case. Consequently, this request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also object on the ground that the phrase, “informal or internal complaints” is vague and, depending on interpretation, could include any off-hand gripe by any employee, to the extent it was memorialized in writing. Defendant County of Kern employs several thousand employees. In the past seven years, there could be many documents that fit the description of this request yet none have anything to do with the issues in this case. This request is, accordingly, overbroad and burdensome. Defendants do not believe redaction would resolve these objections. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION During meet and confers, specifically at Defendant’s request Plaintiff had narrowed Request 33. In a meet and confer fax of November 22, 2007, memorializing a meet and confer call, Plaintiff stated:

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE

16

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 21 of 207

1 2 3

In past meet and confer calls, plaintiff had narrowed this request to complaints or grievances relating to Kern Medical Center which had been made to a government agency or court. These documents are essential to prove disparate treatment and discriminatory/retaliatory intent. On November 27, 2007, following a meet and confer call, Plaintiff sent another meet and confer

4 fax stating: 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR search for, recruitment, of and evaluation of candidates for the position of locum tenens pathologist at Kern Medical Center during the period from JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 17 We reiterated that we have already agreed to narrow this request [33] to documents relating to complaints or grievances relating to Kern Medical Center which had been made to a government agency or court. We further explained that these documents are essential to prove disparate treatment and discriminatory/retaliatory intent. You requested and we agreed to send you revised response language which nails down exactly what we are requesting. You confirmed that the documents are already in the process of being collected and that, once the request language is revised, you will produce responsive documents by December 7. In that same fax, Plaintiff revised Request 33 to read: Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO complaints or grievances made by YOUR past or present employees against YOU for defamation, retaliation, disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and/or failure to engage in an interactive process RELATING TO Kern Medical Center and/or its officers or staff, including but not limited to any informal or internal complaints, grievances or charges to any state or federal agency, and complaints filed in any state or federal court from October 24, 2000 to date.” On November 30, 2007, following a meet and confer call, Plaintiff sent another meet and confer fax stating: You confirmed that plaintiff’s revised request language is adequate and that you will produce responsive documents tentatively by December 7, but you would have a more definite idea as to production date by next Monday. Despite this extensive meet and confer process, Defendants chose to disregard the revisions Plaintiff had made to Request 33. In Response 2, Defendants restated Request 33 in its unrevised form and restated their same objections. In so doing, Defendants breached the numerous assurances they had made to Plaintiff that they would produce documents upon receiving a revised version of Request 33. DEFENDANTS’ POSITION [INSERT HERE]

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 22 of 207

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

January 1, 2006 to present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 38 Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also object to this request to the extent it requests information protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA, the peer-review privilege and the personnel privilege, and documents that contain information protected by the attorney-client privilege. After review of the documents potentially responsive to this request, Defendants have determined that the burden of redacting privileged information outweighs the marginal relevancy of the remaining information in the documents. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION A showing of relevancy may be enough to cause the court to balance the compelling public need for discovery against the fundamental right of privacy. (Mendez v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 557, 567.) These documents are highly probative to Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant County of Kern failed to reasonably accommodate his depression disability by failing to timely arrange for locum tenens pathologists who could assist with the Pathology department’s workload during Plaintiff’s reduced work schedule medical and recuperative leaves in 2006. During meet and confers, the parties had specifically discussed Defendants’ privacy concerns regarding this request. The parties agreed that Defendants need not produce any third party letters of reference. In exchange, Defendants agreed to produce documents in response to Request 38. In typical fashion, Defendants now breach the assurances they made to Plaintiff in meet and confer. DEFENDANTS’ POSITION [INSERT HERE]

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR search for, recruitment, of and evaluation of candidates for the position of Chair or Chief of OB-GYN at Kern Medical Center during the period from JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 18

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 23 of 207

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

January 1, 2006 to present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 39 Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also object to this request to the extent it requests information protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA, the peer-review privilege and the personnel privilege, and documents that contain information protected by the attorney-client privilege. After review of the documents potentially responsive to this request, Defendants have determined that the burden of redacting privileged information outweighs the marginal relevancy of the remaining information in the documents. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION A showing of relevancy may be enough to cause the court to balance the compelling public need for discovery against the fundamental right of privacy. (Mendez v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 557, 567.) An employer's failure to follow its own policies and procedures indicates discrimination. Village of Arlington Heights v. Met. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 267 (1977); Duschene v. Pinole Point Steel Co. (1999) 76 Cal. App. 4th 33 (“Departures from the normal procedural sequence also might afford evidence that improper purposes are playing a role”). Plaintiff has a compelling need for this evidence to establish whether Defendant County of Kern customarily complied with their policies regarding removal and replacement of department chairs and whether Plaintiff was treated in a disparate manner. The evidence is highly probative to Plaintiff’s claims. DEFENDANTS’ POSITION [INSERT HERE]

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 40 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR removal of Dr. Royce Johnson from the position of Chair or Chief of Medicine at Kern Medical Center. JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 19

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 24 of 207

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

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 40 Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also object to this request to the extent it requests information protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA and the peer review privilege, and documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION A showing of relevancy may be enough to cause the court to balance the compelling public need for discovery against the fundamental right of privacy. (Mendez v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 557, 567.) An employer's failure to follow its own policies and procedures indicates discrimination. Village of Arlington Heights v. Met. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 267 (1977); Duschene v. Pinole Point Steel Co. (1999) 76 Cal. App. 4th 33 (“Departures from the normal procedural sequence also might afford evidence that improper purposes are playing a role”). Plaintiff has a compelling need for this evidence to establish whether Defendant County of Kern customarily complied with their policies regarding removal and replacement of department chairs and whether Plaintiff, who was removed from Chair of Pathology, was treated in a disparate manner. The evidence is highly probative to Plaintiff’s claims. Although Dr. Royce Johnson’s formal title may have been Acting Chair of Medicine, Dr. Johnson functioned and held himself out as Chair of Medicine for many years. According to recently discovered evidence, some time in or about 2002, Defendant County of Kern undertook a roughly 1 year long process to remove Dr. Johnson and replace him due to his substantial behavioral and management problems. In addition, Dr. Johnson has been described by several deponents as “arrogant” and was the subject of anger management complaints. Given Defendant’s fifth affirmative defense that Plaintiff was “arrogant” and contributed to his own injuries, this evidence is directly probative to Defendant’s defense. DEFENDANTS’ POSITION [INSERT HERE] JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 20

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 25 of 207

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 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 43 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Plaintiff’s presentations made at the Kern Medical Center oncology conference on or about October 12, 2005. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 43 Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also object to this request to the extent it requests information protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA and the peer review privilege, and documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege. JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 21 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR search for, recruitment, of and evaluation of candidates for the position of Chair or Chief of Medicine at Kern Medical Center during the period from October 24, 2000 to present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 41 Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also object to this request to the extent it requests information protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA, the peer-review privilege and the personnel privilege, and documents that contain information protected by the attorney-client privilege. After review of the documents potentially responsive to this request, Defendants have determined that the burden of redacting privileged information outweighs the marginal relevancy of the remaining information in the documents. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION See Plaintiff’s Position re Request for Production Nos. 39 and 40 above. DEFENDANTS’ POSITION [INSERT HERE]

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 26 of 207

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

Without waving these objections, Defendants will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this request, if any, by December21, 2007. Defendants will redact privileged, if any, information as appropriate. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION Failing to object to a Rule 34 request within the time permitted waives such objections thereto— including claims of privilege and work product. Hall v Sullivan (2005, DC Md) 231 FRD 468; see also Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants (9th Cir. 1992) 959 F2d 1468, 1473 (“Failure to object to discovery requests within the time required constitutes a waiver of any objection”); see also Coregis Ins. Co. v. Baratta & Fenerty, Ltd. (ED PA 1999) 187 FRD 528, 529. Defendants are for the first time raising objections of “confidential personnel information”, irrelevance and “not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence”, “documents protected by disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA, the peer-review privilege and the personnel privilege”, and “attorney-client privilege”. Defendants did not timely raise these objections or privileges in Response 1. The Court should deem these objections waived. DEFENDANTS’ POSITION [INSERT HERE]

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 55 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the review of Kern Medical Center’s placental evaluations and billing activity as conducted by outside consultants, including but not limited to ProPay Physician Services, LLC, from October 24, 2000 to the present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 55 Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also object to this request to the extent it requests information protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA, the peer-review privilege and the personnel privilege, and documents that contain information JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 22

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 27 of 207

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

protected by the attorney-client privilege. After review of the documents potentially responsive to this request, Defendants have determined that the burden of redacting privileged information outweighs the marginal relevancy of the remaining information in the documents. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION A showing of relevancy may be enough to cause the court to balance the compelling public need for discovery against the fundamental right of privacy. (Mendez v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 557, 567.) An employer's failure to follow its own policies and procedures indicates discrimination. Village of Arlington Heights v. Met. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 267 (1977); Duschene v. Pinole Point Steel Co. (1999) 76 Cal. App. 4th 33 (“Departures from the normal procedural sequence also might afford evidence that improper purposes are playing a role”). Plaintiff has a compelling need for this evidence to establish whether Defendant County of Kern customarily complied with their policies and procedures regarding their audit of Plaintiff’s placental evaluations and billing activity in or around 2005 and whether Plaintiff was treated in a disparate manner. The evidence is highly probative to Plaintiff’s claims. DEFENDANTS’ POSITION [INSERT HERE]

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 71 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO exceptional event logs for histology and pathology on Kern Medical Center’s Pathology Department from January 1, 2006 to the present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 71 Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also object to this request to the extent it requests information protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA, the peer-review privilege and the personnel privilege, and documents that contain information protected by the attorney-client privilege. After review of the documents potentially responsive to this JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 23

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 28 of 207

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

request, Defendants have determined that the burden of redacting privileged information outweighs the marginal relevancy of the remaining information in the documents. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION A showing of relevancy may be enough to cause the court to balance the compelling public need for discovery against the fundamental right of privacy. (Mendez v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 557, 567.) An employer's failure to follow its own policies and procedures indicates discrimination. Village of Arlington Heights v. Met. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 267 (1977); Duschene v. Pinole Point Steel Co. (1999) 76 Cal. App. 4th 33 (“Departures from the normal procedural sequence also might afford evidence that improper purposes are playing a role”). Plaintiff has a compelling need for this evidence to establish whether Defendant County of Kern customarily complied with their policies and procedures regarding Dr. Jadwin’s numerous alleged violations of hospital policy, including the leaving of sharps out at the workstation when not in use, the taking of a sternal bone biopsy without proctoring, the unauthorized accessioning of tissue samples, etc. and whether Plaintiff was treated in a disparate manner as compared to others in the Pathology department or laboratory who engaged in similar conduct. The evidence is highly probative to Plaintiff’s claims. DEFENDANTS’ POSITION [INSERT HERE]

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 72 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO paper accession logs at Kern Medical Center’s Pathology Department from January 1, 2006 to present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 72 Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also object to this request to the extent it requests information protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 24

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 29 of 207

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

HIPAA, the peer-review privilege and the personnel privilege, and documents that contain information protected by the attorney-client privilege. After review of the documents potentially responsive to this request, Defendants have determined that the burden of redacting privileged information outweighs the marginal relevancy of the remaining information in the documents. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION A showing of relevancy may be enough to cause the court to balance the compelling public need for discovery against the fundamental right of privacy. (Mendez v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 557, 567.) In late 2006, Acting Chair of Pathology Dr. Dutt accused Plaintiff of engaging in unauthorized accessioning of tissue samples. Dr. Dutt reported this issue to the CEO. The accession logs are directly relevant to this accusation against Plaintiff. DEFENDANTS’ POSITION [INSERT HERE]

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 73 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO tissue disposal records for skull-flaps from January 1, 2006 to the present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 73 Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also object to this request to the extent it requests information protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA. the peer-review privilege and the personnel privilege, and documents that contain information protected by the attorney-client privilege. After review of the documents potentially responsive to this request, Defendants have determined that the burden of redacting privileged information outweighs the marginal relevancy of the remaining information in the documents. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION A showing of relevancy may be enough to cause the court to balance the compelling public need JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 25

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 30 of 207

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

for discovery against the fundamental right of privacy. (Mendez v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 557, 567.) In December of 2006, Plaintiff reported to Kern Medical Center CEO David Culberson the storage of skull flaps in a non-regulation freezer as a possible violation of state and federal regulations. These documents are directly probative of Plaintiff’s California Labor Code 1102.5 claim for whistleblower retaliation. DEFENDANTS’ POSITION [INSERT HERE]

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 78 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO placental evaluations conducted by Plaintiff from June 14, 2006 to the present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 78 Plaintiff has attempted to narrow this request but the revised request is broader, more burdensome and less calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence than the original request. Defendants object to this request because it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and is burdensome. Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also object to this request to the extent it requests information protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA, the peer-review privilege and the personnel privilege, and documents that contain information protected by the attorney-client privilege. After review of the documents potentially responsive to this request. Defendants have determined that the burden of redacting privileged information outweighs the marginal relevancy of the remaining information in the documents. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION Based on newly discovered evidence, Plaintiff has reason to believe that Acting Chair of Pathology, Dr. Philip Dutt, has defrauded Plaintiff by claiming credit for placental evaluations JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 26

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 31 of 207

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

conducted by Plaintiff as his own, thereby diverting the associated professional billing fees from Plaintiff to himself. This evidence is highly probative of possible claims for fraud, conversion and breach of fiduciary duty which Plaintiff is investigating bringing against Dr. Dutt. Also, failing to object to a Rule 34 request within the time permitted waives such objections thereto—including claims of privilege and work product. Hall v Sullivan (2005, DC Md) 231 FRD 468; see also Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants (9th Cir. 1992) 959 F2d 1468, 1473 (“Failure to object to discovery requests within the time required constitutes a waiver of any objection”); see also Coregis Ins. Co. v. Baratta & Fenerty, Ltd. (ED PA 1999) 187 FRD 528, 529. Defendants are for the first time raising objections of “confidential personnel information”, “documents protected by disclosure by state or federal law, including . . . the peer-review privilege and the personnel privilege”, and “attorney-client privilege”. Defendants did not timely raise these objections or privileges in Response 1. The Court should deem these objections waived. DEFENDANTS’ POSITION [INSERT HERE] IV. CONCLUSION

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Despite the extensive correspondence between the parties, it does not appear that this dispute can be resolved without assistance from the Court. Plaintiff has done its utmost to avert this imposition on the Court’s time. In contrast, Defendants have made a mockery of the meet and confer process, breached numerous assurances to Plaintiff and have refused to effectively meet and confer in good faith with Plaintiff. By way of example, on January 4, 2008, Defendants stated that they had identified caselaw which they said definitively proves them right on the issue of unreimbursed copy costs for discovery production: “I have found cases that say the requesting party must pay the cost of photocopying documents. I have found no cases that hold otherwise.” Defendants then requested Plaintiff provide case citations supporting Plaintiff’s position. Plaintiff was still researching the issue and had no citations to share at the time. It should be noted that Plaintiff has provided myriad, detailed case citations in JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 27

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 32 of 207

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

good faith to Defendants during meet and confer discussions in the past. When Plaintiff asked Defendants to provide its case citations to Plaintiff, stating “Mark, I would appreciate the case citations. I look forward to receiving them”, Defendants refused, stating: No. I am not researching this for you. I have done my research. It is your motion to compel. I presume you have authority to support your motion. If not, too bad. If so, proceed with your motion.” Regrettably, this exchange fairly characterizes the interactions Plaintiff has had with Defendants throughout this action.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: January __, 2008 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: January___, 2008

LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER

By:__________________________________________ Mark A. Wasser, Attorney for Defendants COUNTY OF KERN, PETER BRYAN, IRWIN HARRIS, EUGENE KERCHER, JENNIFER ABRAHAM, SCOTT RAGLAND,TONI SMITH, AND WILLIAM ROY LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE

By:__________________________________________ Eugene D. Lee Attorney for Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE

28

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 33 of 207

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Eugene D. Lee SB#: 236812 LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Phone: (213) 992-3299 Fax: (213) 596-0487 email: elee@LOEL.com Joan Herrington, SB# 178988 BAY AREA EMPLOYMENT LAW OFFICE 5032 Woodminster Lane Oakland, CA 94602-2614 Telephone: (510) 530-4078 Facsimile: (510) 530-4725 Email: jh@baelo.com Of Counsel to LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE Attorneys for Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 21 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 22 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., 23 Plaintiff, 24 25 26 27 28 Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007 Date Set for Trial: December 3, 2008 USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG EXHIBITS TO JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT 1 v. COUNTY OF KERN, et al., Defendants. EXHIBITS TO JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT Date: January 14, 2008 Time: 9:30 a.m. Place: U.S. District Court, Bankruptcy Courtroom 1300 18th St., Bakersfield, CA Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG Bernard C. Barmann, Sr. KERN COUNTY COUNSEL Mark Nations, Chief Deputy 1115 Truxton Avenue, Fourth Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Phone: (661) 868-3800 Fax: (661) 868-3805 Email: mnations@co.kern.ca.us Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern, Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher, Jennifer Abraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smith, and William Roy. Mark A. Wasser CA SB #06160 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 444-6400 Fax: (916) 444-6405 Email: mwasser@markwasser.com

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 34 of 207

EXHIBITS TO JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT EXHIBIT 1. EXHIBIT 2. EXHIBIT 3. EXHIBIT 4. EXHIBIT 5. EXHIBIT 6. EXHIBIT 7. EXHIBIT 8. EXHIBIT 9. EXHIBIT 10. EXHIBIT 11. EXHIBIT 12. EXHIBIT 13. EXHIBIT 14. EXHIBIT 15. EXHIBIT 16. EXHIBIT 17. EXHIBIT 18. EXHIBIT 19. EXHIBIT 20. EXHIBIT 21. EXHIBIT 22. EXHIBIT 23. Meet and confer letter faxed by Defendants’ to Plaintiff’s attorney, 10/31/07 Meet and confer letter faxed by Plaintiff’s to Defendants’ attorney, 11/1/07 Meet and confer letter faxed by Plaintiff’s to Defendants’ attorney, 11/8/07 Meet and confer emails between Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ attorney, 11/15/07 Meet and confer letter faxed by Plaintiff’s to Defendants’ attorney, 11/15/07 Meet and confer emails between Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ attorney, 11/20/07 RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION SET ONE (“Response 1”), 11/20/07 Meet and confer letter faxed by Plaintiff’s to Defendants’ attorney, 11/22/07 Meet and confer letter faxed by Plaintiff’s to Defendants’ attorney, 11/27/07 Meet and confer letter faxed by Plaintiff’s to Defendants’ attorney, 11/30/07 Meet and confer letter faxed by Plaintiff’s to Defendants’ attorney, 12/10/07 DEFENDANTS’ PARTIAL PRIVILEGE LOG, 12/13/07 Meet and confer emails between Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ attorney, 12/14/07 Meet and confer emails between Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ attorney, 12/17/07 SUPPLEMENTED RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION SET ONE (“Response 2”), 12/19/07 Meet and confer letter faxed by Defendants’ to Plaintiff’s attorney, 12/19/07 Meet and confer emails between Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ attorney, 12/20/07 Meet and confer letter faxed by Plaintiff’s to Defendants’ attorney, 12/20/07 Meet and confer letter faxed by Defendants’ to Plaintiff’s attorney, 12/20/07 Meet and confer letter faxed by Defendants’ to Plaintiff’s attorney, 12/21/07 Meet and confer emails between Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ attorney, 12/31/07 Meet and confer emails between Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ attorney, 1/2/08 Meet and confer emails between Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ attorney, 1/4/08

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 35 of 207

EXHIBIT 1. Meet and confer letter faxed by Defendants’ to Plaintiff’s attorney, 10/31/07

MTC000001

Oct 31 07 11:21a

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

p.1

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100 Sacramento, California 95814 Office: 916-444-6400 Fax: 916-444-6405

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 36 of 207

The Law Offices of Mark A. Wasser

Fax
To:
Fax:

Eugene Lee
(213) 596-0487

From: Mark Wasser Pages: 2 (including cover page) Date:
October 31, 2007

Phone: (213) 992-3299

Re:

Jadwin v. County of Kern

cc:
0 Please Reply D Please Recycle

o Urgent

o For Review

0 Please Comment

• Comments: Please see attached letter.

MTC000002

Oct 31 07 11:21a

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

p.2

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

MARK A. WASSER
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100
Sacramento, California 95814
mwasser@markwasser.com

Law Offices of Document 83 Filed 01/09/2008

Page 37 of 207

Office: 916-444-6400 Fax: 916-444-6405

October 31, 2007

VIA FACSIMILE & FIRST CLASS MAIL

Eugene Lee Law Offices of Eugene Lee 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100 Los Angeles, California 90013 -1010

Re: Jadwin v. County ofKern, et at.
Dear Mr. Lee:
I have reviewed your Request For Production of Documents and discussed it with County staff. Our best estimate is that it will take until December 21, 2007 to locate, assemble and serve the documents you have requested. Some of the documents may require extensive redaction to remove patient identifiers.

We request an extension of time until December 21,2007 to respond to your Request. Let me know your position. Thank you.

Very Truly Yours,

Mark A. Wasser

cc:

Karen Barnes (via first class mail) Joan Herrington (via first class mail)

Admitted to Practice in California and Nevada

MTC000003

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 38 of 207

EXHIBIT 2. Meet and confer letter faxed by Plaintiff’s to Defendants’ attorney, 11/1/07

MTC000004

To: 213-596-0487

From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee

Pg 1/3 11/01/07 6:26 pm

(213) 992-3299
TELEPHONE

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

LAW
555

OFFICE

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

OF

Page 39 of 207 ELEE@LOEL.COM
EMAIL

E U G ENE
(213) 596-0487
FACSIMILE

L E E
WWW.LOEL.COM WEBSITE

Los

WEST FIFTH STREET SUITE 3100 ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9001 3-1 01 0

FAX
To: Fax Number: 2135960487 Pages: 3 (including cover page) Re: Jadwin/KC: From: Law Office of Eugene Lee Date: 11/01/2007 Comments:

Mark, Transmitted herewith is a letter in followup to our meet and confer call of this morning. Sincerely.

MTC000005

To: 213-596-0487

From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee
Document 83

Pg 2/3 11/01/07 6:26 pm

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
(213) 992-3299

Filed 01/09/2008
OF
3100

Page 40 of 207
ELEE@LOEL.GOM E-MAIL

TELEPHONE

LAW
555

OFFICE
STREET, SUITE

EUGENE
(Z 1 3) 596-0487 WEST FIFTH

LEE
WWW.LOEL.COM
WEBSITE

FACSIMILE

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90013-1010

EUGENE D. LEE, ESQ
PRINCIPAL

JOAN E. HERRINGTON, ESQ
OF COUNSEL

November 1, 2007 VIA FACSIMILE Mark Wasser Law Offices of Mark Wasser 400 Capitol Mall Ste 1100 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: 100011.001

Plaintiff's Requests for Production, Set One Jadwin / County of Kern, et al. (USDC EDCA NO.1 :07-cv-00026-0WW/TAG)

Dear Mark:
It was a pleasure speaking and meeting and conferring with you today on plaintiff's requests for

production, set one. In order to facilitate things, we thought we would try to narrow and clarify some of our document requests.

DocReq No.
12 13 16 52 59

Proposed clarification

Exclude "training materials" from the request Exclude "training materials" from the request Delete subparts b) through tt) Exclude from the request DOCUMENTS which are on file in Superior Court of California in and for County of Kern The request is for DOCUMENTS RELATING TO medical staff sign-in sheets for Kern Medical Center's Cancer Clinic held pursuant to ACS-CoC standards from January 1, 2003 to the present.

Also, as we discussed, please let us know your thoughts on providing us with patient identification numbers, including those which were redacted from defendants' initial disclosures, as well as entering into a stipulation with us whereby plaintiff would electronically redact any patient identifying information (other than patient identification numbers) from all documents produced by defendants (along with concomitant covenants to strictly preserve the confidentiality and guard against disclosure of such information). As we stated, plaintiff has no interest in jeopardizing anyone's medical information privacy.

MTC000006

To: 213-596-0487

From: Law Office of Eugene Lee OFFice
Document 83

Pg 3/ 3 11/01/07 6:26 pm 3/3

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 41 of 207

We look forward to our next meet and confer conference call with you at 10:00 a.ill. on Wednesday, November 7, 2007. Plaintiff is hoping that Defendant can respond by November 12, 2007, 12,2007, then produce the actual documents according to an adjusted schedule that can be 7,2007. finalized by Wednesday, November 7, 2007. We look forward to your response. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions.

cc:

Joan Herrington, Esq.

2
MTC000007

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 42 of 207

EXHIBIT 3. Meet and confer letter faxed by Plaintiff’s to Defendants’ attorney, 11/8/07

MTC000008

To: 213-596-0487

From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee

Pg 1/4 11/08/07 2:25 pm

(213) 992-3299
TELEPHONE

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

LAW
555

OFFICE

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

OF

Page 43 of 207 ELEE@LOEL.COM
EMAIL

E U G ENE
(213) 596-0487
FACSIMILE

L E E
WWW.LOEL.COM WEBSITE

Los

WEST FIFTH STREET SUITE 3100 ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9001 3-1 01 0

FAX
To: Fax Number: 2135960487 Pages: 4 (including cover page) Re: Jadwin/KC: RPD1 County of Kern From: Law Office of Eugene Lee Date: 11/08/2007 Comments:

Mark, It was a pleasure speaking with you yesterday. Transmitted herewith is a followup letter. Sincerely.

MTC000009

To: 213-596-0487

From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee
Document 83

Pg 2/4 11/08/07 2:25 pm

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
(213) 992-3299

Filed 01/09/2008 OF
3100

Page 44 of 207
ELEE@LOEL.GOM E-MAIL

TELEPHONE

LAW

OFFICE
STREET, SUITE

EUGENE
(Z 1 3) 596-0487 FACSIMILE 555 WEST FIFTH

LEE
WWW.LOEL.COM
WEBSITE

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90013-1010

EUGENE D. LEE, ESQ
PRINCIPAL

JOAN E. HERRINGTON, ESQ
OF COUNSEL

November 8, 2007 VIA FACSIMILE Mark Wasser Law Offices of Mark Wasser 400 Capitol Mall Ste 1100 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: 100011.001

Plaintiff's Requests for Production, Set One Jadwin / County of Kern, et al. (USDC EDCA No.1 :07-cv-00026-0WW/TAG)

Dear Mark:
It was a pleasure speaking and meeting and conferring with you yesterday on Plaintiff's Requests

For Production, Set One to County of Kern and to Peter Bryan. We confirmed that you did not foresee any difficulties with the Peter Bryan requests. The Kern County requests involved more discussion as follows. I. TENTATIVE AGREEMENTS / CLARIFICATIONS RE DOCUMENT REQUESTS We discussed each of plaintiff's requests for production and, with a few exceptions, you had indicated varying expected production/response dates of November 16, December 7 and December 21. Plaintiff is reviewing the proposed dates. Let's discuss these at our next conference call. In addition, the parties made the following tentative agreements and clarifications with respect to certain Requests: DocReq No. 40 Tentative agreement/clarification Defendants to ask Dr. Royce Johnson for consent to disclose the requested information to plaintiff and let plaintiff know by November 14. In the event he refuses consent, defendants expect to give plaintiff a response by November 16. Defendants to redact names of applicants and references. Defendants need not include in defendants' privilege log any protected attorney work product or attorney-client privileged communications which were authored by subject attorneys. Plaintiff seeks statistics for both patient "fatalities" and patient "deaths", as each considered alone is not meaningful and must be compared to the other. Redaction may address defendants' privilege concerns.

41 52

54 56

MTC000010

To: 213-596-0487

From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee
Document 83

Pg 3/4 11/08/07 2:25 pm

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 45 of 207

57 59 62 69

Redaction may address defendants' privilege concerns. Plaintiff seeks medical staff attendance/sign-in sheet for the weekly Oncology Clinic that meets every Wednesday and partially fulfills AC8-CoC standards. Defendants are looking into retrieving Groupwise archives. 806-73276 relates to Case Nos. 806-495, 806-3511 and 806-4619 (see defendants' initial disclosures, bates no. 778) - please produce the pathology reports associated with those case numbers, with medical record nos. unredacted.

II. REQUEST 78 Regarding Request 78, defendants said they would need 120 days to produce. In order to shorten this time, plaintiff proposes defendants instead produce the following. We can discuss this at our next conference if you wish. 1. A printout from HEO of all surgical pathology cases that lists the case number, the specimen, the date of receipt, the date of completion and the name ofthe pathologist that released the case for June 14, 2006 to the present. This will be a list of a few hundred pages that can be prepared in two or so days. A printout of all dictation by case number from the medical transcription department for all pathology dictation for June 14, 2006 to the present. This will be a list of similar length that can be prepared in two or so days. A printout of all pathology reports involving placentas signed out by any pathologist. There are perhaps 2,500 reports per year; two pages per report. These are identified by the list in item (l) above. Each report will need to be hand printed by entering the case number from the list; time to print each report not to exceed 60 seconds. Each page will need to have the patient name redacted (three instances per page). A printout from HEO of all autopsy pathology reports listing the case number, the date of procedure, the date of completion and the name ofthe pathologist who released the case for June 14, 2006 to the present. This should take one or so days. A copy of each pathology report listed in item (4) above. There should be less than 50 reports and this should take one or so days.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Hopefully the above would lead to a significantly reduced production time. II. MEDICAL RECORD NOS. / REDACTION IN GENERAL Please let us know your thoughts on providing us with patient medical record nos. (as opposed to patient account numbers), including those which were redacted from defendants' initial disclosures, as well as entering into a stipulation with us whereby plaintiff would electronically redact any patient identifying information (other than patient identification numbers) from all documents produced by defendants (along with concomitant covenants to strictly preserve the

2
MTC000011

To: 213-596-0487

From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee
Document 83

Pg 4/4 11/08/07 2:25 pm

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 46 of 207

confidentiality and guard against disclosure of such information). As we stated, plaintiff has no interest in jeopardizing anyone's medical information privacy. If you have alternative suggestions, plaintiff would be interested in discussing them with you. II. AMENDING THE SCHEDULING ORDER You had mentioned the idea of re-visiting the Scheduling Order and pushing back the discovery cut-off date. Let's discuss this further at our next call after you have a more definite idea ofthe production times necessary for plaintiff's discovery requests. We realize the logistical difficulties you must be facing as you coordinate document production with Kern Medical Center and are willing to work with you on this. II. DEPOSITIONS Plaintiff had suggested deposing certain witnesses in early December. Following is the tentative deposition schedule proposed by plaintiff. Please let us know whether the schedule will work for you and the deponents. You had also mentioned that defendants would not object to deposition notices as short as 3 to 5 days, so long as a mutually convenient time could be worked out for all concerned. Plaintiff appreciates defendants' flexibility and cooperation. 4-Dec 0800 1400 1600 S-Dec 0900 1300 6-Dec 0800 1400 1300 1600 1800 1200 1700 1300 1800 Steve O'Conner Charles Wrobel Phil Brown (l0) Jane Thornton Ed Taylor Javad Naderi Ravi Patel

We look forward to our next meet and confer conference call with you at 10:00 a.ill. on Wednesday, November 14, 2007. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions or if you need to re-schedule.

cc:

EiVpENE D. LEE Joan Herrington, Esq. V David F. Jadwin, D.O., F.C.A.P.

'mttb
3

7rp{~urs,

MTC000012

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 47 of 207

EXHIBIT 4. Meet and confer emails between Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ attorney, 11/15/07

MTC000013

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Eugene D. Lee
From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Thank you.

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 48 of 207

Mark Wasser [mwasser@markwasser.com] Thursday, November 15, 2007 12:30 PM elee@LOEL.com Assistant to Mark A. Wasser RE: Jadwin/KC: Discovery Docs

From: Eugene D. Lee [mailto:elee@LOEL.com] Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 11:35 AM To: mwasser@markwasser.com Cc: 'Joan Herrington' Subject: RE: Jadwin/KC: Discovery Docs

Mark, Get Acrobat 8.0 Professional. If you ever plan on going paperless (digitizing paper), it’s the only way to go. If you want to save some money, consider buying Acrobat 6.0 or 7.0 (you can get it cheap on eBay), then buy the 8.0 Professional upgrade (not full version). That’s what I did. My friends have bought software here: www.buycheapsoftware.com. They said it has good prices and were all happy with their purchases. I myself have never bought anything there though. Acrobat is not only a good digital paper handling program, it’s a very powerful OCR (text-recognition) program. You won’t need to buy a separate OCR program. It also has a useful and powerful Bates stamping function – Go to “Advanced” in the menu bar - Document processing in the sub-menu Bates numbering. This is a huge timesaver – you don’t need a separate Bates stamping program. And obviously, you’ll never need to manually bates stamp again. If you screw it up, it’s very simple to re-run the bates stamping program until you get it right. You can also delete the bates stamp if you change your mind. Let me know if you need help with any of this. Sincerely, Gene Lee
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE EMPLOYMENT LAW
555 WEST FIFTH ST., STE. 3100 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 Tel: (213)992-3299 Fax: (213)596-0487 E - m a i l : elee@LOEL.com W e b s i t e : www.LOEL.com  

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.

1

MTC000014

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 49 of 207

From: Mark Wasser [mailto:mwasser@markwasser.com] Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 11:25 AM To: elee@LOEL.com Subject: RE: Jadwin/KC: Discovery Docs Gene, Fine. We can do that. There are several versions of Acrobat 8, ranging in price from $300 to over $1,000. Any thoughts as to which one I want? Mark

From: Eugene D. Lee [mailto:elee@LOEL.com] Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 11:05 AM To: mwasser@markwasser.com Cc: 'Joan Herrington' Subject: Jadwin/KC: Discovery Docs

Mark, On second thought, if it isn’t too much trouble, could you create multiple discrete PDF files, rather than one mega massive PDF file? I suspect the one file will get far too large in size, it might crash my computer. It would also help us know where one document ends and the next begins. Give me a call if you or your assistant run into trouble OCR’ing or redacting. Thanks. Sincerely, Gene Lee
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE EMPLOYMENT LAW
555 WEST FIFTH ST., STE. 3100 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 Tel: (213)992-3299 Fax: (213)596-0487 E - m a i l : elee@LOEL.com W e b s i t e : www.LOEL.com  

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.

2

MTC000015

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 50 of 207

EXHIBIT 5. Meet and confer letter faxed by Plaintiff’s to Defendants’ attorney, 11/15/07

MTC000016

To: 213-596-0487

From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee

Pg 1/3 11/15/07 3:47 pm

(213) 992-3299
TELEPHONE

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

LAW
555

OFFICE

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

OF

Page 51 of 207 ELEE@LOEL.COM
EMAIL

E U G ENE
(213) 596-0487
FACSIMILE

L E E
WWW.LOEL.COM WEBSITE

Los

WEST FIFTH STREET SUITE 3100 ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9001 3-1 01 0

FAX
To: Fax Number: 2135960487 Pages: 3 (including cover page) Re: Jadwin/KC: Meet and Confer RPD1 From: Law Office of Eugene Lee Date: 11/15/2007 Comments:

Mark, Transmitted herewith is a letter in followup to our conference call yesterday. Sincerely.

MTC000017

To: 213-596-0487

From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee
Document 83

Pg 2/3 11/15/07 3:47 pm

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
(213) 992-3299

Filed 01/09/2008
OF
3100

Page 52 of 207
ELEE@LOEL.GOM E-MAIL

TELEPHONE

LAW

OFFICE
STREET, SUITE

EUGENE
(Z 1 3) 596-0487 FACSIMILE 555 WEST FIFTH

LEE
WWW.LOEL.COM
WEBSITE

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90013-1010

EUGENE D. LEE, ESQ
PRINCIPAL

JOAN E. HERRINGTON, ESQ
OF COUNSEL

November 15, 2007 VIA FACSIMILE Mark Wasser Law Offices of Mark Wasser 400 Capitol Mall Ste 1100 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: 100011.001

Plaintiff's Requests for Production, Set One Jadwin / County of Kern, et al. (USDC EDCA NO.1 :07-cv-00026-0WW/TAG)

Dear Mark:
It was a pleasure speaking and meeting and conferring with you yesterday on Plaintiff's Requests

For Production, Set One to County of Kern. This letter confirms the content of our discussions. We reviewed my letter to you of November 8,2007, and you confirmed that we were in agreement with most ofthe issues stated therein. Only a few items required further discussion, as follows: I. TENTATIVE AGREEMENTS / CLARIFICATIONS RE DOCUMENT REQUESTS We discussed plaintiff's requests for production and agreed that defendants would provide a written response by November 20, with the exception ofthe following requests: 18, 19,21,27, 28,42-45,54-57,59, and 61-63, which require further clarification by Defendants. You had indicated varying expected production dates of November 16, December 7 and December 21. On certain requests, we agreed that the production date would be changed from December 21 to December 7: 20,46 and 47. In addition, the parties made the tentative agreements and clarifications with respect to the following requests: DocReq No. 26 40 54 Tentative agreement/clarification Defendants may have destroyed some ofthese files. Defendants will note this in response by November 20. Defendants to respond by November 20 with objection and refusal to produce. Plaintiff intends to file a motion to compel. Plaintiff seeks statistics for both patient "fatalities" and patient "deaths", as each considered alone is not meaningful and must be compared to the other. Defendants

MTC000018

To: 213-596-0487

From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee
Document 83

Pg 3/3 11/15/07 3:47 pm

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 53 of 207

56 57 62 78

are considering objecting to disclosure of "fatalities" statistics due to peer review privilege. Plaintiff stated that this does not fall under peer review privilege. Defendants to produce in redacted form. Defendants to produce in redacted form. Groupwise archives were destroyed as part of a routine sweep. Defendants will note this in response by November 20. Defendants are reviewing Plaintiff's suggested production procedure. Defendants believe the initial 120 day estimate may have been too conservative.

II. MEDICAL RECORD NOS. / REDACTION IN GENERAL Defendants are still considering the issue of disclosing medical record numbers to Plaintiff. Plaintiff explained that the number cannot be linked to a patient name without access to KMC's computer, and that Plaintiff requires this number in order to determine which case numbers are associated with each other.

We look forward to our next meet and confer conference call with you at 10:00 a.ill. on Monday, November 26,2007. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions or if you need to reschedule.

cc:

Joan Herrington, Esq. David F. Jadwin, D.O., F.C.A.P.

~

7Jt~nurs,

1()tt~)
ENED. LEE

2
MTC000019

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 54 of 207

EXHIBIT 6. Meet and confer emails between Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ attorney, 11/20/07

MTC000020

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Eugene D. Lee
From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status:

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 55 of 207

Eugene D. Lee [elee@LOEL.com] Tuesday, November 20, 2007 10:49 PM 'mwasser@markwasser.com' 'Joan Herrington' RE: Response to Plaintiffs RFP 11.9.07 Follow up Completed

Mark, Thank you for your email and responses to plaintiff’s requests for production. Based upon a cursory review, we’ve noticed that many of Defendants’ responses contain this objection: “documents protected from disclosure by state or federal law”. This objection does not comply with FRCP Rule 34 because it (a) is too broadly stated and (b) fails to explain how the objection relates to the documents demanded. A great deal of caselaw supports these requirements. See Obiajulu v City of Rochester, Dep't of Law (1996, WD NY) 166 FRD 293 (Objection to document request must clearly set forth specifics of objection and how that objection relates to documents being demanded); Pulsecard, Inc. v Discover Card Servs. (1996, DC Kan) 168 FRD 295 (Although FRCP 34, which governs production of documents and things, does not provide any language with respect to specificity and waiver of objections, which FRCP 33, which governs interrogatories, does, no reason exists to distinguish between interrogatories and requests for production as to these matters); Rivera v Kmart Corp. (2000, DC Puerto Rico) 190 FRD 298, 45 FR Serv 3d 1349 (asserting general objection to request for production of documents does not comply with FRCP 34(b)); Hall v Sullivan (2005, DC Md) 231 FRD 468 (Implicit within Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 is requirement that objections to document production requests must be stated with particularity in timely answer, and that failure to do so may constitute waiver of grounds not properly raised, including privilege or work product immunity, unless court excuses this failure for good cause shown). Please correct this deficiency at your earliest convenience. We’re happy to discuss this further with you tomorrow if you wish. I’m available at my cellphone at 213-453-1781. Thank you. Sincerely, Gene Lee
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LAW

OFFICE

OF

EUGENE
LAW

LEE

555 WEST FIFTH ST., STE. 3100 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 Tel: (213)992-3299 Fax: (213)596-0487 E - m a i l : elee@LOEL.com W e b s i t e : www.LOEL.com B l o g : www.CaLaborLaw.com  

EMPLOYMENT

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.

1

MTC000021

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008
n ..."

Page 56 of 207

CALIFORNIA LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW

US Workers: Overworl:ed, Underpaid 8< Left
""¥ember II, 'II'

'Y "'",," ..

From: Mark Wasser [mailto:mwasser@markwasser.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 5:09 PM To: Eugene Lee; Joan Herrington Subject: Response to Plaintiffs RFP 11.9.07 Gene and Joan, Here is our written response to your first request for production of documents. I am sending you a service copy by FedEx. I am enclosing with the service copy a DVD that has about four boxes of documents on it. We have several thousand more pages to produce as soon as the County can get the documents to me. I will let you know when that will happen as soon as I know. Mark

2

MTC000022

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 57 of 207

EXHIBIT 7. RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION SET ONE (“Response 1”), 11/20/07

MTC000023

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Eugene D. Lee
From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Gene and Joan,

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 58 of 207

Mark Wasser [mwasser@markwasser.com] Tuesday, November 20, 2007 5:09 PM Eugene Lee; Joan Herrington Response to Plaintiffs RFP 11.9.07 Response to Plaintiffs RFP 11.9.07.doc Follow up Completed

Here is our written response to your first request for production of documents. I am sending you a service copy by FedEx. I am enclosing with the service copy a DVD that has about four boxes of documents on it. We have several thousand more pages to produce as soon as the County can get the documents to me. I will let you know when that will happen as soon as I know. Mark

1

MTC000024

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 59 of 207

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

Mark A. Wasser CA SB #60160 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 444-6400 Fax: (916) 444-6405 E-mail: mwasser@markwasser.com Bernard C. Barmann, Sr. KERN COUNTY COUNSEL Mark Nations, Chief Deputy 1115 Truxton Avenue, Fourth Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Phone: (661) 868-3800 Fax: (661) 868-3805 E-mail: mnations@co.kern.ca.us Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern, Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher, Jennifer Abraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smith and William Roy UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O. Plaintiff, vs. COUNTY OF KERN, et al., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No.: 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007 Trial Date: August 26, 2008

PROPOUNDING PARTY: RESPONDING PARTY: SET NUMBER:

Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., F.C.A.P. Defendant COUNTY OF KERN ONE (1)

1 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

MTC000025

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 60 of 207

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

Defendants hereby submit these responses to Plaintiff David F. Jadwin’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One. Defendants have not located all the documents that are responsive to this request and, for that reason, many of the production dates set forth herein are estimates. Defendants will supplement or amend this response, if necessary, as additional documents are located and reviewed. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the First Affirmative Defense listed in Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff’s Second Supplemental Complaint. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 1 Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that are protected by the attorney-work-product and attorney-client privileges. Without waiving those objections, after diligent search, Defendants’ have not been able to locate any documents that are responsive to this request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Second Affirmative Defense listed in Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff’s Second Supplemental Complaint. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 2 Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that are protected by the attorney-work-product and attorney-client privileges. Without waiving those objections, after diligent search, Defendants’ have not been able to locate any documents that are responsive to this request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Third Affirmative Defense listed in Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff’s Second Supplemental Complaint. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 3 Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that are protected by the attorney-work-product and attorney-client privileges.

2 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

MTC000026

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 61 of 207

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

Without waiving those objections, after diligent search, Defendants’ have not been able to locate any documents that are responsive to this request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Fourth Affirmative Defense listed in Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff’s Second Supplemental Complaint. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 4 Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that are protected by the attorney-work-product and attorney-client privileges. Without waiving those objections, after diligent search, Defendants’ have not been able to locate any documents that are responsive to this request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Fifth Affirmative Defense listed in Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff’s Second Supplemental Complaint. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 5 Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that are protected by the attorney-work-product and attorney-client privileges. Without waiving those objections, Defendants will produce all non-privileged documents responsive to this request on or before December 21, 2007. This request is duplicative of other requests contained in Plaintiff’s request for production, set one, and the documents produced in response to this request may refer to the documents produced in response to other requests. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Sixth Affirmative Defense listed in Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff’s Second Supplemental Complaint. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 6 Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that are protected by the attorney-work-product and attorney-client privileges. Without waiving those objections, after diligent search, Defendants’ have not been able to locate any documents that are responsive to this request. 3 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

MTC000027

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 62 of 207

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

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Seventh Affirmative Defense listed in Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff’s Second Supplemental Complaint. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 7 Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that are protected by the attorney-work-product and attorney-client privileges. Without waiving those objections, after diligent search, Defendants’ have not been able to locate any documents that are responsive to this request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Eighth Affirmative Defense listed in Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff’s Second Supplemental Complaint. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 8 Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that are protected by the attorney-work-product and attorney-client privileges. Without waiving those objections, Defendants will produce all non-privileged documents responsive to this request on or before December 21, 2007. This request is duplicative of other requests contained in Plaintiff’s request for production, set one, and the documents produced in response to this request may refer to the documents produced in response to other requests. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Ninth Affirmative Defense listed in Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff’s Second Supplemental Complaint. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 9 Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that are protected by the attorney-work-product and attorney-client privileges. Without waiving those objections, after diligent search, Defendants’ have not been able to locate any documents that are responsive to this request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10

4 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

MTC000028

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 63 of 207

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

Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR organizational structure during Plaintiff’s employment with YOU, including but not limited to organizational charts, diagrams and drawings. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 10 Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request. Production may occur in stages. The first stage of production will be on November 20, 2007 and may include all responsive documents. If other responsive documents are discovered, they will be produced by December 7, 2007. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Kern Medical Center personnel directories or lists, including but not limited to names, direct work phone numbers, departments, etc. which were maintained by YOU during Plaintiff’s employment with YOU. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 11 Defendants will produce all non-privileged documents responsive to this request. Production may occur in stages. The first stage of production will be on November 20, 2007 and may include all responsive documents. If other responsive documents are discovered, they will be produced by December 7, 2007. Defendants will redact personal or confidential information as appropriate. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR personnel policies, guidelines, fact sheets, posters, employee and/or employer handbooks, training materials, and employee and/or employer manuals maintained by YOU that YOU contend governed Plaintiff’s terms and conditions of employment at any time during the period from October 1, 2000 to October 4, 2007. These include but are not limited to YOUR ordinances, Kern Medical Center’s Administrative Procedures Manual, Kern Medical Center’s Policy & Administrative Procedures Manual, policies RELATING TO disability discrimination, reasonable accommodation, interactive process, personal leave, administrative leave, medical leave, retaliation, investigations into complaints of unlawful employment practices, discipline of employees, investigation of 5 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

MTC000029

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 64 of 207

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

employees, appointment of Kern Medical Center acting department chairs, hiring of Kern Medical Center department chairs, demotion of Kern Medical Center department chairs, and policies RELATING TO Kern Medical Center’s Pathology Department. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 12 Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain confidential personnel information, documents protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including the peer-review privilege, or documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential peer review and personnel information as appropriate. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR personnel policies, guidelines, fact sheets, posters, employee and/or employer handbooks, training materials, and employee and/or employer manuals maintained by YOU that YOU contend was distributed or made available to YOUR employees, whether management or non-management, from October 24, 200 to the present and the date of such asserted distribution. These include but are not limited to YOUR ordinances, Kern Medical Center’s Administrative Procedures Manual, Kern Medical Center’s Policy & Administrative Procedures Manual, policies RELATING TO disability discrimination, reasonable accommodation, interactive process, personal leave, administrative leave, medical leave, retaliation, investigations into complaints of unlawful employment practices, discipline of employees, investigation of employees, appointment of Kern Medical Center acting department chairs, hiring of Kern Medical Center department chairs, demotion of Kern Medical Center department chairs, and policies RELATING TO Kern Medical Center’s Pathology Department. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 13 Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain confidential personnel information, documents protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including the peer-review privilege, or documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce documents responsive to this request 6 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

MTC000030

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 65 of 207

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

by December 21, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential peer review and personnel information as appropriate. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO peer review, quality management and quality assurance policies and procedures at Kern Medical Center, included but not limited to Kern Medical Center’s Quality Management and Performance Improvement Plan, from October 24, 2000 to the present, and the effective dates. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 14 Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain confidential personnel information, documents protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including the peer-review privilege, or documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce documents responsive to this request by December 7, 2007.1. Defendants will redact confidential peer review and personnel information as appropriate. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any training provided by YOU to YOUR officers, directors, agents or employees on the following subjects: a) disability discrimination b) accommodation of an employee’s disability c) the interactive process regarding accommodation of an employee’s disability d) medical leave rights e) whistleblower retaliation f) medical leave retaliation g) due process required for demotion h) due process required for pay cut i) due process required for termination of employment j) defamation k) Fair Labor Standards Act 7 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

MTC000031

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 66 of 207

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

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 15 Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain confidential personnel information, documents protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including the peer-review privilege, or documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING To the PERSONNEL FILES of the following people. a) Plaintiff David F. Jadwin b) Elsa Ang c) Ellen Bunyi-Teopengco d) Philip Dutt e) Carol Gates f) Adam Lang g) Fangluo Liu h) Savita Shertukde i) Navin Amin j) Kathy Griffith k) Alice Hevle l) Denise Long m) Gilbert Martinez n) Albert McBride o) Javad Naderi p) Jane Thornton q) Nitin Athavale r) Chester Lau s) Jennifer J. Abraham 8 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

MTC000032

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 67 of 207

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

t) Bernard C. Barmann u) Karen S. Barnes v) Peter K. Bryan w) David Culberson x) Irwin E. Harris y) Royce Johnson z) Eugene K. Kercher aa) Alan Scott Ragland bb) William Roy cc) Maureen Martin dd) Steven O‘Connor ee) Antoinette Smith ff) Edward Taylor gg) Marvin Kolb hh) Dianne McConnehey ii) Renita Nunn jj) Ravi Patel kk) Jose Perez ll) Evangeline Gallegos mm) Sergio Perticucci

nn) Bonnie Quinonez oo) James Sproul pp) Rebecca Rivera qq) Sheldon Freedman rr) Joseph Mansour ss) George Alkouri tt) Nicole Sharkey RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 16 9 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

MTC000033

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 68 of 207

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

Defendants have already produced the personnel file of David F. Jadwin. Defendants will confirm that the personnel file previously produced was complete as of the time of its production and, on or before December 7, 2007, will augment the documents previously produced with any additional materials, if any, that have been added into Mr. Jadwin’s personnel file since the file was produced. Plaintiff has narrowed the scope of this request by eliminating all other documents initially requested. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the search, recruitment, application, interviewing, and hiring process that resulted in Plaintiff’s employment by YOU. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 17 Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain confidential personnel information, documents protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including the peer-review privilege, or documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the terms, conditions and privileges of Plaintiff’s employment with YOU. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 18 Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Plaintiff’s job duties and responsibilities for each position held by Plaintiff during this employment with YOU. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 19 Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Plaintiff’s payroll, compensation, base salary and “professional fee payments”, as that term is defined in Plaintiff’s employment 10 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

MTC000034

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 69 of 207

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

contracts with YOU, including but not limited to any and all changes in compensation and the reasons for changes, throughout Plaintiff’s employment with YOU. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 20 Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 7, 2007. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR policies, guidelines and practices regarding base salary steps, salary guidelines, deferred compensation plans, pension plans, health insurance and employment benefits applicable to Plaintiff’s position s held throughout his employment with YOU. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 21 Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Plaintiff’s work schedule and/or removal there from, including but not limited to timesheets, from October 24, 200 to present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 22 Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Dr. Phillip Dutt’s timesheets, from April 20 2005 to the present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 23 Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain confidential personnel information, documents protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including the peer-review privilege, or documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce all non-privileged documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential information, in any, as appropriate. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24

11 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

MTC000035

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 70 of 207

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

Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Dr. Savita Shertukde’s timesheets, from January 4, 2005 to present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 24 Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain confidential personnel information, documents protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including the peer-review privilege, or documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce all non-privileged documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential information, in any, as appropriate. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO performance reviews, comments, complaints, warnings, reprimands, counseling, advisory notices or evaluations of Plaintiff’s performance of his job duties throughout his employment with YOU, whether formal or informal. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 25 Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain confidential personnel information, documents protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including the peer-review privilege, or documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce all non-privileged documents responsive to this request by December 7, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential information, in any, as appropriate. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26 Any and all DOCUMENTS maintained by Plaintiff at Kern Medical Center during his employment by YOU, including any and all e-mails, Groupwise calendars, memoranda, written materials, and computer files stored on Plaintiff’s computer at Kern Medical Center’s servers. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 26 After diligent search, Defendants believe Groupwise calendar information was deleted many months ago as part of the routine 90-day cycling of the Groupwise software. Defendants 12 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

MTC000036

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 71 of 207

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

are continuing to search for other materials that were on the computer that was assigned to Plaintiff. Some material was archived before the computer was reassigned. Defendants have identified about 3,000 pages of documents that appear to be responsive to this request but have not yet concluded their search. Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 7, 2007. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any meetings RELATING TO Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s employment at Kern Medical Center. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 27 Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain confidential personnel information, documents protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including the peer-review privilege, or documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce documents responsive to this request by December 7, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential peer review and personnel information, if any, as appropriate. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO performance reviews, comments, complaints, warnings, reprimands, counseling, advisory notices or evaluations of the Kern Medical Center Pathology Department, whether formal or informal, from October 24, 1995 to the present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 28 Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain confidential personnel information, documents protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including the peer-review privilege, or documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce documents responsive to this request by December 7, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential peer review and personnel information as appropriate. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29 13 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

MTC000037

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 72 of 207

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

Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Plaintiff’s complaints of: a) disability discrimination b) failure to accommodate c) failure to engage in an interactive process d) violation of medical leave rights e) whistleblower retaliation f) medical leave retaliation g) deprivation of property without due process h) defamation i) Fair Labor Standards Act violations RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 29 Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain confidential personnel information, documents protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including the peer-review privilege, or documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential peer review and personnel information as appropriate. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any investigation of Plaintiff’s complaints of disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in an interactive process, violation of medical leave rights, whistleblower retaliation, medical leave retaliation, defamation, and/or deprivation of property without due process. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 30 Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain confidential personnel information, documents protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including the peer-review privilege, or documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce documents responsive to this request

14 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

MTC000038

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 73 of 207

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

by December 21, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential peer review and personnel information as appropriate. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any procedures available to YOUR employees to complain of corruption, fraud and other wrongful, illegal or unethical conduct, that YOU contend was distributed or made available to YOUR employees, whether management or non-management, from October 24, 2000 to the present, and the date of such asserted distribution(s). RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 31 Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR discipline of any employee against whom a complaint or grievance of discrimination, harassment, defamation, retaliation, failure to accommodate, and/or failure to engage in an interactive process in their employment was made from October 24, 2000 to date. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 32 Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it requests documents that contain confidential personnel information, documents protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA and the peer-review privilege, and documents that contain information that is subject to the attorney-client privilege. Defendants do not believe these objections can be resolved by redaction. Defendants also object on the grounds that the request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO complaints or grievances made by YOUR past or present employees against YOU for defamation, retaliation, disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and/or failure to engage in an interactive process, including but not limited to any informal or internal complaints, grievances or charges to any state or federal agency, and complaints filed in any state or federal court from October 24, 2000 to date. 15 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

MTC000039

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 74 of 207

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

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 33 Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in this case. Consequently, this request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also object on the ground that the phrase, “informal or internal complaints” is vague and, depending on interpretation, could include any off-hand gripe by any employee, to the extent it was memorialized in writing. Defendant County of Kern employs several thousand employees. In the past seven years, there could be many documents that fit the description of this request yet none have anything to do with the issues in this case. This request is, accordingly, overbroad and burdensome. Defendants do not believe redaction would resolve these objections. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any complaints or grievances made to YOU by Plaintiff. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 34 Defendants believe all documents responsive to this request have been previously produced to Plaintiff. Defendants will confirm this, or produce additional documents if necessary, by December 7, 2007. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Plaintiff which YOU sent to or received from any governmental or regulatory authority, including but not limited to the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency, and the U.S. Department of Labor. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 35 Defendants believe all documents responsive to this request have been previously produced to Plaintiff. Defendants will confirm this, or produce additional documents if necessary, by December 7, 2007. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36 16 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

MTC000040

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 75 of 207

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

Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TOYOUR search for, recruitment, of and evaluation of candidates for the position of staff pathologist at Kern Medical Center during the period from January 1, 2006 to present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 36 Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also object to this request to the extent it requests information protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA and the peer review privilege, and documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege. Without waving these objections, Defendants will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this request, if any, by December 7, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential and privileged information as appropriate. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TOYOUR search for, recruitment, of and evaluation of candidates for the position of Chair or Chief of Pathology at Kern Medical Center during the period from January 1, 2006 to present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 37 Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also object to this request to the extent it requests information protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA and the peer review privilege, and documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege. Without waving these objections, Defendants will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this request, if any, by December 7, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential and privileged information as appropriate. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38 17 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

MTC000041

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 76 of 207

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

Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TOYOUR search for, recruitment, of and evaluation of candidates for the position of locus tenens pathologist at Kern Medical Center during the period from January 1, 2006 to present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 38 Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also object to this request to the extent it requests information protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA and the peer review privilege, and documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege. Without waving these objections, Defendants will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this request, if any, by December 7, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential and privileged information as appropriate. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TOYOUR search for, recruitment, of and evaluation of candidates for the position of Chair or Chief of OB-GYN at Kern Medical Center during the period from January 1, 2006 to present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 39 Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also object to this request to the extent it requests information protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA and the peer review privilege, and documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege. Without waving these objections, Defendants will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this request, if any, by December 7, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential and privileged information as appropriate. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 40 18 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

MTC000042

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 77 of 207

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

Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TOYOUR removal of Dr. Royce Johnson from the position of Chair or Chief of Medicine at Kern Medical Center. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 40 Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also object to this request to the extent it requests information protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA and the peer review privilege, and documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TOYOUR search for, recruitment, of and evaluation of candidates for the position of Chair or Chief of Medicine at Kern Medical Center during the period from October 24, 2000 to present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 41 Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also object to this request to the extent it requests information protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA and the peer review privilege, and documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege. Without waving these objections, Defendants will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this request, if any, by December 21, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential and privileged information as appropriate. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 42 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO presentations made at the Kern Medical Center oncology conference in May 2005, including but not limited to participant evaluation forms. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 42 19 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

MTC000043

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 78 of 207

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

Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also object to this request to the extent it requests information protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA and the peer review privilege, and documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege. Without waving these objections, Defendants will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this request, if any, by December 7, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential and privileged information as appropriate. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 43 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Plaintiff’s presentations made at the Kern Medical Center oncology conference on or about October 12, 2005. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 43 Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 7, 2007. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 44 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR decision to demote Plaintiff from Chair of Kern Medical Center’s Pathology Department to staff pathologist. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 44 Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that are privileged under the attorney-client privilege. Without waiving this objection Defendants will produce all non-privileged documents responsive to this request by December 7, 2007. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 45 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING To the “packets containing information about Dr. Jadwin” which Peter Bryan collected at the end of Kern Medical Center’s Joint Conference Committee discussion and vote on removal of Plaintiff from Chair of Pathology on July 10, 2006. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 45

20 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

MTC000044

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 79 of 207

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

Defendants are searching for documents responsive to this request. Because of administrative and management changes at Kern Medical Center, it may not be possible to reconstruct the “packets” requested. Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests information protected by the peer-review or attorney-client privileges. Defendants also object to this request to the extent it seeks documents that contain confidential personnel information. Without waiving these objections, and to the extent that the “packets” can be reconstructed, Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request, if any, by December 21, 2007. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 46 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR decision to place Plaintiff on administrative leave on or about December 7, 2006. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 46 Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests information protected by the attorney-client privilege. Without waiving that objection, Defendants believe all documents responsive to this request have been previously produced to Plaintiff. Defendants will confirm this, or produce additional documents if necessary, by December 7, 2007. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 47 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR decision to restrict Plaintiff to his home during working hours from on or about December 7, 2006 to on or about May 1, 2007 while he was on administrative leave. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 47 Defendants believe all documents responsive to this request have been previously produced to Plaintiff. Defendants will confirm this, or produce additional documents if necessary, by December 7, 2007. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 48 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR decision to lift the restriction of Plaintiff to his home during working hours from on or about December 7, 2006 to on or about May 1, 2007 while he was on administrative leave. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 48 21 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

MTC000045

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 80 of 207

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

Defendants believe all documents responsive to this request have been previously produced to Plaintiff. Defendants will confirm this, or produce additional documents if necessary, by December 7, 2007. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 49 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR decision not to renew Plaintiff’s employment contract with YOU that was purportedly made on or about May 1, 2007. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 49 Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests information protected by the attorney-client privilege. Without waiving that objection, Defendants believe all documents responsive to this request have been previously produced to Plaintiff. Defendants will confirm this, or produce additional documents if necessary, by December 7, 2007. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 50 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any discipline, coaching, reprimand or corrective action taken against Plaintiff by YOU. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 50 Defendants believe all documents responsive to this request have been previously produced to Plaintiff. Defendants will confirm this, or produce additional documents if necessary, by December 21, 2007. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 51 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Kern Medical Center’s Disruptive Physician Policy, including but not limited to Bylaw Committee meeting minutes. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 51 Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain confidential personnel information, documents protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including the HIPAA and the peer-review privilege, or documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce documents responsive to this request by December 7, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential peer review and personnel information as appropriate. 22 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

MTC000046

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 81 of 207

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

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 52 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Dr. Rebecca Rivera’s lawsuit against Kern Medical Center filed in Kern County California Superior Court. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 52 Plaintiff has narrowed this request to eliminate any documents that have been filed with the Kern County Superior Court. As so limited, this request seeks documents in the County Counsel’s litigation file, many of which are protected by the attorney work product and attorneyclient privileges. To the extent this request seeks information that is protected by the attorneyclient privilege, Defendants object to it. Defendants also object to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants are in the process of reviewing documents that are may be responsive to this request and, without waiving these objections, will produce non-privileged documents, if any, by December 21, 2007. Defendants may redact privileged information if appropriate. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 53 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO services provided to YOU by the Camden Group RELATING TO Kern Medical Center. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 53 Defendants believe all documents responsive to this request have been previously produced to Plaintiff. Defendants will confirm this, or produce additional documents if necessary, by December 7, 2007. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 54 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO statistics maintained by YOU RELATING TO patient fatalities at Kern Medical Center from October 24, 2000 to the present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 54 Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also object to this request to the extent it requests information protected from 23 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

MTC000047

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 82 of 207

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

disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA and the peer review privilege, and documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege. Without waving these objections, Defendants will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this request, if any, by December 21, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential and privileged information as appropriate. If the redaction process renders the resulting document useless, Defendants will inform Plaintiff. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 55 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the review of Kern Medical Center’s placental evaluations and billing activity as conducted by outside consultants, including but not limited to ProPay Physician Services, LLC, from October 24, 2000 to the present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 55 Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also object to this request to the extent it requests information protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA and the peer review privilege, and documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege. Without waving these objections, Defendants will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this request, if any, by December 21, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential and privileged information as appropriate. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 56 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO blood bank monthly reports, included but not limited to reports generated by Michelle Burris, from January 2006 to present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 56 Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also object to this request to the extent it requests information protected from 24 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

MTC000048

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 83 of 207

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

disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA and the peer review privilege, and documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege. Without waving these objections, Defendants will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this request, if any, by December 21, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential and privileged information as appropriate. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 57 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO product chart copy-related quality assurance reports from October 24, 2000 to the present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 57 Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also object to this request to the extent it requests information protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA and the peer review privilege, and documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege. Without waving these objections, Defendants will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this request, if any, by December 21, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential and privileged information as appropriate. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 58 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO prostate needle biopsy reports produced by Dr. Elsa Ang for which Plaintiff had requested a lookback study in October 2005. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 58 Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also object to this request to the extent it requests information protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA and the peer review privilege, and documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege. Without waving these objections, 25 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

MTC000049

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 84 of 207

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

Defendants will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this request, if any, by December 21, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential and privileged information as appropriate. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 59 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO sign-in sheets for Kern Medical Center’s Cancer Clinic from January 1, 2003 to the present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 59 Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 60 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Workplace Violence or Threat Incident Reports for all Kern Medical Center personnel from October 24, 2000 to the present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 60 Defendants object to this request to the extent it seeks documents that contain confidential personnel information or information protected by the attorney-client privilege. Defendants also object to the extent the documents contain information protected by the peerreview privilege and on the grounds that the request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential or privileged information as appropriate. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 61 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Fine Needle Aspiration policies at Kern Medical Center from October 24, 2000 to the present, including but not limited to DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the outside consultant study conducted by Dr. David Lieu in 2004. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 61 Defendants object to this request to the extent it seeks documents that contain confidential personnel information or information protected by the attorney-client privilege. Defendants also object to the extent the documents contain information protected by the peer26 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

MTC000050

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 85 of 207

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

review privilege and on the grounds that the request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential or privileged information as appropriate. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 62 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Peter Bryan’s appointment calendar from January 1, 2004 to September 1, 2006. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 62 Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 7, 2007. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 63 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO meeting minutes for the following Kern Medical Center committees or groups from October 24, 2000 to the present: a) Medical Executive Committee b) Joint Conference Committee c) Quality Management Committee d) Cancer Committee e) Second Level Peer Review Committee f) Transfusion Committee g) Executive Staff Meetings RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 63 Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain confidential personnel information or information that is protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA and the peer review privilege, or documents that are subject to the attorney/client privilege. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential or privileged information as appropriate. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 64

27 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

MTC000051

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 86 of 207

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

Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO policies of Kern Medical Center’s Pathology Department from October 24, 2000 to the present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 64 Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 65 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO case send-out logs for Kern Medical Center’s Pathology Department from January 1, 1999 to the present, including but not limited to corresponding Kern Medical Center pathology reports and reports from outside consultants. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 65 Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain confidential personnel information or information that is protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA and the peer review privilege, or documents that are subject to the attorney/client privilege. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce documents responsive to this request by December 7, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential or privileged information as appropriate. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 66 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO monthly turn-around-time reports and logs – by pathologist – for pathology reports processed at Kern Medical Center, including but not limited to Pathology Department Semi-annual Reports to the Medical Staff, for the time period from January 1, 1999 to the present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 66 Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain privileged peer review information. Without waiving this objection Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 7, 2007. Defendants will redact all privileged information as appropriate. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 67 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO monthly or semi-monthly turn-around-time reports and logs – for Kern Medical Center’s Pathology Department as a whole – for pathology 28 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

MTC000052

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 87 of 207

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

reports processed at Kern Medical Center including but not limited to surgical pathology, cytology and bone marrow reports, for the time period from January 1, 1999 to the present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 67 Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain privileged peer review information. Without waiving this objection Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 7, 2007. Defendants will redact all privileged information as appropriate. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 68 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO PATHOLOGY REPORTS authored, reviewed or approved by Plaintiff which YOU sent to any outside pathologists for outside review from June 14, 2006 to the present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 68 Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain privileged peer review information. Without waiving this objection Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 7, 2007. Defendants will redact all privileged information as appropriate. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 69 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO PATHOLOGY REPORTS RELATING TO Case Numbers S06-4131, S06-4619, S06-5229, S06-73276. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 69 Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain information that is confidential under HIPAA. Defendants also object to the extent that it requests documents that contain privileged peer-review information. Without waiving these objections Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 7, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential and privileged information as appropriate. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 70 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO peer review RELATING TO Kern Medical Center’s Pathology Department during the time period from January 1, 1995 to the present, 29 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

MTC000053

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 88 of 207

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

including but not limited to computer-generated data, monthly peer review records completed by pathologists, and peer review comment sheets that are completed by pathologists upon discovery of a discrepancy. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 70 Defendants object to this request on the ground that it requests privileged peer-review information. Defendants also object on the ground that it requests information that is confidential under HIPAA and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce documents responsive to this request by January 7, 2008 if it is possible to redact the confidential and privileged information without rendering the resulting document useless. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 71 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO exceptional event logs for histology and pathology on Kern Medical Center’s Pathology Department from January 1, 2006 to the present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 71 Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain information that is confidential under HIPAA. Defendants also object to the extent that it requests documents that contain privileged peer review information. Without waiving these objections Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 7, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential and privileged information as appropriate. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 72 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO paper accession logs at Kern Medical Center’s Pathology Department from January 1, 2006 to present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 72 Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain information that is confidential under HIPAA. Defendants also object to the extent that it requests documents that contain privileged peer review information. Without waiving these objections Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 7, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential and privileged information as appropriate. 30 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

MTC000054

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 89 of 207

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

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 73 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO tissue disposal records for skull-flaps from January 1, 2006 to the present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 73 Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain information that is confidential under HIPAA. Defendants also object to the extent that it requests documents that contain privileged peer review information. Without waiving these objections Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 7, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential and privileged information as appropriate. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 74 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO audits of Kern Medical Center’s Pathology Department by outside consultants, including but not limited to Dr. Stacey Garry, from October 24, 2000 to the present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 74 Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain information that is confidential under HIPAA. Defendants also object to the extent that it requests documents that contain privileged peer review information. Without waiving these objections Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 7, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential and privileged information as appropriate. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 75 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Kern Medical Center laboratory personnel defections from June 14, 2006 to the present, including but not limited to exit interview notes. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 75 Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it is vague. Defendants do not know what “personnel defections” means. If Plaintiff intends to request a list of employees who have separated from County employment or transferred out of the laboratory, Defendants can prepare such a list but Defendants believe such a list will need to be redacted to remove confidential personnel information. Defendants will produce a list of employees who have separated from 31 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

MTC000055

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 90 of 207

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

County employment or transferred out of the laboratory by December 21, 2007 and will redact the information as appropriate. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 76 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO dictation transcription logs for Plaintiff from June 14, 2006 to the present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 76 Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 7, 2007. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 77 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO dictation transcription logs for Dr. Philip Dutt from June 14, 2006 to the present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 77 Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 7, 2007. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 78 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO placental evaluations conducted by Plaintiff from June 14, 2006 to the present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 78 Plaintiff has attempted to narrow this request but the revised request is broader, more burdensome and less calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence than the original request. Defendants object to it for that reason. Defendants object to this request because it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and is burdensome. Defendants also object to this request on the grounds that it seeks information that is shielded from disclosure under HIPAA. There are thousands of placental evaluations for the time period specified and they are not centrally filed or maintained. Locating ones conducted by Plaintiff will require writing a computer program that will sort the files. After the files are sorted, it will require a manual review of each file to find the placental evaluation. It will have to be copied and redacted and copied again. Defendants estimate it will take approximately 90 days to comply with this request. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will attempt to locate, copy and produce the documents requested 32 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

MTC000056

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 91 of 207

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

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 79 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Golden Empire Pathology Associates. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 79 After diligent search, Defendants’ have not been able to locate any documents that are responsive to this request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 80 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Golden Empire Medical Group. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 80 After diligent search, Defendants’ have not been able to locate any documents that are responsive to this request.

Dated: November 20, 2007

LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER

By:

/s/ Mark A. Wasser Mark A. Wasser Attorney for Defendants, County of Kern, et al.

33 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

MTC000057

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 92 of 207

EXHIBIT 8. Meet and confer letter faxed by Plaintiff’s to Defendants’ attorney, 11/22/07

MTC000058

To: 213-596-0487

From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee

Pg 1/4 11/22/07 3:07 pm

(213) 992-3299
TELEPHONE

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

LAW
555

OFFICE

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

OF

Page 93 of 207 ELEE@LOEL.COM
EMAIL

E U G ENE
(213) 596-0487
FACSIMILE

L E E
WWW.LOEL.COM WEBSITE

Los

WEST FIFTH STREET SUITE 3100 ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9001 3-1 01 0

FAX
To: Fax Number: 2135960487 Pages: 4 (including cover page) Re: Jadwin/KC: Meet and Confer re RPD1 From: Law Office of Eugene Lee Date: 11/22/2007 Comments:

Mark, Transmitted herewith is a meet and confer letter in regard to defendants' responses to plaintiff's request for production of documents, set one. We look forward to having a meet and confer phone call with you next Monday. As we've mentioned previously, if we are unable to resolve these issues, plaintiff intends to move to compel. Happy Thanksgiving.

MTC000059

To: 213-596-0487

From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee
Document 83

Pg 2/4 11/22/07 3:07 pm

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
(213) 992-3299

Filed 01/09/2008
OF
3100

Page 94 of 207
ELEE@LOEL.GOM E-MAIL

TELEPHONE

LAW

OFFICE
STREET, SUITE

EUGENE
(Z 1 3) 596-0487 FACSIMILE 555 WEST FIFTH

LEE
WWW.LOEL.COM
WEBSITE

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90013-1010

EUGENE D. LEE, ESQ
PRINCIPAL

JOAN E. HERRINGTON, ESQ
OF COUNSEL

November 22,2007 VIA FACSIMILE Mark Wasser Law Offices of Mark Wasser 400 Capitol Mall Ste 1100 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: 100011.001

Defendants Responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Production, Set One Jadwin / County of Kern, et al. (USDC EDCA NO.1 :07-cv-00026-0WW/TAG)

Dear Mark:
It was a pleasure speaking with you yesterday regarding my email of November 20.

I.

OVERBROAD OBJECTION

As you know, in that email, we had explained that defendants' oft-used objection, "documents protected from disclosure by state or federal law", does not comply with FRCP Rule 34 because it (a) is too broadly stated and (b) fails to explain how the objection relates to the documents demanded. During the call, you indicated that defendants would re-state this objection. We look forward to discussing this further with you on Monday's call.

II.

ISSUES RELATED TO SPECIFIC RESPONSES

Plaintiff also notes the following issues with defendants written responses to plaintiff requests for production, set one: Response Issue to Doc ReqNo. 23/24 December 21 seems to be an excessively long time. Also, to what extent are the timesheets attorney-client privileged? To what extent are these documents relating to plaintiff's job performance attorney25 client privileged? 32 These documents are essential to prove disparate treatment and discriminatory/retaliatory intent. We intend to move to compel if we cannot resolve this. 33 In past meet and confer calls, plaintiff had narrowed this request to complaints or grievances relating to Kern Medical Center which had been made to a government

MTC000060

To: 213-596-0487

From: Law Office of Eugene Lee
Document 83

Pg 3/ 4 11/22/07 3:07 pm

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 95 of 207

36 to 39 40

42 69 70

78

agency or court. These documents are essential to prove disparate treatment and discriminatory/retaliatory intent. We intend to move to compel if we cannot resolve this. To what extent are these documents attorney-client privileged? These documents are essential to prove disparate treatment and discriminatory/retaliatory intent. We intend to move to compel if we cannot resolve discriminatorylretaliatory this. To what extent are documents relating to the May 2005 oncology conference presentation attorney-client privileged? We still await defendants' response on the patient medical record number issue, both for past and for future disclosures. These documents are essential to prove disparate treatment and discriminatory/retaliatory intent. January 7, 2008 is an unacceptable length of time to wait for these documents. We intend to move to compel if we cannot resolve this. Defendants fail to indicate a date of production.

III.

REQUEST 78

Regarding Request 78, as a means to save time, plaintiff proposes defendants produce the following. We can discuss this at our next conference if you wish. 1. A printout of a list of all CPT code 88307 reports will produce all placentas. There are less than 4,500 placentas per year. This process should require no more than four hours. A printout of all pathology reports appearing on the above list. At two reports per minute, this should require approx. 40 hours. Redaction of patient names (appearing in 3 places on each report) is a highly repetitive task that should require far less than 40 hours. If automated using scanning and Adobe Acrobat, it should take even less time.

2.

3.

These tasks are clerical and do not require a great deal of skill. We look forward to our next meet and confer conference call with you at 10:00 a.ill. on Monday, November 26,2007. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions or if you need to reschedule.

cc:

Joan Herrington, Esq.
2
MTC000061

To: 213-596-0487

From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee
Document 83

Pg 4/4 11/22/07 3:07 pm

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 96 of 207

David F. Jadwin, D.O., F.C.A.P.

3
MTC000062

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 97 of 207

EXHIBIT 9. Meet and confer letter faxed by Plaintiff’s to Defendants’ attorney, 11/27/07

MTC000063

To: 213-596-0487

From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee

Pg 1/8 11/27/07 4:02 pm

(213) 992-3299
TELEPHONE

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

LAW
555

OFFICE

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

OF

Page 98 of 207 ELEE@LOEL.COM
EMAIL

E U G ENE
(213) 596-0487
FACSIMILE

L E E
WWW.LOEL.COM WEBSITE

Los

WEST FIFTH STREET SUITE 3100 ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9001 3-1 01 0

FAX
To: Fax Number: 2135960487 Pages: 8 (including cover page) Re: Jadwin/KC: Meet and Confer re RPD1 From: Law Office of Eugene Lee Date: 11/27/2007 Comments:

Dear Mark, Transmitted herewith is a letter in followup to our meet and confer call yesterday. Also enclosed is a draft stipulation as we discussed. Sincerely.

MTC000064

To: 213-596-0487

From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee
Document 83

Pg 2/8 11/27/07 4:02 pm

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
(213) 992-3299

Filed 01/09/2008
OF
3100

Page 99 of 207
ELEE@LOEL.GOM E-MAIL

TELEPHONE

LAW

OFFICE
STREET, SUITE

EUGENE
(Z 1 3) 596-0487 FACSIMILE 555 WEST FIFTH

LEE
WWW.LOEL.COM
WEBSITE

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90013-1010

EUGENE D. LEE, ESQ
PRINCIPAL

JOAN E. HERRINGTON, ESQ
OF COUNSEL

November 27,2007 VIA U.S. MAIL FIRST CLASS & FACSIMILE Mark Wasser Law Offices of Mark Wasser 400 Capitol Mall Ste 1100 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: 100011.001

Defendants Responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Production, Set One Jadwin 1 County of Kern, et al. (USDC EDCA NO.1 :07-cv-00026-0WWITAG)

Dear Mark:
It was a pleasure speaking with you yesterday and today regarding my letter to you of November

22. We are writing this letter in follow-up to our discussion. I. OVERBROAD OBJECTION

As you know, in that email, we had explained that defendants' oft-used objection, "documents protected from disclosure by state or federal law", does not comply with FRCP Rule 34 because it (a) is too broadly stated and (b) fails to explain how the objection relates to the documents demanded. During the call, you indicated that the objection referred to HIPAA and peer review privilege, and that defendants would revise the responses to state the objection accordingly by Friday, November 30. II. PRIVILEGE LOG

You stated that you intend to provide us with a privilege log for all requests by Friday, November 30. III. ISSUES RELATED TO SPECIFIC RESPONSES

Plaintiff also notes the following issues with defendants' written responses to plaintiff's requests for production, set one: Response to Doc ReqNo.
23/24

Issue

25 33

You stated that these are probably not attorney-client privileged and that defendants may be able to produce them this week. You stated that these are probably not attorney-client privileged. We reiterated that we have already agreed to narrow this request to documents

MTC000065

To: 213-596-0487

From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee
Document 83

Pg 3/8 11/27/07 4:02 pm

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 100 of 207

relating to complaints or grievances relating to Kern Medical Center which had been made to a government agency or court. We further explained that these documents are essential to prove disparate treatment and discriminatory/retaliatory intent. You requested and we agreed to send you revised response language which nails down exactly what we are requesting. You confirmed that the documents are already in the process of being collected and that, once the request language is revised, you will produce responsive documents by December 7. Following is the revised language narrowing the request: "COMPLAINTS AGAINST COUNTY. Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO complaints or grievances made by YOUR past or present employees against YOU for defamation, retaliation, disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and/or failure to engage in an interactive process RELATING TO Kern Medical Center and/or its officers or staff, including but not limited to any infermal sr internal 6slfljllaints, grievances or charges to any state or federal agency, and complaints filed in any state or federal court from October 24, 2000 to date." You explained that some documents will be subject to attorney-client privilege. We explained that these documents are essential to prove disparate treatment and discriminatory/retaliatory intent. You maintain your objections that documents requested are confidential personnel information and that the request is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence because Dr. Royce's situation is too dissimilar to plaintiff's. Therefore you stated that you do not intend to produce any responsive documents. Since we are at an impasse, we will move to compel. Note: becanse yon are refnsing this reqnest, we are reinstating onr reqnest in Request 16 with respect to Dr. Royce Johnson's personnel fIle. Previously you had objected that the personnel files of state employees are privileged official information. Please see this case:

36 to 39 40

Garrett v. San Francisco, 818 F.2d 1515, 1518-1519 fnA (9th Cir. 1987)("This court has held that personnel files are discoverable in federal question cases, including Title VII actions, despite claims of privilege. Guerra v. Board ofTrustees, 567 F.2d 352 (9th Cir. 1977); Kerr v. United States District Court, 511 F.2d 192, 197 (9th Cir. 1975), aff'd, 426 U.S. 394, 48 L. Ed. 2d 725,96 S. Ct. 2119 (1976)).
Ibid. (where plaintiff sought personnel records of 16 named firefighters to prove

disparate treatment and defendants objected on grounds of privilege, confidentiality, invasion of privacy, and irrelevance, the 9th Cir. opined "Without passing on the merits of plaintiff's discovery motion (a matter which should be addressed first by the district court), we note that the motion, on its face, does not appear to be entirely without merit."). 42 69

You stated that these are probably not attorney-client privileged. You indicated that defendants will disclose patient medical record numbers by December 7, and that you will look into the possibility of doing the same for
2
MTC000066

To: 213-596-0487

From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee
Document 83

Pg 4/8 11/27/07 4:02 pm

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 101 of 207

70

defendants' past Initial Disclosures. We explained that these documents are essential to prove disparate treatment and discriminatory/retaliatory intent and that January 7,2008 is an unacceptable length oftime to wait for these documents. You asked for legal authority establishing that state privilege caselaw does not apply in federal court in cases involving a federal question. We agreed to provide it. You also indicated that if we are able to successfully meet and confer on this issue, that you would be able to produce responsive documents by December 21. Please see these cases:

Wm. T. Thompson Co. v. General Nutrition Corp., 671 F.2d 100,104 (3d Cir. 1982) (We hold that when there are federal law claims in a case also presenting state law claims, the federal rule favoring admissibility, rather than any state law privilege, is the controlling rule. The question is one of first impression in this court, but our holding is consistent with the legislative history n5 of Rule SOl and the decisions of a number of trial courts. n6 It is also consistent with the general rule in federal practice disfavoring privileges not constitutionally based.) Kerrv. United States District Court, 511 F.2d 192, 196-198 (9th Cir.1975), affd, 426 U.S. 394, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976); (In federal question cases the clear weight of authority and logic supports reference to federal law on the issue of the existence and scope of an asserted privilege; The state's interest is that of a litigant, and not, as in diversity cases, that of a sovereign whose law is being applied in a foreign forum. Reference to federal law in this case is necessary on the issue of the existence and scope ofthe claimed privilege.).
78 We explained that you failed to indicate a date of production. You said that you would give us a date of production at our next call on November 30.
REQUEST 78

IV.

Regarding Request 78, we explained that the task of producing these documents is clerical and could be handled by an hourly-paid temporary hire, in one to two weeks. You said you were discussing our latest suggestions with your clients.
V. RELEVANCY OBJECTION

During the call, a topic of discussion was defendants' objection that plaintiff's requests were not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Following is some caselaw regarding that. In our view, defendants are adopting an overly expansive view of what the objection covers: Royce Johnson is a fair comparator for Dr. Jadwin in terms of "seriousness" of wrongdoing:

3
MTC000067

To: 213-596-0487

From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee
Document 83

Pg 5/8 11/27/07 4:02 pm

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 102 of 207

McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transp. Co., 427 U.S. 273, 283 n.ll, 49 L. Ed. 2d 493,96 S. Ct. 2574 (1976) (In a Title VII case, plaintiff can meet its burden by showing that other employees (firefighters) who engaged in similar acts of wrongdoing of comparable seriousness . . . were nevertheless retained.) Relevancy is not a proper objection: United States v. Meyer, 398 F.2d 66, 72 (9th Cir. 1968). (In addition to discovering information pertaining to a party's case in chief, it is entirely proper to obtain information for other purposes such as cross-examination of adverse witnesses) 8 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, s 2008 at 41 (1970) (For the question of relevancy is to be more loosely construed at the discovery stage than at the trial.) Olympic Refining Company v. Carter,332 F.2d 260, 266 (9th Cir. 1964) (Thus under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1), it is no ground for objection that information sought in pretrial discovery would not be admissible at trial, ifthe testimony sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.).

VI.

12/4-12/6 DEPOSITIONS

We explained that we are incurring hotel, travel and court reporter costs in connection with the upcoming depositions. You agreed to confirm with us shortly that the depositions can go forward as scheduled. You had mentioned that, due to scheduling conflicts, Dr. Wrobel's deposition may need to be moved from Tuesday afternoon to possibly Thursday. Please let us know.

VII.

STIPULATION RE AUTHENTICATION OF DOCUMENTS

We asked if you would consider entering into a stipulation mutually authenticating documents produced by the parties in discovery. You agreed to do so. A draft stipulation is attached for your review.

We look forward to our next meet and confer conference call with you at 10:00 a.ill. on Friday, November 30,2007. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions or if you need to reschedule.

Very trul\ yours,

i$ENE D. LEE
cc: Joan Herrington, Esq. David F. Jadwin, D.O., F.C.A.P.

~,,---\V

4
MTC000068

To: 213-596-0487

From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee
Document 83

Pg 6/8 11/27/07 4:02 pm

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 103 of 207

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9

Eugene D. Lee SB# 236812 LAW OFFICES OF EUGENE LEE 555West Fifth Street, Suite 3100 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Phone: (213) 992-3299 Fax: (213) 596-0487 E-mail: elee@LOEL.com Joan Herrington SB# 178988 BAY AREA EMPLOYMENT LAW OFFICE 5032 Woodminister Lane Oakland, CA 94602 Phone: (510) 530-4078 Fax: (510) 530-4725 E-mail: jh@baelo.com Of Counsel to LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE Attorneys for Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O. Mark A. Wasser CA SB #060160 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100 Sacramento,CA95814 Phone: (916) 444-6400 Fax: (916) 444-6405 E-mail: mwasser@markwasser.com Bernard C. Barman, Sr. KERN COUNTY COUNSEL Mark Nations, Chief Deputy 1115 Truxtun Avenue, Fourth Floor Bakersfield, CA 9330 I Phone: (661) 868-3800 Fax: (661) 868-3805 E-mail: mnations@co.kern.ca.us Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern, Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher, Jennifer Abraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smith and William Roy UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
II

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22

STIPULATION TO AUTHENTICATE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED IN DISCOVERY

MTC000069

I

To: 213-596-0487

From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee
Document 83

Pg 7/8 11/27/07 4:02 pm

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 104 of 207

1 2 3 4 5 6
7

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and among the parties hereto through their respective counsel, that any and all documents produced by plaintiff and/or by each of the defendants, or any ofthem, in the Initial Disclosures, supplemental disclosures, or pursuant to discovery requests or procedures in this action shall be deemed authentic under Federal Rule of Evidence 90 I, provided however that documents generated by third parties shall not be included in this stipulation.

8 9

Dated: December , 2007

LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE

10
11

By:_--,E",u=e",n",e-=D,-,.~L=..:e,-"e'-----

-----1

Eugene D. Lee Attorney for Plaintiff, David F. Jadwin, D.O.

12
13 Dated: December , 2007 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER

14

IS
16
17

By: _--,M""",a",rk,,--,-,A,,-.-,-W,-,a",s""se",r--,C."a,,-s",au",t""h",o",ri",,-ze"'d"--""on"----_ _L)_ Mark A. Wasser Attorney for Defendants, County of Kern, et al.

18 19
20

21
22

23

24
25 26 27

28

STIPULATION TO AUTHENTICATE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED IN DISCOVERY

MTC000070

2

To: 213-596-0487

From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee
Document 83

Pg 8/8 11/27/07 4:02 pm

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 105 of 207

1

ORDER
The parties having stipulated as hereinabove set forth and good cause appearing therefor; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that that any and all documents produced by plaintiff and/or by each ofthe defendants, or any ofthem, in the Initial Disclosures, supplemental disclosures or pursuant to discovery requests or procedures in this action shall be deemed authentic under Federal Rule of Evidence 901, provided however that documents generated by third parties shall not be included in this stipulation. Dated: December _ , 2007 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT By: _ The Honorable Theresa A. Goldner United States District Judge

2
3 4

5
6 7

8
9 10
11

12 13 14

IS
16
17

18 19 20 21 22

23
24 25 26 27

28

STIPULATION TO AUTHENTICATE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED IN DISCOVERY

MTC000071

3

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 106 of 207

EXHIBIT 10. Meet and confer letter faxed by Plaintiff’s to Defendants’ attorney, 11/30/07

MTC000072

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
(213) 992-3299 TELEPHONE (213) 596-0487 FACSIMILE
EUGENE D. LEE, ESQ. PRINCIPAL

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 107 of 207
ELEE@LOEL.COM E-MAIL WWW.LOEL.COM WEBSITE
JOAN E. HERRINGTON, ESQ. OF COUNSEL

L A W

E U G E N E

O F F I C E

L E E

O F

555 WEST FIFTH STREET, SUITE 3100 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90013-1010

November 30, 2007 VIA E-MAIL Mark Wasser Law Offices of Mark Wasser 400 Capitol Mall Ste 1100 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: 100011.001

Defendants Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production, Set One Jadwin / County of Kern, et al. (USDC EDCA No. 1:07-cv-00026-OWW/TAG)

Dear Mark: It was a pleasure speaking with you today regarding our letter to you of November 27. We were pleased to hear that you expected most if not all documents to be produced before December 21. We are writing this letter in follow-up to our discussion. I. OVERBROAD OBJECTION We discussed defendants’ objection, “documents protected from disclosure by state or federal law”, which is problematic because it (a) is too broadly stated and (b) fails to explain how the objection relates to the documents demanded. During the call, you agreed to revise the responses to state the objection accordingly by either today or next Monday. II. PRIVILEGE LOG You stated that you intend to provide us with a privilege log for all requests by either today or next Monday. III. ISSUES RELATED TO SPECIFIC RESPONSES Plaintiff also notes the following issues with defendants’ written responses to plaintiff’s requests for production, set one: Response Issue to Doc Req No. 23/24 You stated there would not likely be any issue producing these and you would have a more definite idea as to production date by next Monday. 33 You confirmed that plaintiff’s revised request language is adequate and that you will produce responsive documents tentatively by December 7, but you would have a more definite idea as to production date by next Monday. 40 We discussed McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transp. Co., 427 U.S. 273, 283 n.11, 49 L. Ed. 2d 493, 96 S. Ct. 2574 (1976), establishing Dr. Royce is a fair comparator for disparate treatment. You said you would do some further research and be ready to

MTC000073

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 108 of 207

discuss it with us further by next Monday. I mentioned that if we are unable to resolve this issue, we would reinstate our request in Request 16 with respect to Dr. Royce Johnson’s personnel file. I further mentioned Garrett v. San Francisco, supporting our right to disclosure of personnel files. You stated that these are probably not attorney-client privileged. You stated you would probably have a decision on this by next Monday. We explained that these documents are essential to prove disparate treatment and discriminatory/retaliatory intent. We also cited Wm. T. Thompson Co. v. General Nutrition Corp., 671 F.2d 100, 104 and Kerr v. United States District Court, 511 F.2d 192, 196-198 (9th Cir.1975), establishing that federal privilege applies in federal question cases. You stated that you would research this further and that if we are able to successfully meet and confer on this issue, you would be able to produce responsive documents possibly by December 21. You stated that you would produce possibly by December 21, but that this would be decided by next Monday.

42 69 70

78

IV. STIPULATION RE AUTHENTICATION OF DOCUMENTS We discussed the draft stipulation and mentioned that some language should be added to ensure documents generated by KMC hospital staff and employees are covered by the stip (as opposed to third parties outside of KMC). You said you would discuss this with your client and get back to us with an answer by next Monday. V. PRIVACY BALANCING TEST You requested caselaw regarding the privacy balancing test for disclosure. We cited Tisdale v Marin General Hospital, 138 FRD 696. If any of the foregoing is inaccurate, please do not hesitate to let us know. We find these letters serve as a useful way to track ongoing items of discussion. We look forward to our next meet and confer conference call with you at 5:00 p.m. on Monday, December 3, 2007. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions or if you need to reschedule. Have a nice weekend.

Very truly yours,

EUGENE D. LEE cc: Joan Herrington, Esq. David F. Jadwin, D.O., F.C.A.P.

2
MTC000074

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 109 of 207

EXHIBIT 11. Meet and confer letter faxed by Plaintiff’s to Defendants’ attorney, 12/10/07

MTC000075

To: 213-596-0487

From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee

Pg 1/ 4 12/10/07 2:52 pm

(213) 992-3299
TELEPHONE

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

LAW
555

OFFICE

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

OF

Page 110 of 207 ELEE@LOEL.COM
EMAIL

E U G ENE
(213) 596-0487
FACSIMILE

L E E
WWW.LOEL.COM WEBSITE

Los

WEST FIFTH STREET SUITE 3100 ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9001 3-1 01 0

FAX
To: Fax Number: 2135960487 Pages: 4 (including cover page) Re: Jadwin/KC: Deposition Meet and Confer From: Law Office of Eugene Lee Date: 12/10/2007 Comments:

Mark, Transmitted herewith is a meet and confer letter regarding plaintiff's requests for production, set one, upcoming depositions, and depositions of last week. Sincerely.

MTC000076

To: 213-596-0487

From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee
Document 83

Pg 2/ 4 12/10/07 2:52 pm

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
(213) 992-3299

Filed 01/09/2008
OF
3100

Page 111 of 207
ELEE@LOEL.GOM E-MAIL

TELEPHONE

LAW
555

OFFICE
STREET, SUITE

EUGENE
(Z 1 3) 596-0487 WEST FIFTH

LEE
WWW.LOEL.COM
WEBSITE

FACSIMILE

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90013-1010

EUGENE D. LEE, ESQ
PRINCIPAL

JOAN E. HERRINGTON, ESQ
OF COUNSEL

December 10, 2007 VIA FACSIMILE & US MAIL Mark Wasser Law Offices of Mark Wasser 400 Capitol Mall Ste 1100 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: 100011.001

Defendants' Instructions to Deponents Not to Answer Jadwin / County of Kern, et al. (USDC EDCA NO.1 :07-cv-00026-0WW/TAG)

Dear Mark:
It was a pleasure seeing you at plaintiff's depositions on December 4, 5 and 6, 2007.

I.

UPCOMING DEPOSITIONS

On last Friday, we served deposition notices for Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Renita Nunn and Patti Perez on you. As you recall, plaintiff and defendants had stipulated to make every Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday available for depositions. Please confirm that the depositions as scheduled do not raise any scheduling issues.

II.

PRIVILEGE LOG

Earlier, on December 3, we had had a phone call to discuss our outstanding requests for production of documents, set one. As you will recall, we had agreed that you would provide privilege logs by December 6. At the depositions, you mentioned that your assistant had faxed you the privilege logs, but you failed to give them to us. Please provide the privilege logs immediately to us.

III.

OBSTRUCTION OF PLAINTIFF'S DEPOSITIONS

At each ofthe depositions of Drs. Taylor and Naderi (core physicians at KMC), you improperly instructed the deponent not to answer our questions and thereby obstructed the depositions. With respect to Dr. Taylor, plaintiff had asked him to name the core physician at KMC whom he considered to be "arrogant". This question is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence relating to defendants' fifth affirmative defense, which specifically alleges that plaintiff Dr. Jadwin "was arrogant, disagreeable, uncooperative, intimidating, overbearing, self-righteous and unfriendly". This question also relates to disparate treatment of comparators, which is the gravamen of discrimination claims; hence, the identity ofthis comparator and his or her

MTC000077

To: 213-596-0487

From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee
Document 83

Pg 3/ 4 12/10/07 2:52 pm

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 112 of 207

treatment by KMC is subject to discovery. You instructed Dr. Taylor not to answer even though no privilege was involved or invoked. This constitutes obstruction of plaintiff's deposition. With respect to Dr. Naderi, plaintiff had asked him to discuss his reduced work schedule at KMC over a roughly 2-month period in connection with his son's car accident in or about 1998. Questions regarding Dr. Naderi's leave of absence are reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence relating to plaintiff's claim that plaintiff's right to medical leave under FMLA and CFRA were interfered with and that plaintiff suffered retaliation for exercising his rights under FMLA and CFRA. You instructed Dr. Naderi not to answer this "line of questioning" even though no privilege was involved or invoked. This constitutes obstruction of plaintiff's deposition. In addition, several times at plaintiff's depositions from December 4 to 6, 2007, you improperly coached the deponents. In each instance, you were neither stating an objection nor instructing the witness not to answer. Once the deposition transcripts become available, plaintiff intends to move to compel responses to its questions and seek appropriate sanctions for your obstruction of plaintiff's depositions. If you wish to resolution ofthe above issues, please contact us. We would be open to your suggestions.

IV.

RECESS & CONTINUANCE OF DR. TAYLOR'S DEPOSITION

Despite the fact that plaintiff had scheduled Dr. Taylor's deposition almost one month ago, plaintiff were forced to recess the deposition of Dr. Taylor after only 3 hours because Dr. Taylor needed to return to the hospital. You stipulated to a continuance of Dr. Taylor's deposition to another time. Please let us know when would be mutually convenient for you and Dr. Taylor so that we can avoid having the same problem arising again with Dr. Taylor's schedule.

V.

POSSIBLE BREACH OF RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

During the deposition of Dr. Ravi Patel, you testified on the record that you had entered into an oral agreement to represent Dr. Patel as his attorney mere minutes before he entered the deposition room. As you know, Dr. Patel is not a director, officer or managing agent at KMC and is instead the proprietor of an outside contractor laboratory which does business with KMC. Dr. Patel stated on the record that he had not signed a conflict waiver with you. I direct your attention to California Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3-31 O(B)(l): (B) A member shall not accept or continue representation of a client without providing written disclosure to the client where: (l) The member has a legal, business, financial, professional, or personal relationship with a party or witness in the same matter

2
MTC000078

To: 213-596-0487

From: Law Office of Eugene Lee OFFice
Document 83

Pg 4/ 4 12/10/07 2:52 pm

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 113 of 207

Although I am not certain as to the above, I recommend you contact the California Ethics Board Hotline and inquire as to whether you may be in breach of Rule 3-310(B)(l) and what steps you 3-31 O(B)( 1) should undertake if such is the case. If! am incorrect, then I offer you my apologies.

Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions.

~iJpENE ~lJpENE D. LEE
cc:

, \j1~ , \/1\ '
I

JJ

Joan Herrington, Esq. V D.O., David F. Jadwin, D.G., F.C.A.P.

3
MTC000079

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 114 of 207

EXHIBIT 12. DEFENDANTS’ PARTIAL PRIVILEGE LOG, 12/13/07

MTC000080

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Eugene D. Lee
From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Gene,

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 115 of 207

Mark Wasser [mwasser@markwasser.com] Thursday, December 13, 2007 5:36 PM Eugene Lee Prviilege log Priviledge Log 11.30.07.doc

Here is the privilege log for the documents produced in the last production. We will update this for the documents we will produce next week. Mark

Law Offices of Mark A. Wasser
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100 Sacramento, California 95814 Office: 916-444-6400 Fax: 916-444-6405 E-mail: mwasser@markwasser.com

1

MTC000081

PRIVILEDGE LOG
Jadwin v. County of Kern, et al. Documents Produced in Response to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents (Set One)

BATES NO.

DATE

TO

FROM

CC

DOCUMENT TYPE Medical Record Suspension List Intense Analysis Action Plan Completion Medical Record Suspension List Intense Analysis Action Plan Completion Medical Record Suspension List Intense Analysis Action Plan Completion Medical Record Suspension List

0005166 – 0005168 0005169 20022003

REASON FOR WITHOLDING/ REDACTING Privileged Peer Review Privileged Peer Review Privileged Peer Review Privileged Peer Review Privileged Peer Review Privileged Peer Review Privileged Peer Review

0005202 - 0005203 0005204 20022003

0005233 - 0005234 0005257 20022003

0005394

1

MTC000082

BATES NO.

DATE

TO

FROM

CC

DOCUMENT TYPE Deficient Charts by Days Outstanding Deficient Charts by Days Outstanding Proctoring Progress Report

0007053 - 0007060

11/7/06

0007515 - 007521

3/6/06

0007747 - 0007749

11/7/07

0007837 - 0007841

8/22/07

Jennifer Abraham

Robert Wallace

Letter

0007930

Provider License Status 20002001 Summary of Annual Competency Ratings by Classification Summary of Annual Competency Ratings by Classification

0008718 - 0008722

REASON FOR WITHOLDING/ REDACTING Privileged Peer Review/Confidential Personnel Privileged Peer Review/Confidential Personnel Privileged Peer Review/Confidential Personnel Privileged Confidential Personnel Privileged Confidential Personnel Privileged Peer Review/Confidential Personnel

0008752 - 0008757

20002001

Privileged Peer Review/Confidential Personnel

2

MTC000083

BATES NO.

DATE

TO

FROM

CC

DOCUMENT TYPE Summary of Annual Competency Ratings by Classification Summary of Annual Competency Ratings by Classification Summary of Action Plans for Unsatisfactory Annual Performance Reviews Disciplinary Actions and Involuntary Terminations Summary of Annual Competency Ratings by Classification

0008830 - 0008834

20002001

REASON FOR WITHOLDING/ REDACTING Privileged Peer Review/Confidential Personnel

0008982 - 008895

20012002

Privileged Peer Review/Confidential Personnel

0009336 - 0009337

7/2001 – 6/2002

Privileged Peer Review/Confidential Personnel

0009336 - 009337

2003

Privileged Peer Review/Confidential Personnel Privileged Peer Review/Confidential Personnel

0009341-0009342

2003

3

MTC000084

BATES NO.

DATE

TO

FROM

CC

DOCUMENT TYPE Memorandum

0010925 - 0010926

3/3/03

Peter H. Parra Barbara Patrick

Peter K. Bryan

Marvin Kolb

0011034 - 0011038

Jose Perez

Memorandum

0011039-0011042

3/19/07

Members, Board of Supervisors Ron Errea Fred Plane

David K. Culberson David K. Culberson

0011044

1/5/07

Ron Errea Bernie Barmann Karen Barnes Irwin Harris

Memorandum and Handwritten Notes Memorandum

0011048 0011049-0011067 Not pulled

12/7/06

0011068

3/16/07

Jon McQuiston David K. Don Maben Culberson Barbara Patrick Ray Watson Michael J. Rubio David K. Culberson Irwin Harris

Ron Errea E. Ladd

Memorandum

REASON FOR WITHOLDING/ REDACTING Privileged Confidential Personnel Privileged Confidential Personnel Privileged Confidential Personnel Privileged Confidential Personnel Privileged Confidential Personnel

Email

0011101 - 0011125

8/06

Paul Esselman

Candidate Presentation Memorandum re Salary

0011140

Privileged Confidential Personnel Privileged Confidential Personnel Privileged Confidential Personnel

4

MTC000085

BATES NO.

DATE

TO

FROM

CC

DOCUMENT TYPE Memorandum

011078 - 11080

David K. Culberson

Not privileged 0011082 - 0011095

1/31/06

Agreement for Professional Services – Independent Contractor

REASON FOR WITHOLDING/ REDACTING Privileged Confidential Personnel Privileged Confidential Personnel

5

MTC000086

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 121 of 207

EXHIBIT 13. Meet and confer emails between Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ attorney, 12/14/07

MTC000087

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Eugene D. Lee
From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Gene,

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 122 of 207

Mark Wasser [mwasser@markwasser.com] Friday, December 14, 2007 11:10 AM elee@LOEL.com RE: Jadwin/KC: Discovery issues Follow up Completed

I expect to produce the remaining documents before December 21, as I have anticipated. Our written response will be either before then or within a day or two after. I should know for sure early next week and will tell you. Mark

From: Eugene D. Lee [mailto:elee@LOEL.com] Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 11:04 AM To: mwasser@markwasser.com Cc: 'Joan Herrington' Subject: RE: Jadwin/KC: Discovery issues

Mark, I understand and respect your position. But I ask your understanding that Plaintiff is under time constraints as well and has a duty to move this action forward. I am merely putting you on notice that Plaintiff will file a motion to compel if the dates previously mentioned are not adhered to. There is no ill will behind it, only increasing urgency driven by defendants’ numerous and endless delays. A motion is a waste of everyone’s time, but plaintiff must do what is necessary to prosecute this case diligently. Sincerely, Gene Lee
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LAW

OFFICE

OF

EUGENE
LAW

LEE

EMPLOYMENT

555 WEST FIFTH ST., STE. 3100 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 Tel: (213)992-3299 Fax: (213)596-0487 E - m a i l : elee@LOEL.com W e b s i t e : www.LOEL.com B l o g : www.CaLaborLaw.com  

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.

Califocnia Laboc &  Emplo,ment Law Bl09 The Real Meaning of the Holidays O•••mb.c 25, 'II' From: Mark Wasser [mailto:mwasser@markwasser.com]

Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 10:16 AM
1

" . " " ,y "'''"'"''

MTC000088

To: elee@LOEL.com Cc: 'Joan Herrington' Subject: RE: Jadwin/KC: Discovery issues Gene,

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 123 of 207

The only point I want to respond to is your statement that you must “resort to threats in order to resolve this situation.” I was not aware that of your belief in this regard. Whatever “threats” you believe you are making have nothing to do with our position. You tend to default to a “threat” mode but our production and response will occur as we are able to make them and have nothing to do with whatever “threats” you perceive to be making. You should take whatever action you believe is appropriate. We will produce the documents and serve an updated written response as I have indicated. You have been flexible, yes. We appreciate that but, in a production the magnitude of this one, flexibility is required. It is a big task and will not happen any faster just because you make what you refer to as threats. Mark

From: Eugene D. Lee [mailto:elee@LOEL.com] Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 9:55 AM To: mwasser@markwasser.com Cc: 'Joan Herrington' Subject: Jadwin/KC: Discovery issues

Mark, We served our document production requests on Kern County on October 11, 2007, more than 2 months ago. We set a reasonable deadline of November 12, 2007. We have extended that deadline by more than a month to December 21, 2007 in an attempt to accommodate Kern County. We also agreed to forego the partial production deadline on December 5. I hope you will agree that we have tried to be flexible. Now you are saying that you may not be able to give us a response until after Dec. 21. We will extend the deadline for Kern County’s written responses to plaintiff’s production requests, set one to December 21, 2007. If we are not in receipt of the responses (including privilege logs) AND production by December 21, we will file a motion to compel. There will be no further extensions. Today is also the deadline for Peter Bryan’s responses to plaintiff’s document production requests. This represents a 2-week extension of the original deadline. If we are not in receipt of the responses AND production by end of business today, we will file a motion to compel. It is unfortunate that we must resort to threats of a motion in order to resolve this situation. However, we have a duty to prosecute this action diligently and we cannot allow discovery to drag on any more than it already has. Sincerely, Gene Lee
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LAW

OFFICE

OF

EUGENE
LAW

LEE

555 WEST FIFTH ST., STE. 3100 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 Tel: (213)992-3299 Fax: (213)596-0487 E - m a i l : elee@LOEL.com W e b s i t e : www.LOEL.com B l o g : www.CaLaborLaw.com   2

EMPLOYMENT

MTC000089

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 124 of 207

This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.

  California Labor" Emplo,ment Law 0109 Dukes v, Wal-Mart: 9th Circuit Upholds Class December 11, lOll From: Mark Wasser [mailto:mwasser@markwasser.com] n."" ,y " ' ' ' ' ' " ' '
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 9:22 AM To: elee@LOEL.com Subject: RE: Discovery issues. Gene, I know you need an updated formal response. I do not want to do two more responses, however, and would like to cover everything in the next response. Since I have not had a chance to look through the 9 new boxes of documents the County sent me, I do not know what our response will be yet. As I have explained, there may be some categories for which there are no documents. I don’t know yet. I will give you a firm date for the next response when I see you on Tuesday. Although it is not conventional, the response may be after the production. I don’t know that yet, either. Mark

From: Eugene D. Lee [mailto:elee@LOEL.com] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 5:59 PM To: mwasser@markwasser.com Cc: 'Joan Herrington' Subject: RE: Discovery issues.

Mark, Thanks for the email it is helpful. However, we still need formal revised responses to plaintiff’s requests for production, set one. Please let me know when you will provide these responses. We need a firm date. Sincerely, Gene Lee
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LAW

OFFICE

OF

EUGENE
LAW

LEE

555 WEST FIFTH ST., STE. 3100 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 Tel: (213)992-3299 Fax: (213)596-0487 E - m a i l : elee@LOEL.com W e b s i t e : www.LOEL.com B l o g : www.CaLaborLaw.com  

EMPLOYMENT

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.

California Labor" Emplo,ment Law 0109 Dukes v, Wal-Mart: 9th Circuit Upholds Class December 11, 2111
3

 

n.""

'Y " ' ' ' ' ' " ' ' MTC000090

From: Mark Wasser [mailto:mwasser@markwasser.com] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 4:52 PM To: Eugene Lee; Joan Herrington Subject: Discovery issues. Gene,

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 125 of 207

My assistant is out today and I am not technically proficient enough to send letters in her absence. So, this e-mail will have to suffice until she returns. I can put this in letter format then if you would prefer to have a letter. With regard to your letter of December 10, I anticipate sending you the privilege log this afternoon. There has been no “obstruction” of plaintiff’s depositions and your suggestion that there has been is not worthy of further comment. With regard to the depositions of Dr. Taylor and Dr. Naderi, I disagree with your characterization of what happened but I will review the transcripts when they become available and determine whether there is merit to your position. For example, my recollection of your line of questioning to Dr. Naderi is substantially different than yours. Rather than debate it now, I will look at the transcripts and address it then. Dr. Taylor’s deposition will be reset at a mutually convenient time. As you know, we offered to set it for next week but you decided – and I agreed – that doing so would be too ambitious given the other depositions that are already scheduled. The deposition will be reset when we can agree on a date to reset it. Regarding the objections we have asserted to some of your pending requests for production, I have read the cases you cited. They are good cases but they do not help you very much. The Third Circuit decision in General Nutrition, for example, recites the traditional rule that federal privileges apply to federal questions and state law privileges apply where state law provides the rule of decision. (671 F.2d at 103) Although you have alleged violations of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and violations of FMLA and FSLA, you have made no connection between the documents you want and a federal question claim that would entitle you to have them. We find no authority that supports your broad contention that state law privileges do not apply in federal court. The Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Garrett v. City and County of San Francisco holds it is your burden to make the requisite showing. (818 F.2d at 1519) The contents of Royce Johnson’s personnel file, to take one example, is privileged under state law and, since he was never a department chair at KMC, cannot offer “comparator” information for any of your federal claims. The issues cannot be resolved by redaction because the documents in the file are, obviously, personal to Dr. Johnson. We find nothing in the cases you cite that requires disclosure of matters that are protected from disclosure by state-law privileges that apply to state-law claims just because Dr. Jadwin’s complaint contains unrelated federal claims. Although the Defendants will produce some documents in response to your requests No. 28, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 52, 54, 60, 66, 67, 70, 71, 72 and 75, all those requests raise issues of state-law privilege and none appear to have any connection to any of Dr. Jadwin’s federal claims. Hence, to the extent there are state-law privileges, we see no reason why we cannot assert them. We are willing to discuss this with you and, if our analysis is incorrect, we will reconsider it. Again, our reading of Garrett indicates it is your burden to make the showing. Requests No. 55, 56, 57, 58, 65, 66, 67, 69, 70, 71, 72 and 78 all involve, at least to some extent, documents that contain information that is confidential under HIPAA, which, as you know, is a federal privilege. In many instances, the confidential information can be redacted and, where it can be, we will produce redacted documents. Where redaction will not adequately protect patient confidentiality, we may have no alternative but to object to the request. I received 8 more boxes of documents today and expect to receive another box tomorrow. I believe we remain on the schedule I have previously described and expect to do a supplemental production next week. It remains my belief that you will have all documents that are being produced before December 21. You have asked the Defendants to clarify the “state and federal laws” they are relying on in their objections. We are relying on California Evidence Code sections 1040 and 1157 and California authorities that establish the confidentiality of personnel records, HIPAA and federal authorities that recognize the physician-patient and peer-review privileges. Our analysis is basically set forth in this letter. I think this sums of where things stand. If you want to discuss this further, let me know. Mark

4

MTC000091

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 126 of 207

Law Offices of Mark A. Wasser
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100 Sacramento, California 95814 Office: 916-444-6400 Fax: 916-444-6405 E-mail: mwasser@markwasser.com

5

MTC000092

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 127 of 207

EXHIBIT 14. Meet and confer emails between Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ attorney, 12/17/07

MTC000093

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Eugene D. Lee
From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status:

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 128 of 207

Eugene D. Lee [elee@LOEL.com] Tuesday, December 18, 2007 1:47 PM 'mwasser@markwasser.com' 'Joan Herrington' RE: Jadwin/KC: Depo Continuance Follow up Completed

Mark, Thank you for speaking with me by phone yesterday. You never notified us in advance of the copy charge, which you have told me by phone is estimated to be $10,000 for copy costs associated with the Initial Disclosure, and the two document production installments. You are springing this issue on us just days before the production is due, which production date was extended numerous times from an original production date in November, and suggesting this as an excuse to hold up production yet again. You never previously raised the issue of copy cost regarding the initial disclosure which was produced back on August 6, 2006 (plaintiff’s Initial Disclosure was larger than defendants and should more than offset any cost incurred regarding defendants’ Initial Disclosure). You never mentioned any copy cost associated with the first production installment before yesterday on the phone (which was provided on CD-ROM – we’ve asked for the second installment on CD-ROM as well). $10,000 itself seems an exorbitant amount. I would also add that plaintiff has readily agreed to narrow the document production requests on numerous occasions to expedite matters for defendants. I fail to understand how defendants could have incurred such a substantial $10,000 copy charge without first meeting and conferring with plaintiff. Yesterday was the first I had heard you mention any cost estimate, let alone $10,000. Plaintiff will pay the copy cost reimbursement you have requested so that the production can proceed, but will do so under protest, reserving the right to bring a motion regarding this issue at a later date. Yesterday, I requested you send me the reimbursement receipts as soon as possible. You had stated you would not produce any documents until you were in receipt of payment. I still have yet to receive them. Please send me the invoice ASAP so we can remit payment immediately. You have repeatedly stated that defendants would produce the documents before Friday, December 21. Let’s ensure that happens. Sincerely, Gene Lee
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LAW

OFFICE

OF

EUGENE
LAW

LEE

555 WEST FIFTH ST., STE. 3100 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 Tel: (213)992-3299 Fax: (213)596-0487 E - m a i l : elee@LOEL.com W e b s i t e : www.LOEL.com B l o g : www.CaLaborLaw.com  

EMPLOYMENT

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1

MTC000094

This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 129 of 207

Califocnia Laboc & Emplo,ment Law 0109 Background Checks What Are My Rights? o•• emb.c U, 'II' " ... " ,y ...oo,,".. From: Mark Wasser [mailto:mwasser@markwasser.com]

 

Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 10:24 AM To: elee@LOEL.com Subject: RE: Jadwin/KC: Depo Continuance Gene, Good point, I forgot that. I feel foolish.

We will produce the remaining 9 boxes of documents as soon as you reimburse the County for the photocopying charges incurred to date. The cost of the reproduction for initial disclosures was $193.76. The cost of the first production, in response to your request for production, which we have already made, was $3557.43. This second production, consisting of 9 boxes, will be more than twice that. We will get an estimate of the reproduction costs of the second production today or tomorrow and forward the estimate to you. Upon receipt of your check for $193.76 plus $3557.43 plus the estimate of the cost of the second production, we will proceed to have the 9 boxes copied and delivered to you. Also, Peter Bryan lives and works in Oakland, as you know. The County agreed to produce him, at the County’s cost, in Bakersfield for his deposition tomorrow. As I told you when we talked on our cellphones over the weekend, Mr. Bryan went to Bakersfield on Friday in anticipation of his deposition. He is there now. Since you did not cancel the depositions until after he had arrived in Bakersfield, there was no way I could stop his trip. The County will not produce Mr. Bryan in Bakersfield at County expense again. When you reset his deposition, it will either have to be in Oakland or the County will require prepayment of his travel expenses to Bakersfield. Mark From: Eugene D. Lee [mailto:elee@LOEL.com] Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2007 1:22 PM To: mwasser@markwasser.com Cc: 'Joan Herrington' Subject: Jadwin/KC: Depo Continuance

Mark, We spoke twice yesterday about this, but to remove all doubt – Plaintiff is continuing this week’s depositions to a later date. Kinko’s is already working on creating new sets of deposition exhibits which should be ready by this Friday. The cost of the exhibits is roughly $1,400 for 3 sets of copies. One of those sets is for your use. We’ll send you an invoice separately for roughly $470. Have a good rest of the weekend. Sincerely, Gene Lee
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LAW

OFFICE

OF
2

EUGENE
LAW

LEE

555 WEST FIFTH ST., STE. 3100 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013

EMPLOYMENT

MTC000095

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

TDocument 9 2 - 3 2 9Filed e l : ( 2 1 3 ) 9 83 9 Fax: (213)596-0487 E - m a i l : elee@LOEL.com W e b s i t e : www.LOEL.com B l o g : www.CaLaborLaw.com  

01/09/2008

Page 130 of 207

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.

Califocnia Laboc & Emplo,ment Law 0109 Dukes v, Wal-Mart: 9th Circuit Upholds Class

 

" ..." ,y "'oo,,"..

3

MTC000096

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 131 of 207

EXHIBIT 15. SUPPLEMENTED RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION SET ONE (“Response 2”), 12/19/07

MTC000097

Dec 19 07 02:49p Dec 19 07 02:49p

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

p.1 p.1

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 132 of 207

The Law Offices of Mark A. Wasser 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100 400
Sacramento, California 95814 Sacramento, Office: 916-444-6400 Office:

Fax: 916-444-6405 Fax:

Fax
To:
Fax: Fax:

Eugene Lee
(213) 596-0487

From: MarkWasser
Pages: 38 (including cover page) Date: CC: December 19, 2007

Phone: (213) 992-3299 Re: Jadwin v. County of Kern

D D Urgent

D For Review

D Please Comment

0 Please Reply

D Please Recycle

• Conunents: Please see attached Defendants' Supplemental Responses.

MTC000098

Dec 19 07 02:50p

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

p.2

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 133 of 207

2

3

4
5

Mark 1\. Wasser CA S8 #60160 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 11 00 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 444-6400 Fax: (916) 444-6405 E-mail: mwasser@markwasseLcom Bernard C. Barrnann, Sr, KERN COUNTY COUNSEL Mark Nations, Chief Deputy 1115 Truxtun Avenue, Fourth Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Phone: (661) 868-3800 Fax: (661) 868-3805 E-mail: rnnations@co.kern.ca.us Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern, Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher, Jennifer Abraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smith and William Roy UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORl\-IA

6

7
8

9
10

II
12 13
14

15 16 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O. Plaintiff, vs. COUNTY OF KERN, et al., Defendants. ) Case No.: 1:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG ) DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL 5 RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) ) ) Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007 Trial Date: August 26, 2008

I7
18

19 20 21

5

22
23
24

l
) ) )

PROPOUNDING PARTY: RESPONDING PARTY: SET NUMBER:

Plaintiff DAVID F. JAD"WIN, D.O., F.C.A.P. Defendant COUNTY OF KER!'i ONE (1)

25 26

27
28
I
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

MTC000099

Dec 19 07 02:50p Dec 19 07 02:50p

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405 916-444-6405

p.3 p.3

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 134 of 207

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

Defendants hereby submit these responses to PlaintifTDavid f. Jadwin's Request for Production of Documents, Set One. Defendants have not located all the dlJ~uments that are responsive to this request and, for that reason, many of the production dates set forth herein are estimates. Defendants will supplement or amend this response, if necessary, as additional estimates. documents are located and reviewed. REQUEST FQR PRQDUCTION NO.1 Any and all DOCUMEKTS RELATING TO the First Affirmative Defense listed in Defendants' Answer to Plaintiffs Second Supplemental Complaint. Defendants' RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.1 RESPONSE Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that are protected by the attorney-work-product and attorney-client privileges. Without waiving those objections, after diligent search, Defendants have not bcen able to locate any documents Lhat are responsive to this request.
REQUEST REQUEST FOR PRQDUCTION NO.2

Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Second Affumative Defense listed in Defendants' Answer to Plaintiffs Second Supplemental Complaint. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.2
Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of

documents that are protected by the attorney-work-product and attorney-client privileges. Without waiving those objections, after diligent search, Defendants have not been able to locate any doclilllents that arc responsive to this request.
REQUEST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.3

Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Third Affirmative Defense listed in
Defendants' Defendants' Answer to Plaintiff s Second Supplemental Complaint. RESPONSE RESPONSE TO REQUEST NQ. 3 Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents documents that are protected by the attomey-work-product and attorney-client privileges.

2

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

MTC000100

Dec 19 07 02:51 p

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

pA

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 135 of 207

1

Without waiving those objections, after diligent search, Defendants have not been able to locate any documents that arc responsive to this request.

2

J
4
5

REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.4
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATlNG TO the Fourth Affirmative Defense listed in Defendants' Answer to Plaintiffs Second Supplemental Complaint.

6

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.4
Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that ate protected by the attomey-work-product and attorney-client privileges. Without waiving those objections, after diligent search, Defendants have not been able to locate any documents that are responsive to this request.

7
8

9
10
11

REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.5
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Fifth Affirmative Defense listed in Defendants' Answer to Plaintiffs Second Supplemental Complaint.

12
13

14
15

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.5
Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for thc production of doclunents that are protected by the attorney-work-product and attorney-client privileges. Without waiving those objections, Defendants will produce all non-privileged documents responsive to this request on or hefore December 21, 2007, depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs.. This request is duplicative of other requests contained in Plaintiff's request for production, set one, and thc documents produced in response to this request may refer to the documents produced in response to other requests.

16
17
18 19

20
21

22
23

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.6
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Sixth Affirmative Defense listed in Defendants' Answer to Plaintiffs Second Supplemental Complaint.
,

24
25

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.6
Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of doclunents that ate protected by the attorney-work-product and attorney-client privileges.

26
27

28
3

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPOl\SES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCT10:-.J OF DOCUMEKTS

MTC000101

Dec 19 07 02:51 p Dec 19 07 02:51 p

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

p.5 p.5

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 136 of 207

1 1 2 2

Without waiving those objections, after diligent search, Defendants have not been able to locate Without any documents that are responsive to this request.

3 3
4 4 5 5

REOUEST FOR PRODUCTIOl'" NO.7
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Seventh Affirmative Defense listed in Defendants' Answer to Plaintiffs Second Supplemental Complaint. Defendants'

6 6
7 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 11 11 12 12

RESPONSE TO REQUEST l'0. 7
Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that are protected by the attorney-work-product and attorney-client privileges. documents Without waiving those objections, after diligent search, Defendants have not been able to locate Without any documents that arc responsive to this request. any

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.8
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATIKG TO the Eighth Affinnative Defense listed in

13 13 14 14 15 15 16 16 17 17 18 18 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 23 23 24 24 25 25 26 26 27 27

Defendants' Defendants' Answer to Plaintiffs Second Supplemental Complaint.

RESPONSE TO REQVEST NO.8
Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of

documents documents that are protected by the attomey-work-product and attomey-client privileges. Without Without waiving those objections. Defendants will produce all non-privileged documents responsive responsive to this request on or before December 21, 2007. depending on receipt of reimbursement reimbursement tor estimated copy costs. This request is duplicative of other requests contained in in Plaintiff s request for production, set one, and the documents produced in response to this request request may refl::r to the documents produced in response to other requests,

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.9
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Nintb Affirmative Defense listed in Defendants' Defendants' Answer to Plaintiff's Second Supplemental Complaint.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.9
Defendants object to lhis request on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents documents that are protected by the attomey-work-produet and attorney-client privileges.

28 28
4

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUME:-lTS

MTC000102

Dec 19 07 02:51 p Dec 19 07 02:51 p

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

p,6 p,6

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 137 of 207

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

Without waiving those objections, after diligent search, Defendants' have not been able to locate any documents that are responsive LO this request any REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NQ. 10 Any and all DOCUYlENTS RELATING TO YOUR organizational structure during Plaintiff's employment with YOU, including but not limited to organizational charts, diagrams and drawings. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 10 Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request. Production is expected to be complete on or about December 21, 2007. depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs. REQVEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Kern Medical Center personnel directories or lists, including but not limited to names, direct work phone numbers, departments, etc, which were maintained by YOU during Plaintiff's employment with YOU. RESPO:'llSE TQ REQVEST NO. 11 Defendants will produce all non-privileged documents responsive to this request. Production Production is expected to be complete on or about December 21, 2007, depending on receipt of

13 13
14 14

15 15

16 16 17 17

1R 1R reimbursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants will redact privileged information as 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 23 23 24 24 25 25 26 26 27 27 28 28 appropriate, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR persomlel policies, guidelines, fact sheets, sheets, posters, employee and/or employer handbooks, training materials, and employee and/or employer manuals maintained by YOU that YOU c.ontend governed Plaintiffs terms and conditions of employment at any time during the period from October 1, 2000 to October 4, 2007. These include but are not limited to YOUR ordinances, Kern Medical Center's Administrative Procedures Manual, Kern Medical Center's Policy & Administrative Procedures & Manual, policies RELATING TO disabilily discrimination, reasonable accommodation, interactive process, personal leave, administrative leave, medical leave, retaliation, investigations

5
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
MTC000103

Dec 19 07 02:52p Dec 19 07 02:52p

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405 916-444-6405

p.7 p.7

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 138 of 207

1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4

into complaints of un lawful employment practices, discipline of employees, investigation of employees, appointment of Kern Medical Center acting department chairs, hiring of Kern Medical Center department chairs, demotion of Kern Medical Center department chairs, and policies RELATING TO Kern Medical Center's Pathology Department. policies

5 5
6 6 7 7 S S 9 9 10 10 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 15 15 16 16 17 17 18 18 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 23 23 24 24 25 25 26 26 27 27 28 28

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 12
Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain confidential personnel infonnation, documents protected from disclosure by state or federal law, confidential including HIPAA, the peer-review privilege and the personnel privilege, and documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007, depending on receipt of produce reimbursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants will redact confidential peer review and personnel information as appropriate. personnel

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR personnel policies, guidelines, fact sheets, sheets, posters, employee and/or employer handbooks, training materials, and employee and/or employer employer manuals maintained by YOU that YOU contend was distributed or made available to YOUR YOUR employees, whether management or non-management, from October 24,2000 to the present present and the date of such asserted distribution. These include but are not limited to YOCR ordinances, ordinances, Kern Medical Center's Administrative Procedures Manual, Kern Medical Center's Policy Policy & Administrative Procedures Manual, policies RELATING TO disability discrimination, reasonable reasonable accommodation, interactive process, personal leave, administrative leave, medical leave, leave, retaliation, investigations into complaints of unlawful employment practices, discipline of employees, employees, investigation of employees, appointment of Kern Medical Center acting department chairs, chairs, hiring of Kern Medical Center department chairs, demotion of Kern Medical Center department department chairs, and policies RELATING TO Kern Medical Center's Pathology Departmcnt. RESPONSE RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 13 Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain confidential personnel infonnation, documents protected from disclosure by state or federal law, 6 DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
MTC000104

Dec 19 07 02:52p Dec 19 07 02:52p

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

p.8 p.8

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 139 of 207

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

including HIPAA, the peer-review privilege and the personnel privilege, and documents that are subject to the attorney-clicnt privilege_ Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007, depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants will redact confidential peer review and personnel information as appropriate. REQUEST FQR PRODUCTION NO. 14 Any and all DOCU::VrENTS RELATING TO peer review, quality management and quality assurance policies and procedures at Kern Medical Center, included but not limited to Kern Medical Center's Quality Management and Performance Improvement Plan, from October 24, 2000 to thc present, and the effective dates. RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 14 Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain confidential personnel information, documents protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA, the peer-review privilege and the personnel privilege, and documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege. Without waiving these objections, Defendanls will produce documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007, depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants will redact confidential peer review and personnel information as appropriate. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any training provided by YOU to YOUR
officers, officers, directors, agents or employees on the following subjects:

a) disability discrimination b) accommodation of an employee's disability
c) the interactive process regarding accommodation of an employee's disability

d) medical leave rights e) whistleblower retaliation
f) f) l11edicalleavc retaliation

g) due process required for demotion

7
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
MTC000105

Dec 19 07 02:53p

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

p.9

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 140 of 207

h) due process required for pay cut 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14

i) due process required for termination of employment j) defamation k) Fair Labor Standards Act RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 15 Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain confidential personnel information, documents protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA, the peer-review privilege and the personnel privilege, and documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007, depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants will redact privileged information, if any, as appropriate. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATIKG To the PERSONNEL FILES ofthe following

15
16

people. a) Plaintiff David F. Jadwin b) ElsaAng c) Ellen B1Jllyi-Teopengco d) Philip Dutt e) Carol Gates
f) Adam Lang
g) Fangluo Liu

17
18

19 20

21
22

23
24

h) Savita Shertukde i) Navin Amin
j) Kathy Griffith
k) Alice Hevle I) Denise Long

25

26
27

28

m) Gilbert Martinez
8
DEFENDA~TS'

SUPPLEME'HAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

MTC000106

Dee 19 07 02:53p

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

p.10

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 141 of 207

n) Albert McBride

2
3
4

0) Javad Naderi
p) Jane Thornton
q) Nitin Athavale

5
6

r) ChesterLau s) Jennifer J. Abraham t) Bernard C. Barmann u) Karen S. Barnes v) Peter K. Bryan w) David Culberson
x) Irwin E. Harris

7
8

9
10
11

12 13 14

y) Royce Johnson

z) Eugene K. Kercher
aa) Alan Scott Ragland bb) William Roy ee) Maureen Martin dd) Steven O'Connor ee) Antoinette Smith

15
16
17 18

19

ff) Edward Taylor
gg) Marvin Kolb 00) Dianne MeConnehey ii) RenitaNunn jj) Ravi Patel kk) Jose Perez 11) Evangeline Gallegos

20 21
22 23 24

25
26

nun)
illl)

Sergio Pertieueci

27
28

Bonnie Quinonez

00) James Sproul

9 DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
MTC000107

Dec 19 07 02:53p

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

p.11

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 142 of 207

pp) Rebecca Rivera 2 3 4 5 qq) Sheldon Freedman rr) Joseph Mansour ss) George Alkouri tt) Nicole Sharkey

6
7 8 9 10 II 12

RESPONSE TO REQUEST

~Q.

16

Defendants have already produced the personnel file of David F. Jadwin. Defendants will confirm 1hat the personnel file previously produced was complete as of the time of its production and, on or before December 21, 2007, will augment the documents previously produced with any additional materials, if any, that have been added into Dr. Jadwin's pcrsonnel file since the file was produced. Plaintiff has narrowed the scope oftrus request by eliminating all other documents initially requested.

13
14 IS 16 17 18 ]9 20 21 22 23

REQUEST FOR l'RODLTTIQN NQ. 17
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the search, recruitment, application, interviewing, and hiring process that resulted in Plaintiffs employment by YOU.

RESPONSE TO REOUEST

~O.

17

Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain confidential personnel information, documents protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA, the peer·rcview privilege and the personnel privilege, and documents that are subject to the attomey·client privilege. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007, depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants will redact privileged information, if any, as appropriate.

24
25 26

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION ~O. 18
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATl)lG TO the tem1s, conditions and privileges of Plaintiff's employment with YOU.

27

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NQ. 18

28
10 DEFENDA='fTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
MTC000108

Dec 19 07 02:54p

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

p.12

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 143 of 207

Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 21,2007, 2 depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs.

3
4 5

REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Plaintiff's job duties and responsibilities for each position held by Plaintiff during this employment with YOU.

6
7 8

RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 19
Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 21,2007, depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs.

9
10 11 12 13
14

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Plaintiffs payroll, compensation, base salary and "professional fee payments", as that term is defined in Plaintiffs employment contracts with YOU, including but not limited to any and all changes in compensation and the reasons for changes, throughout Plaintiffs employment with YOU.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 20
Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 21,2007, depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs.

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR policies, guidelines and practices regarding base salary steps, salary guidelines, deferred compensation plans, pension plans, health insurance and employment benefits applicable to Plaintiffs position s held throughout his employment with YOU.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 21
Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007, depending all receipt of reimbursement for estimalcd copy costs.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATr:.JG TO Plaintiffs work schedule and/or removal there from, including but not limited to timesheets, from October 24,2000 to present.

28

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 22
11

DEFENDANTS' S1JPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

MTC000109

Dec 19 07 02:54p Dec 19 07 02:54p

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

p.13 p.13

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 144 of 207

Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 21,2007, 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 11 11
J2 J2

depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs. REQUEST FOR PRODVCTION NO. 23 REQUEST Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Dr. Phillip Dutt's timesheets, from April 20 2005 to the present. 2005 RESPONSE TO REOUEST KO. 23 RESPONSE Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007, depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants will redact depending privileged information, if any, as appropriate. privileged REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24 REQUEST Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Dr. Savita Sheltukde's timesheets, from January 4, 2005 to present. RESPONSE RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 24 Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007, depending depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants will redact privileged privileged infonnation, if any, as appropriate. REOUEST REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO performance reviews, comments, complaints, complaints, warnings, reprimands, counseling, advisory notices or evaluations of Plaintiffs performance performance of his job duties throughout his employment with YOU, whether formal or informal. informal. RESPONSE RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 25 Defendants object to this reql~esllo the extent it requests documents that contain information information protected by the attorney-client privilege. Without waiving that objection, Defendants Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 21,2007, depending depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants will redact privileged privileged infonnation, if any, as appropriate.

13 13 14 14 15 15 16 16 17 17 18 18 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 23 23 24 24 25 25 26 26 27 27

28 28
12 DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLANTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUYIENTS
MTC000110

Dec 19 07 02:54p

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

p.14

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 145 of 207

1
2
3

REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26
Any and all DOCUMENTS maintained by Plaintiff at Kern Medical Center during his employment by YOU, including any and all e-mails, Groupwise calendars, memoranda, wrillen materials, and computer files stored on Plaintiffs computer at Kern Medical Center's servers.

4

5

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 26
Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain confidential persoIlllel information, documents protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including HIP AA, the peer-review privilege and the persoIlllel privilege, and documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege. After diligent search, Defendants believe Groupwise calendar information was deleted many months ago as part of the routine 90-day cycling of the Groupwise software. Defendants are continuing to search for matcrials that were on the computer that was assigned to Plaintiff. Some material was archived before the computer was reassigned and Defendants will produce copies of the material that was archived by December 21,2007, depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants ...'ill ""ill redact privileged information, if any, as appropriate.

6
7 8

9

10
11 12

13
14 15

16
17 18

REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATII\G TO any meetings RELATING TO Plaintiff or Plaintiff s employment at Kern Medical Center.

19
20 21
22

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 27
Defendants object to this request to the extent il requests documents that contain information protected by the attorney-client privilege. Without waiving that objection, Defendants will produce documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007, depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants "Will redact privileged information, if any, as appropriate.

23 24

25
26 27 28

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO perfonnance reviews, comments, complaints, warnings, reprimands, counseling, advisory notices or evaluations of the Kern

13 DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
MTC000111

Dec 19 07 02:55p

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

p.15

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 146 of 207

Medical Center Pathology Department, whether formal or informal, from October 24, 1995 to 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 the present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 28 Defendants object to this request to the extent it Jequests documents that contain confidential personnel information, documents protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAi"., the peer-review privilege and the personnel privilege, and documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege. Without waiving that objection, Defendants will produce documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007, depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants will redact privileged information, if any, as appropriate. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Plaintiff's complaints of: a) disability discrimination b) failure to accommodate c) failure to engage in an interactive process d) violation of medical leave rights e) whistleblower retaliation
f) medical leave retaliation

g) deprivation of property without due process h) defamation i) Fair Labor Standards Act violations RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 29 Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain information protected by the attorney-client privilege. Without waiving that objection, Defendants will produce documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007, depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants will redact confidential peer review and persomlel information as appropriate.

28
14 DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
MTC000112

Dec 19 07 02:55p

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

p.16

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 147 of 207

REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30
2 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any investigation of Plaintiffs complaints of disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in an interactive process, violation of medical leave rights, whistleblower retaliation, medical leave retaliation, defamation, and/or deprivation of property \vithout due process.

3
4
5

6
7

RESPONSE TO

REOL~ST NO.

30

Defendants object to tbis request to the extent it requests documents that contain information protected by the attorney-client privilege. Without waiving that objection, Defendants wiII produce documents responsive to this request by December 21,2007, depending on receipt ofreimbursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants will redact confidential peer review and personnel information as appropriate.

8
9 10

11 12
13
14

REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATIKG TO any procedures available to YOUR employees to complain of corruption, fraud and other wrongful, illegal or unethical conduct, that YOU contend was distributed or made available to YOUR employees, whether management or non-management, from October 24,2000 to the present, and the date of such asserted distributi on(s).

15 16

17 18
19 20

RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 31
Defeudants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 21,2007, depending on receipt ofreimbursement for estimated copy costs.

21
22 23

REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR discipline of any employee against whom a complaint or grievance of discrimination, harassment, defamation, retaliation, failure to accommodate, and/or failure to engage in an interactive process in their employment was made from October 24, 2000 to date.

24
25

26
27
28

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 32
Defendants objccllo this request all the grounds that it requests documents that contam confidential personnel information, documents protected from disdosure by state or federal law,
15

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

MTC000113

Dec 19 07 02:56p

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

p.17

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 148 of 207

including H[P1\1\, the peer-review privilege and the personnel privilege, and documents that 2 3 4 contain information protected by the attorney-client privilege. Defendants do not believe these objections can be resolved by redaction. Defendants also object on the grounds that the request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

5
6 7 S 9 10

REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO complaints or grievances made by YOUR past or present employees against YOU for defamation, retaliation, disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and/or failure to engage in an interactive process, including but not limited to any infonnal or internal complaints, grievances or charges to any state or federal agency, and complaints filed in any state or federal court from October 24,2000 to date.

II
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25

RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 33
Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in this case, Consequently, this request is not reasonably calculated to lcad to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also object on the ground that the phrase, "informal or internal complaints" is vague and, depending on interpretation, could include any off-hand gripe by any employee, to the extent it was memorialized in writing. Defendant County of Kcrn employs several thousand employees. In the past seven years, there could be many documents that fit the description of this request yet none have anything to do with the issues in this case. This request is, accordingly, overbroad and burdensome. Defendants do not believe redaction would resolve these objections.

REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATI'JG TO any complaints or grievances made to YOU by Plaintiff.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 34
Defendants believe all documents responsive to this reques! have been previously produced. Defendants will confirm this or prodnce additional documents, if there arc any, by December 21,2007, depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs.

26 27 28

16
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
MTC000114

Dec 19 07 02:56p

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

p.18

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 149 of 207

1 2 3 4 5

REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Plaintiff which YOU sent to or received from any governmental or regulatory authority, including but not limited to the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, the California Labor and Workforce Developmen Agency, and the U.S. Department of Labor.

6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13

RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 35
Defendants believe all documents responsive to this request have been previously produced. Defendants will confirm this or produce additional documents, if there are any, by December 21, 2007, depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs.

REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TOYOUR search for, recruitment, of and evaluation of candidates for the position of staff pathologist at Kern Medical Center during the period from January 1, 2006 to present.

14
15 16

RESPONSE TO REQUEST ]\"0. 36
Defendants object to tllis request on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that contain confidential personnel infonl1ation that is not relevant to any issues in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also object to this request to the extent it requests information protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA, the peer-review privilege and the personnel privilege, and documents that contain information protected by tht: attorney-client privilege. After review of the documents potentially responsive to this request, Defendants have detennined that the burden of redacting privileged information outweighs the l11atginal relevancy of the remaining information in the documents. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TOYOUR search for, recruitment, of and evaluation of candidates for the position of Chair or Chief of Pathology at Kern Medical Center during the period from January 1, 2006 to present.

17
18

19 20
21

22 23
24 25 26 27 28

17 DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
MTC000115

Dec 19 07 02:56p

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

p.19

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 150 of 207

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NQ. 37 Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that contain confidential personnel infOlmation that is not relevant to any issues in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also object to this request to the extent it requests information protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA, the peer-review privilege and the personnel privilege, and documents that contain information protected by the attorney-client privilege. \Vithout waiving those objectiono, after diligent scarch, Defendants have not been able to locate any documents that are responsive to this request. REQUEST FQR PRODUCTION NO. 38 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR search for, recruitment, of and evaluation of candidates for the position oflocum tenens pathologist at Kern Medical Center during the period from January 1, 2006 to present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 38 Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of documenlo that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also object to this request to the extent it requests information protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA, the peer-review privilege and the personnel privilege, and documents that contain information protected by the attorney-client privilege. After review of the documents potentially responsive to this request, Defendants have determined that the burden of redacting privileged information outweighs the marginal relevancy of the remaining information in the documents. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TOYOUR search for, recruitment, of and evaluation of candidates for the position of Chair or Chief of OB-G YN at Kern Medical Center during the period trom January 1, 2006 to present.

25 26 27

28
18

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMEKTS

MTC000116

Dec 19 07 02:57p

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

p.20

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 151 of 207

RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 39 2 3 4 Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also object to this request to the extent it requests information protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA, the peer-review privilege and the personnel privilege, and documents that contain infonnation protected by the attorney-client privilege. After review of the documents potentially responsive to this request, Defendants have determined that the burden of redac1ing privileged information outweighs the marginal relevancy of the remaining information in the documents. REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION :\'0.40 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TOYOURremoval of Dr. Royce Johnson from the position of Chair or Chief of Medicine at Kern Medical Cmter. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 40 Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that contain confidential personnel information Ihat is not relevant to any issues in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also object to this request to the extent it requests information protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including HIP AA and the peer review privilege, and documents that are subject to the attomey-client privilege. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATL"lG TOYOUR search for, recruitment, of and evaluation of candidates for the position of Chair or Chief of Medicine at Kern Medical Center during the period from October 24, 2000 to present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 41 Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any Issues in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

5
6 7

S
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 l7
18

19
20

21
22

23 24 25 26 27
2~

19
DEFENDA:\iTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
MTC000117

Dec 19 07 02:57p

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

p.21

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 152 of 207

1 2 3 4 5 6

Delendants also object to this request to the extent i1 requests information protected from disclosurc by statc or federal law, including HIPAA, the peer-review privilege and the personnel privilege, and documents that contain information protected by the attorney-client privilege. After review of the documents potentially responsive to this request, Defendants have determined that the burden of redacting privileged information outweighs the marginal relevancy of the remaining information in the documents.

7
8 9 10

REOUEST FORPRODlJCTION NO. 42
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO presentations made at the Kern Medical Center oncology conference in May 2005, including but not limited to participant evaluation forms.

II
12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 42
Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that contain contidential personnel infonnation that is not rclcvant to any issues in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also object to this request to the extent it requests information protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA and the peer review privilege, and documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege. Without waving these objections, Defendants will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this request. if any, by December 21, 2007. Defend,mb will redact privileged, ifany, information as appropriate.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 43
Any and all DOCU.\1EKTS RELATINO TO Plaintiffs presentations made at the Kern Medical Center oncology conference on or about October l2, 2005.

23
24 25 26 27 28

RESPQ:'-[SE TQ REQUEST NO. 43
Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also object to this request to the extent it requests infonnation protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including HIP AA and the peer review privilege, and 20
DEFENDANT~' ~UPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES

TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMEKTS

MTC000118

Dec 19 07 02:58p

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

p.22

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 153 of 207

documents that are suhject to the attorney-client privilege. Without waving these objeclions, 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12
13

Defendants will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this request, if any, by December 21,2007. Defendants will redact privileged, if any, information as appropriate, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 44 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR decision to demote Plaintifffrorn Chair ofKem Medical Center's Pathology Department to staff pathologist. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 44 Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that are privileged under the attorney-client privilege. Without waiving this objection Defendants will produce all non-privileged documents responsive to this request by December 21,2007, depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4S Any and all DOCU:v.lENTS RELATING To the "packets containing information about Dr. Jadwin" which Peter Bryan collected at the end of Kern Medical Center's Joint Conference ofKem Committee discussion and vote on removal of Plaintiff from Chair of Pathology on July 10, 2006. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 45 Defendants are searching for documents responsive to this request. Because of administrative and management changes at Kern Medical Center, it may not be possible to reconstruct the "packets" requested. Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests information protected by the peer-review or attorney-client privileges, Defendants also object to this request to the extent it seeks documents thal contain confidential persoIUlel information. Without waiving these objections, and to the extent that the "packets" can be reconstructed, Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request, if any, by December 21,2007, depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 46 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR decision to place Plaintiff on administrative leave on or about December 7, 2006.
21

14 15

16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

MTC000119

Dec 19 07 02:59p

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

p.23

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 154 of 207

1

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NQ. 46

2 3 4 5 6
7

Defendnnts object to this request to the extent it requests information protected by the attorney-client privilege. Without waiving that objection, Defendants believe all documents responsive to this request have been previously produced. Defendants will confirm this or produce additional documents, if mere are any, by December 21, 2007, depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 47

8 9 10
11

Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR decision to restrict Plaintiff to his home during working hours from on or about December 7, 2006 to on or about May 1,2007 while he was on administrative leave.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 47

12 13
14

Defendants believe all documents responsive to this request have been previously produced. Defendants will confinll this or produce additional documents, ifthere are any, by December 21,2007, depending on receipt of rei mbursement for estimated copy costs.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 48

15

16 17 IS
19

Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR decision to lift me restriction of Pillintiffto his home during working hours from on or about December 7, 2006 to on or about May 1, 2007 while he was on administrative leave.
RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 48

20 21 22
23

Defendants believe all documents responsive to this request have been previously produced.
to

Plaintiff. Defendants will confirm this or produce additional documents, ifthere arc

any, by December 21,2007, depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIOI'I NO. 49

24 25
26

Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR decision not to renew Plaintitf's employment contract with YOU that was purportedly made on or about May 1,2007.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 49

27 28

Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests information protected by thc attorney-client privilege. Without waiving that objection, Defendants believe all documents
22

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

MTC000120

Dec 19 07 02:59p

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

p.24

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 155 of 207

responsive to this request have been previously produced. Dcfcndants v.rill confirm this or 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13
14

produce additioual documents, if there are any, by December 21,2007, depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs. REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 50 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELA TING TO any disciplinc, coaching, reprimand or corrective action taken against Plaintiff by YOU. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 50 Defendants believe all documents responsive to this request have been previously produced. Defendants will confirm this or produce additional documents, if there are any, by December 21, 2007, depending on receipt of reimbmsement for estimated copy costs. REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 51 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Kern Medical Center's Disruptive Physician Policy, including but not limited to Bylaw Committee meeting minutes. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NQ. 51 Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain confidential personnel information, documents protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA and the peer-review privilege, and documents protected by the attorney-client privilege. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce documents responsive to this request by December 21,2007, depending on receipt ofreimhursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants will redact confidential peer review and personnel information as appropriate. This request is also vague because Defendants are not aware of any connection between the Disruptive Physician Policy and the Bylaw Committee meeting minutes. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 52 Any and all DOCUME}.'TS RELATING TO Dr. Rebecca Rivera's lawsuit against Kern Medical Center filed in Kern County California Superior Court. RESPQNSE TO REQUEST NO. 52 Plaintiff has narrowed this request to eliminate any documents that have been filed with the Kern County Superior Court. As so limited, this request seeks documents in the County
23

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

DEFEiIDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIOK OF DOCUMENTS

MTC000121

Dec 19 07 03:00p

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

p.25

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 156 of 207

Counsel's litigation file, many of which are protected by the attorney work-product and attorncy2 3 4 5 6 7 8 client privileges. To the extent this request seeks information that is protected by the attomeyclient privilege, Defendants object to it. Defendants also object to this request on the grounds tha1 it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants are in the process of reviewing documents that may be responsive to this request and, without waiviug these objections, 'Will produce non-privileged documents, if any, by December 21, 2007, depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants may redact privileged information if appropriate.

9
10

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 53
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO services provided to YOU by the Camden Group RELATlNG TO Kern Medical Center.

11
12

RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 53
Defcndants believe all documents responsive to this request have been previously produced. Defendants will confirm this or produce additional documents, if there are any, by December 21,2007, depending on receipt of reimbursement for estim<tted copy costs.

13
14
15

16
17 18

REQUEST FOR PRODVCTIOl'l NO. 54
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO statistics maintained by YOU RELATING TO patient fatalities at Kern Medical Center from October 24,2000 to the present.

19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 54
Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of <tdmissible evidence. Defendants also object to this request to the extent it requests information protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA, the peer-review privilege and the personnel privilege, and documents that contain information protected by the attorney-client privilege. After review of the documents potentially responsive to this request, Defendants have determined that the burden of redacting privileged information outweighs the marginal relevancy of the remaining information in the documents. 24 DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

MTC000122

Dec 19 07 03:00p

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

p,26

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 157 of 207

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 55
2 3 4 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the review of Kern Medical Center's placental evaluations and billing activity as conducted by outside consultants, including but not limited to ProPay Physician Services, LLC, from October 24, 2000 to the present.

5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NQ. 55
Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, Defendants also object to this request to the extent it requests irrformation protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA, the peer-review privilege and the personnel privilege, and documents that contain information protected by the attorney-client privilege, After review of thc documents potentially responsive to this request, Defendants have determined that the burden ofredacting privileged information outwt:ighs the marginal relevancy of the remaining irrformation in the documents.

15
16 17

REQUEST FQR PRODUCTION NO. 56

.Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO blood bank monthly reports, included but
not limited to reports generated by Michelle Burris, from January 2006 to present.

18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 56
Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to anv issues in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also object to this request to the extent it requests information protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA, the peer-review privilege and the personnel privilege, and documents that contain information protected by the attorney-client privilege. After review of the documents potentially responsive to this request, Defendants have determined that the burden of redacting privileged infonnation outweighs the marginal relevancy of the remaining information in the documents.

25 DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIOK OF DOCUMENTS
MTC000123

Dec 19 07 03:01 p

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

p.27

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 158 of 207

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIOK NO. 57
2 3 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO product chart copy-related quality assurance reports from Oc10ber 24,2000 to the present.

4
5

RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 57
Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also object to this request to the extent it requests information protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA, the peer-review privilege and the personncl privilege, and documents that contain infonnation protected by the attorney-client privi lege. After review of the documents potentially responsive to this request, Defendants have determined that the burden of redacting privileged information outweighs the marginal relevancy of Ihe remaining information in the documents.

6
7

8

9
10

II
12 13 14 15

REQUEST FQR I'RODUCTION NO. 58
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO prostate needle biopsy reports produced by Dr. Elsa Ang for which Plaintiff had requested a lookback study in Oe1ober 2005.

16
17
18 19 20
21 22 23

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 58
Defendants object to this request {)f1 the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in Ihis case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also objeelto this request to the extent it requests information protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including HIP AA, the peer-review privilege a11d the personnel privilege, and documents that contain infonnation protected by the attorney-client privilege. After review of the documents potentially responsive to this reques" Defendants have determined that the burden ofredaeting privileged information outweighs the marginal relevancy of the remaining information in thc documents.

24

25
26

27

28 26
DEFENDANTS' SL'PPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
MTC000124

Dec 19 07 03:01 p

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

p.28

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 159 of 207

1
2 3

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 59
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELA TING TO sign-in sheets for Kern Medical Cancer Clinic from January 1, 2003 to the present.
Center'~

4
5 6

RESPONSE TQ REQUEST NO. 59
Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007, depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs.

7
8 9

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NQ. 60
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Workplace Violence or Threat Incident Reports for all Kern Medical Center personnel from October 24, 2000 to the present.

10 11 12
13 14 15 16

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 60
Defendants object to this request to 1he extent it seeks documents that contain confidential personnel information or information protected by the attorney-client privilege. Defendants also object to the extent the documents contain information protected by the peerreview privikgc and on the grounds that the request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 21,2007, depending 011 receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants will redact confidential or privileged information as appropriate.

17
18

19 20
21 22

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 61
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Fine Needle Aspiration policies at Kern Medical Center from October 24, 2000 to the present, including but not limited to DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the outside consultant study conducted by Dr. David Lieu in

23 24
25 26 27 28

2004. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 61
Defendants object to this request to the extent it seeks doemnents that contain confidential personnel infonnation or information protected by the attorney-client privilege. Defendants also object to the extent the documents contain information protected by the peerreview privilege and on the grounus that the request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the

27
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLENlENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
MTC000125

Dec 19 07 03:02p

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

p.29

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 160 of 207

discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24

all documents responsive to this request by December 21,2007, depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants will redact confidential or privileged information as appropriate. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIOK NO. 62 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Peter Bryan's appointment calendar from January 1, 2004 to September 1, 2006. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 62 After diligent search, Defendants have determined that the Groupwise calendar information was deleted many months ago as part of the routine 90-day cycling of the Groupwise software. Defendants believe there are no documents responsive to this request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 63 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATTl\'G TO meeting minutes tor the following Kern Medical Center committees or groups from October 24, 2000 to the present: a) :YIedical Executive Committee b) .Joint Conference Committee c) Quality Management Committee d) C811cer Committee c) Second Level Peer Review Committee
f) Transfusion Committee

g) Executive Staff Meetings RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 63 Defendants object to this request to the extcnt it requests documents that contain confidential personnel information, docmnents protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA, the peer-review privilege and the personnel privilege, and documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege. Without waiving these objections, DcfcmIanls will produce doemnents responsive to this request by Decemher 21, 2007, depending on receipt of

25
26

27

28
28
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
MTC000126

Dec 19 07 03:02p

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

p.30

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 161 of 207

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20
21

reimbursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants will redact confidential peer review and personnel information as appropriate. REQUEST FQR PRODUCTION NO. 64 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO policies of Kern Medical Center's Pathology Department from October 24, 2000 to the present.
RESPO~SE

TO REOLEST NO. 64

Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007, depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs. REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 65 Any and all DOCU1vfENTS RELATING TO case send-out logs for Kern Medical Center's Pathology Department from January I, 1999 to the present, including but not limited to corresponding Kern Medical Center pathology reports and reports from outside consultants. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 65 Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain confidential personnel information, documents protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA, the peer-review privilege and the personnel privilege, and documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007, depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants will redllct confidentilll peer review and personnel information as appropriate. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 66 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO monthly turn-arol.lIld-lime reports and logs - by pllthologist - for pathology reports processed lit Kern Medical Center, including but not limited to Pathology Department Semi-annual Reports to the Medical Staff, for thc time pcriod [Tom January 1, 1999 to the present.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 66

22 23 24 25
26

27
2~

Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain confidential personnel information, documents protected from disclosure by state or federal law.
-------------------~---------------__t

29

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

MTC000127

Dec 19 07 03:03p

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

p.31

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 162 of 207

1 2 3 4 5

including HIPAA, the peer-review privilege and the personnel privilege, and documents that are subject to the attorney-client pri vilege. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007, depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants will redact confidential peer review and personnel information as appropriate.

6
7 8 9 10

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 67
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO monthly or semi-monthly turn-around-time reports and logs - for Kern Medical Center's Pathology Department as a whole - for pathology reports processed at Kern Medical Center including but not limited to surgical pathology, cytology and bone marrow reports, for the time period from January I. 1999 to the present.

11
12 13 14 15 16 17 13

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 67
Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain confidential persOlmel information, documents protected from disclosure by state or fcdcrallaw, including HIPAA, the peer-review privilege and the personnel privilege, and documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce documents responsive to this request by December 21,2007, depending on receipt of reirnborsement for estimated copy costs. Defendants will redact confidential peer review and personnel information as appropriate.

19
20 21 22

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO_ 68
Anv and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO PATHOLOGY REPORTS authored, reviewed or approved by Plaintiff which YOU sent to any outside pathologists for outside review from June 14, 2006 to the present.

23
24 25 26 27 211

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 68
Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain privileged peer review information. Without waiving this objection Dcf~ndants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 21,2007, depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants will redact all privileged information as appropriate. 30 DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTlfWS REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
MTC000128

Dec

19 07 03:03p

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

p.32

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 163 of 207

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 69
2 3 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO PATHOLOGY REPORTS RELATING TO Case Numbers S06-4131, S06-4619, S06-5229, S06-73276.

4
5 6 7
8

RESPONSE TO REQ1JEST NO. 69
Plaintiff has amended this request by clarifYing that Case No. S06-73276 relates to Case Nos. 806-495, 806-3511 and S06-4619. Defendants renew their objections to this request on the grounds that it requests documents that contain confidential information under HIPAA. Defendants also object to the extent that it requests documents that contain privileged peerreview information. Without waiving these objections Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 21,2007, depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants will redact confidential and privileged information as appropriate.

9 10
II

12

13
14 15 16

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 70
Any and all DOCU!vIENTS RELATING TO peer review RELATr.-JG TO Kern Medical Center's Pathology Department during the time period from January I, 1995 to the present, including but not limited to computer-generated data, monthly peer review records completed by pathologists, and peer review comment sheets 1hat are completed by pathologists upon discovery of a discrepancy.

17
18

19

RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 70
Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that contain confidential personnel information that is not rdevant to any issues in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also object to this request to the extent it requests information protectcd from disclosure by state or federal law, including H1PAA, the peer-review privilege and the personnel privilege, and documents that conlain information protected by the attorney-client privilege. After review of lhe documents potentially responsive to this request, Defendants have determined that the burden of redacting privileged infonnation outweighs the marginal relevancy of the remaining information in the documents.
3]

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIff'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCU.'vIENTS

MTC000129

Dec 19 07 03:04p

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

p.33

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 164 of 207

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 71
2 3
4

Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO exceptional event logs for histology and pathology on Kern Medical Center's Pathology Depaltment from January 1, 2006 to the present.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 71
Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also object to this request to the extent it requests information protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA, the peer-review privilege and tbe persOImel privilege, and documents that contain information protected by the attorney-client privilege. After review oftbe documents p01entially responsive to this request, Defendants have determined tbat the burden of redacting privileged information outweighs the marginal relevancy of the remaining information in the documents.

5 6 7 8 9
10

11 12 13

14
15 16
17

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 72
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATI1\G TO paper accession logs at Kern Medical Center's Pathology Department from January 1,2006 to present.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 72
Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also object to tbis request to the extent it requests information protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA, the peer-review privilege and the personnel privilege, and documents that contain information protected by the attorney-client privilege. After review of the documents potentially responsive to this rcquest, Defendants have deternlined that the burden of redacting privileged information outweighs the marginal relevancy of the remaining information in the docwnents.

18 19
20

21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28

32 DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAI::-ITIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
MTC000130

Dec 19 07 03:04p

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

p.34

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 165 of 207

1
2 3

REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 73
i\ny and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO tissu<;: disposal r<;:cords for skull-flaps from

January I, 2006 to the present.

4
5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 73
Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of docum<;:nts that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also object to this request to the extent it requests information prot<;:eted from disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA, the peer-review privilege and the personnel privilege, and documents that contain infonnation protected by the attorney-client privilege. After review of the documents potentially responsive to this request, Defendants have determined that the burden of redacting privileged information outweighs the marginal relevancy of the remaining information in the documents.

14
15 16 17

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 74
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO audits of Kern Medical Ccnler's Pathology Department by outside consultants, including but not limited to Dr. Stacey Garry, from October 24, 2000 to the present.

18
19 20 21 22 23 24

RE81'ONSE TO REOUEST NO. 74
Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests docu.ments that contain information that is confidential under HIPAA. Defendants also object to the extent that it requests documents that contain privileged peer·review information. Without waiving these objections Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007, depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants will redact confidential and privileged information as appropriate.

2S
26 27

REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 75
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Kern Medical Center laboratory personnel defections from June 14,2006 to the present, including but not limited to exit interview notes,

2S 33
DEFE0JDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPO~SES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
MTC000131

Dec 19 07 03:05p

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

p.35

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 166 of 207

1

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 75
Defendan1~

2 3 4 5 6 7

object to thi~ request on the

ground~

that it is vague. Defendants do not knO\~

what "personnel defections" means. If Plaintiff intends to request a list of employees who have separaled from Counly employment or transferred out of the pathology laboratory. Defendants can prepare such a list but Defendants believe such a list will need to be redacted to remove confidential personnel information. Defendants will produce a list of employees who have separated from County employment or transferred out of the laboratory by December 21, 2007,

& depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs, and will redact the confidential 9 10 II 12 13 14 IS 16 17 1& 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 information as appropriate. REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 76 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO dictation transcription logs for Plaintiff from June 14,2006 to the present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 76 Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007, depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants will redact privileged information, if any, as appropriate. REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NQ. 77 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO dictation transcription logs for Dr. Philip Dutt from June 14, 2006 to the present.
RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 77

Defendants will prodnce all documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007, depending on receipt ofreimbursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants will redact privileged information, if any, as appropriate. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 78 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO placental evaluations conducted by Pl ai ntitf from June 14, 2006 to the present.

28
34

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAI.'JTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

MTC000132

Dec 19 07 03:05p

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

p,36

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 167 of 207

RESPONSE TO REQUEST i'i0. 78 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25

Plaintiff has attempted to narrow this request but the revised request is broader, more burdensome and less calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence than the original request. Defendants object to this request because it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and is burdensome. Defendants object to this reques1 on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also object to this request to the extent it requests information protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA, the peer-review privilege and the personnel privilege, and documents that contain information protected by the attorney-client privilege. After review of the documents potentially responsive to this request, Defendants have determined that the burden of redacting privileged information outweighs the marginal relevancy of the remaining information in the documents, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION :\f0. 79 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATL'lG TO Golden Empire Pathology Associates. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 79 After diligent search, Defendants have not been able to locate any documents responsive to this request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 80 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Golden Empire Medical Group, RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 80 After diligent search, Defendants have not been able to locate any documents responsive to this reguest. Dated: December 19, 2007 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER

26
27

By:,~Z-4£~_OLP~~~"'==-

-----1

'Mark A. Wasser Attorncy for Defendants, County of Kern, et aI.

28
35

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAIKTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

MTC000133

Dec 19 07 03:06p

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

p.37

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 168 of 207

1 Mark A. Wasser CA SB #060160 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER 2 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 11 00 Sacramento, CA 95814 3 Phone: (916) 444-6400 Fax: (916) 444-6405 4 E-mail: mwassertg)markwasser.com
5 Bernard C. Barmann, Sr. KERN COUNTY COUNSEL Mark Nations, Chief Deputy 6 1115 Truxtun Avenue, Fourth Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 7 Phone: (661) 868-3800 Fax: (661) 868-3805 8 E-mail: mnations@co.kern.ca.us

Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern, 10 Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher, Jennifer Abraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smith II and William Roy

9

12
13
14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.
16 Plaintiff, vs.

~

Case No.: 1:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG

17

18 COUNTY 0 F KERN, et aI.,

) 20 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - )

19

Defendants.

~ ~ ~ )

PROOF OF SERVICE

21 22 23 24
25

26 27

28
PROOF OF SERVICE
MTC000134

Dec 19 07 03:06p

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

p.38

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
1 2 I, Amy Remly, declare:

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 169 of 207

I am a resident of the State of California and over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action; my business address is 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100, Sacramento, CA 95814. On 3 December 19, 2007, 1 served the within documents: Defendants' Snpplemental Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents (Set One).

4
5 6

by transmitting via facsimile from (916) 444-6405 the above listed document(s) without error to the fax number(s) set forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m. A copy of the transmittal/confirmation sheet is attached, and

7 8 9
10

o

by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Sacramento, California addressed as set forth below. by causing personal delivery by of the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the address (es) set forth below. by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed Federal Express Overnight Delivery envelope and affixing a pre-paid air bill, and causing the envelope to be delivered to a Overnight Delivery Federal Express agent for delivery at the address set forth below. Eugene Lee Law Offices of Eugene Lee 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100 Los Angeles, California 90013-1010 Facsimile: (213) 596-0487

o

11
12 13 14 15

I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for 16 mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the u.s. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. 1 am aware that on motion of the party 17 served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one 18 day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. 19 20 21 22 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califomia that the above is true and correct. Executed on December 19, 2007, at Sacramento, California.
AMY REM1(1'

()
'(

Uv'N'V-\ 'h,\[Y\J0'v\

~

23
24 25 26 27 28
-2PROOF OF SERVICE
MTC000135

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 170 of 207

EXHIBIT 16. Meet and confer letter faxed by Defendants’ to Plaintiff’s attorney, 12/19/07

MTC000136

Dec 19 07 02:24p

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

p.1

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100 Sacramento, California 95814 Office: 916-444-6400 Fax: 916-444-6405

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 171 of 207

The Law Offices of Mark A. Wasser

Fax
To:
Fax:

Eugene Lee
(213) 596-0487

From: Mark Wasser
Pages: 4 (including cover page)
Date:

Phone: (213) 992-3299 Re:

December 19,2007

Jadwin v. County ofKem

cc:
0 Please Reply 0 Please Recycle

o Urgent

o For Review

0 Please Comment

• Comments; Please see attached letter.

MTC000137

Dec 19 07 02:24p

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

p.2

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

MARKA. WASSER
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100
Sacramento, California 95814

Law Offices of Document 83 Filed 01/09/2008

Page 172 of 207

Office: 916-444·6400 Fax; 916-444-6405
mwasser@markwasser.com

December 19, 2007

VIA FACSIMILE AND FIRST CLASS MAIL

Eugene Lee Law Offices of Eugene Lee 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100 Los Angeles, California 90013-1010

Re: Jadwin v. County ofKern, et af.

Dear Gene: This is to follow up on our recent telephone conversations and e-mails regarding the Defendants' continuing efforts to respond to your request for production of documents. You are correct that we did not raise the issue of costs earlier. I was remiss in not raising it earlier and it needs to be raised now. You are also correct that you produced documents as part of the initial disclosures. Although the Defendants ultimately produced many more documents that you did, the County is willing to defer recovery of those costs until the case is resolved. They can be claimed in a cost bill. However, the copy charges incurred in responding to your request for production are substantial and cannot be deferred, The first installment of the Defendants' response consisted of 12,500 pages and your copy cost $1765.00 (12,500 X .14 + 15.00 for the CD). The 14 cents per page charge was for one electronic copy and Bates numbering. Our copy was an additional cost. The number I included in my e-mail to you a couple of days ago was for the entire reproduction and does not represent an amount you should pay. The second installment, which we are preparing now. 'Will be larger than the first. Our copy service has estimated that one electronic copy with Bates numbering will cost about $2,000. The actual cost may be more or less. Please send me a check for $3,765 to cover the cost of the first installment and the estimated cost of the second. If the actual cost of the second installment is less than $2,000, we will refund the surplus to you. If it is more, we will send you a request for the difference. I am glad you recognize the Defendants' right to reimbursement for these costs. Case authority, as you know, is

Admitted to P(actice in California and Nevada

MTC000138

Dec 19 07 02:25p

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

p.3

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Eugene Lee December 19,2007 Page 2

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 173 of 207

clear. Dr. Jadwin has the same right and, were it not for the fact that the County seems to have the bulk of the documents in the case, I am sure Dr. Jadwin would have demanded reimbursement long before your e-mail Monday morning. On the subject of copies at depositions, it has been my practice to supply three copies of any documents that will be marked as exhibits at a deposition as a courtesy to opposing counsel. That is part of the cost of taking a deposition. If you intend to start "billing" the Defendants for the courtesy copy that you give me, you may dispense with my copy. I will get a copy of all the exhibits when I get my copy of the deposition transcript and I see no reason to pay for the documents twice. I will provide you with a courtesy copy of any documents I mark as exhibits at depositions I take without charge. Your statement in yesterday's e-mail that Dr. Jadv,:in "has readily agreed to narrow the document production requests on numerous occasions" requires a response because you have taken it out of context, as you have done before, in an attempt to make your position look more sympathetic than it is. Dr. Jadwin revised a few of the requests in his Request for Production in order to expedite the Defendants' response. For example, without referencing your many letters, I recall that you revised Requests Nos. 33 and 68 in an attempt to address the Defendants' objections and accelerate production. At no time did you ever suggest that the cost of the production was a concern. You may recall, in one letter or e-mail (I forget which), you even suggested how Kern Medical Center should staff the production effort and opined as to how many hours of staff time Dr. Jadwin believed the production should take. Throughout the process, you and Ms. Herrington insisted that all requested documents be produced as quickly as possible, even mentioning in a recent e-mail that you had to "resort to threats" to make Defendants work faster and harder. Do not suggest that Dr. Jadwin was willing to reduce the burden of his production demands to keep costs down. That is a fiction. You cooperated ",i.th us on the dates of our response because, given the magnitude of the task, you had no choice but you never even hinted at any interest in controlling cost. Which brings us to the last point. Many of the documents you have requested have, at most, a very tenuous connection to any issues in the case. The blood product chart copy documents are a good example. It is unclear what relevancy they have or how their production will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The County has iden1ified approximately 12,000 pages in this category. The documents consist almost entirely of patient records and will require many hours of tedious redaction to prepare them for production. The redacted documents will be of little, if any, use. The County is unwilling to incur the cost of redacting those documents. As you know, there is authority that the requesting party may be required to bear the financial burden of producing documents where the burden of production outweighs the benefits of the information to be produced. We think this is the case with regard to the blood product chart copy documents. It may be the case with other documents, as well, but the blood product chart copy documents are the most voluminous.

MTC000139

Dec 19 07 02:25p

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

pA

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Eugene Lee December 19, 2007 Page 3

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 174 of 207

We remain on track to produce the final installment of documents on December 21, asswning you can deliver a check in the amount of$3,765 before then. The check should be payable to my office. I have finished drafting a Supplemental Response and will e-mail that to you shortly. We will send a hard, service copy by mail today. Let me know if you want to discuss any of this.

Very Truly Yours,

Mark A. Wasser

cc:

Karen Bames (via facsimile)

MTC000140

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 175 of 207

EXHIBIT 17. Meet and confer emails between Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ attorney, 12/20/07

MTC000141

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Eugene D. Lee
From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Gene,

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 176 of 207

Mark Wasser [mwasser@markwasser.com] Thursday, December 20, 2007 5:29 PM elee@LOEL.com RE: The production Follow up Completed

Only one point warrants response. The documents that I described in my letter yesterday as having a tenuous relationship to the issues in the case are the approximately 12,500 pages of blood product chart copies that we are neither producing nor changing you for. I wrote that we will expect a cost-shift on the production expenses for those. The $3765 expense I quoted only covers the copies we were intending to produce. As far as authority for reimbursement for costs goes, you can start at page 11-236, section 11:1937 of the Schwarzer, Tashima and Wagstaffe handbook on federal practice. The following paragraph discusses cost-shifting. That may bear on the blood product chart copies but they are not the issue today. We are only talking about reimbursement for actual copies produced. Mark

From: Eugene D. Lee [mailto:elee@LOEL.com] Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 5:04 PM To: mwasser@markwasser.com Subject: RE: The production

Mark, Your email neglects to mention your faxed letter of yesterday. May I suggest you re-read it and the subsequent communications. The last two “different positions” are not different and reflect another misunderstanding of something I’ve written. Plaintiff’s original request for production, which was served on October 11, 2007, stated that defendants should “produce and permit the inspection and copying of documents”. I did not intend this to involve two “different positions”. If that sentence was confusing for you, my apologies. My understanding is that this is fairly standard language in a production request. Plaintiff still awaits defendants’ caselaw which, as you say, is “clear” in establishing defendants’ right to reimbursement for production and right to condition production on payment of such reimbursement. My reading of the FRCP and related caselaw establishes that defendants have no such rights. As I said before, if the caselaw truly is clear that you are right, plaintiff will be happy to reconsider its position. Otherwise, plaintiff is not willing to pay defendants nearly $4,000 in actual and “estimated” costs for documents which, according to your fax of just yesterday, “have, at most, a very tenuous connection to any issues in the case.” It is unfortunate that this dispute has arisen so late in the day. Had defendants met and conferred with plaintiff on the issue of cost reimbursement earlier than 3 days ago, perhaps this dispute could’ve been averted. Now it appears plaintiff has no choice but to file a motion to compel in order to obtain the discovery which defendants are now withholding based upon a last minute request for $4,000. Sincerely,
1

MTC000142

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Gene Lee
 

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 177 of 207

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LAW

OFFICE

OF

EUGENE
LAW

LEE

555 WEST FIFTH ST., STE. 3100 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 Tel: (213)992-3299 Fax: (213)596-0487 E - m a i l : elee@LOEL.com W e b s i t e : www.LOEL.com B l o g : www.CaLaborLaw.com  

EMPLOYMENT

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.

Califocnia Laboc &  Emplo,ment Law 0109 Background Checks What Are My Rights?

From: Mark Wasser [mailto:mwasser@markwasser.com] Decembec U, 'II' Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 4:17 PM To: elee@LOEL.com Subject: RE: The production Gene,

n ..."

'Y "'",," ..

In the last few days, you have written that you will send a check for payment as soon as we request it, that you don’t really want the copies after all and just want to inspect the originals, and that you now want the originals in your office tomorrow. By my count, that is three different positions. We were on-track to send you Bates numbered, electronic copies of all the documents tomorrow, as we have been discussing with you, in writing, for weeks. We also relied on your letter earlier in the week that you would pay the reasonable production cost. Today, you have changed your position and want original patient records and other privileged documents produced in your office tomorrow. We will not produce original patient records in your office. That would be a violation of federal law. We remain willing to produce an electronic copy of the redacted records but expect reimbursement for the reasonable copy cost. That is where things sit. If you believe a motion to compel will be more efficient and cost-effective, I suppose you should file it. It is a shame all this has apparently developed over a request for reimbursement for reasonable copy costs. Mark

From: Eugene D. Lee [mailto:elee@LOEL.com] Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 4:02 PM To: mwasser@markwasser.com Cc: 'Joan Herrington' Subject: RE: The production

Mark, I do not understand what you mean by “discussions with you on your interest in inspection.” What are you requesting? Tomorrow is the deadline for production. Plaintiff awaits production of the documents. Plaintiff will
2

MTC000143

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 83 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 178 of 207 not pay nearly $4,000 for actual and “estimated” costs which were never discussed or brought to plaintiff’s attention until just three days ago. As for objecting to the manner, time and place of production, defendants waived those objections. Since our meet and confer discussions are at an impasse and defendants will not be producing the documents, plaintiff will file a motion to compel tomorrow. Sincerely, Gene Lee
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LAW

OFFICE

OF

EUGENE
LAW

LEE

555 WEST FIFTH ST., STE. 3100 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 Tel: (213)992-3299 Fax: (213)596-0487 E - m a i l : elee@LOEL.com W e b s i t e : www.LOEL.com B l o g : www.CaLaborLaw.com  

EMPLOYMENT

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.

Califocnia Laboc &  Emplo,ment Law 0109 Background Checks What Are My Rights?

From: Mark Wasser [mailto:mwasser@markwasser.com] Decembec U, 'II' Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 3:40 PM To: elee@LOEL.com Subject: RE: The production Gene,

n ..."

'Y "'",," ..

I am satisfied, having reviewed our communications, that there was neither miscommunication nor misunderstanding between us regarding the nature of our production. It is sufficiently documented. Your suggestion, today, that we produce documents in your office tomorrow is in response to the recognition that you have to pay for the copies. We are not producing originals in your office. The originals contain thousands of patient records, among other privileged documents. The County will not violate HIPAA in such a flagrant way. We have suspended production, as I wrote earlier, pending discussions with you on your interest in inspection. Mark

From: Eugene D. Lee [mailto:elee@LOEL.com] Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 3:02 PM To: mwasser@markwasser.com Cc: 'Joan Herrington' Subject: RE: The production

Hi Mark,

3

MTC000144

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 83 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 179 of 207 As stated in our document production request, we’d like to have the original documents produced at my office by Dec. 21, 2007 for inspection and copying. Please refer to the production request if you require further details. Also, please feel free to contact me if you still require further clarification. Sincerely, Gene Lee
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LAW

OFFICE

OF

EUGENE
LAW

LEE

555 WEST FIFTH ST., STE. 3100 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 Tel: (213)992-3299 Fax: (213)596-0487 E - m a i l : elee@LOEL.com W e b s i t e : www.LOEL.com B l o g : www.CaLaborLaw.com  

EMPLOYMENT

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.

Califocnia Laboc & Emplo,ment Law 0109 Background Checks What Are My Rights? Decembec U, 'II' " ... " ,y "'oo,,".. From: Mark Wasser [mailto:mwasser@markwasser.com]

 

Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 2:55 PM To: Eugene Lee Subject: The production Gene,

The documents are in my office and we will suspend further production pending discussions with you on inspection. Let me know how you want to proceed. Mark

Law Offices of Mark A. Wasser
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100 Sacramento, California 95814 Office: 916-444-6400 Fax: 916-444-6405 E-mail: mwasser@markwasser.com

4

MTC000145

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 180 of 207

EXHIBIT 18. Meet and confer letter faxed by Plaintiff’s to Defendants’ attorney, 12/20/07

MTC000146

To: 213-596-0487

From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee

Pg 1/ 3 12/20/07 2:47 pm

(213) 992-3299
TELEPHONE

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

LAW
555

OFFICE

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

OF

Page 181 of 207 ELEE@LOEL.COM
EMAIL

E U G ENE
(213) 596-0487
FACSIMILE

L E E
WWW.LOEL.COM WEBSITE

Los

WEST FIFTH STREET SUITE 3100 ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9001 3-1 01 0

FAX
To: Fax Number: 2135960487 Pages: 3 (including cover page) Re: Jadwin/KC: MNC RFD1 From: Law Office of Eugene Lee Date: 12/20/2007 Comments:

Mark,
Please see attached.

MTC000147

To: 213-596-0487

From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee
Document 83

Pg 2/ 3 12/20/07 2:47 pm

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
(213) 992-3299

Filed 01/09/2008
OF
3100

Page 182 of 207
ELEE@LOEL.GOM E-MAIL

TELEPHONE

LAW

OFFICE
STREET, SUITE

EUGENE
(Z 1 3) 596-0487 FACSIMILE 555 WEST FIFTH

LEE
WWW.LOEL.COM
WEBSITE

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90013-1010

EUGENE D. LEE, ESQ
PRINCIPAL

JOAN E. HERRINGTON, ESQ
OF COUNSEL

December 20, 2007 VIA U.S. MAIL FIRST CLASS & FACSIMILE Mark Wasser Law Offices of Mark Wasser 400 Capitol Mall Ste 1100 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: 100011.001

Defendants Responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Production, Set One Jadwin / County of Kern, et al. (USDC EDCA NO.1 :07-cv-00026-0WW/TAG)

Dear Mark: Thank you for your fax of yesterday.

I.

PRODUCTION COST REIMBURSEMENT

I am pleased to see that you admit you did not raise the issue of costs until December 17, just four days before the December 21 document production deadline, which was itself extended from November 16, 2007.

You say "I am glad you recognize the Defendants' right to reimbursement for these costs." Plaintiff has never made any such recognition and in fact disagrees. Plaintiff is unaware ofthe basis for your statement that "Case authority, as you know, is clear". Please provide us with the case authority you refer to and plaintiff will be pleased to consider it. If it truly is "clear", plaintiff will reconsider its position.
Pursuant to FRCP Rule 34, Plaintiff's request for production, set one specifically requests defendants "produce and permit inspection and copying ofthe documents described below [at the office of plaintiff's counsel]." Defendants have acted on their own initiative in processing the document production at a cost of 14 cents per page. As you yourself admit, defendants never met and conferred with plaintiff on the cost issue until just a couple of days ago. Had defendants informed plaintiff earlier of the substantial cost involved, plaintiff would certainly have worked with defendants to suggest other less costly alternatives. As it is, plaintiff has no choice but to adhere to its original request that defendants produce the original documents for inspection and copying at the address for the Law Office of Eugene Lee by December 21,2007. Plaintiff is especially hesitant to pay defendants' requested cost reimbursement because, as you say, "Many ofthe documents you have requested have, at most, a very tenuous connection to any issues in the case", Plaintiff is an individual and, unlike the County of Kern, is not in a position to easily absorb $3,765 in document processing costs. It would be far more cost-efficient for

MTC000148

To: 213-596-0487

From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee
Document 83

Pg 3/ 3 12/20/07 2:47 pm

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 183 of 207

plaintiff to review the originals, discard the chaff, and copy only the pertinent documents at a cost that should ultimately be substantially less than defendants' requested $3,765.
II. CLARIFICATION OF SOME MISUNDERSTANDINGS

I would like to take a moment to clarifY some confusion in your fax. You say I mentioned in an email that I had to "resort to threats". The complete statement I had made was: "It is unfortunate that we must resort to threats of a motion in order to resolve this situation". Leaving out the "of a motion" could be misleading. You say "Do not suggest that Dr. Jadwin was willing to reduce the burden of his production demands to keep costs down. That is a fiction". Again, it appears there has been a misunderstanding. Here is what I had in fact written, "plaintiff has readily agreed to narrow the document production requests on numerous occasions to expedite matters for defendants." I assume you know what the term "expedite" means. I never suggested the narrowing of requests was a method to "keep costs down" because Defendant never raised the issue of costs. You and I seem to suffer these miscommunications from time to time. In the future, if you misunderstand something I write, please pick up the phone and consult me. I would welcome the opportunity to clear up any confusion so that we can avoid more misguided tirades. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions. Happy Holidays.

V~ry t~ yours,
/

! / ENED. LEE
cc: Joan Herrington, Esq. David F. Jadwin, D.O., F.C.A.P.

2
MTC000149

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 184 of 207

EXHIBIT 19. Meet and confer letter faxed by Defendants’ to Plaintiff’s attorney, 12/20/07

MTC000150

Dec 20 07 04:06p Dec 20 07 04:06p

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

p.1 p.1

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100 400 Capitol Sacramento, California 95814 Sacramento, Office: 916-444-6400 Office: Fax: 916-444-6405 916-444-6405

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 185 of 207

The Law Offices of Mark A. Wasser

Fax
To: To: Fax: Fax:

Eugene Lee (213) 596-0487

From: Mark Wasser Pages: 2 (including cover page) Date: CC:
December 20, 2007

Phone: (213) 992-3299 Re: Jadwin v. County of Kern

D Urgent

D For Review

D Please Comment

D Please Reply

D Please Recycle

• Comments: PIease see attached letter.

MTC000151

Dec 20 07 04:06p

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

p.2

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

lv1ARKA. WASSER
400 C'piro! Mall. Suite 1: 00
Sacramento, California 95814

Law Offices Document 83 of Filed 01/09/2008

Page 186 of 207

Office: 9] 6-444-6400 Fax, 916-444-6405 m.. .'. ra.sscr@m~.rkv . ,:1s.ser.com

December 20, 2007

VIA FACSIMILE

.~,,{D

FIRST CLASS MAIL

Eugene Lee Law Offices of Eugene Lee 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100 Los Angeles, California 90013 -1 010

Re: Jadwin v. County ofKern, et al.
Dear Gene: With regard to your letter of this afternoon, I do not understand the miscommunication you reference. We have already produced electronic copies of the first installment of the production. You complemented us on the "good faith" of that production and we have had several conversations with you about our production of the second instalhnent in the same way. It carne as a surprise to read, in your letter, that you really just want to inspect the documents. You have never suggested that before now. In any event, we have suspended all further production efforts and will await discussions with you regarding inspecting the documents. They are in my office.

Very Truly Yours,

Mark A. Wasser

cc:

Karen Barnes (via facsimile)

Admitted co Practice in California and Nevada

MTC000152

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 187 of 207

EXHIBIT 20. Meet and confer letter faxed by Defendants’ to Plaintiff’s attorney, 12/21/07

MTC000153

Dec 21 07 05:10p

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

p.1

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100 Sacramento, California 95814 Office: 916-444-6400

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 188 of 207

The Law Offices of Mark A. Wasser

Fax: 916-444~405

Fax
To:
Fax:

Eugene Lee

From: Mark Wasser Pages: 4 (including cover page)
Date:

(213)596-0487

Phone: (213) 992-3299 Re:
Jadwin v. County of Kern

December 21, 2007

CC:

o Urgent
• Comments:

o For Review

0 Please Comment

0 Please Reply

0 Please Recycle

Please see attached letter.

MTC000154

Dec 21 07 05:10p

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

p.2

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

MARKA. WASSER
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100
Sacramento) Californi::;. 95814
mwasser@marlo:liasser.com

Law Offices Document 83 of Filed 01/09/2008

Page 189 of 207

Office: 916-444-6400 Fax: 916-444-6405

December 21, 2007

VIA FACSIMILE ONLY
Eugene Lee Law Offices of Eugene Lee 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100 Los Angeles, California 90013-1010

Re: Jadwin v. County ofKern, et ai.
Dear Gene: Our copy service has delivered a CD to us that contains electronic, Bates numbered copies of the documents we are producing in the second installment of our production. We also have an invoice for $1,167, which represents the cost of preparing one set of copies for you. This amount is not an estimate. It is the actual cost incurred. Upon receipt of payment in the amount of $2,932, to cover the copy cost of this installment and the first one ($1,167 + $1,765 = $2,932; I am enclosing copies of both invoices for your reference.), we will FedEx the CD to you. That will conclude our produJtion of all documents in response to your Request for Production. If you want to discus~ the 12,500 pages of blood product chart copy reports and patient records, let me know. We are not producing them for the reasons I have explained in my previous emails and letters.
I

Let me know if you have any questions.

Very Truly Yours,

Mark A. Wasser

cc:

Karen Barnes (via facsimile)

Admitted to Practice in California and Nevada

MTC000155

Dec 21 07 05:10p

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

p.3

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 190 of 207

INVOICE
INVOICE #

DATE
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 690 Sacramento, CA 95814 Tel (916) 444-1414 Fax (916) 444-1011

12/21/2007

39724

E3ILL TO

YOUR BIL.L.ING REFERENCE

Mark Wasser 400 Capitol MaJI, 11th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
Attn:

Jadwin v. County of Kern

Mark Wasser

TERMS

DUE DATE

DELIVERY DATe;

Net 10
QUANTITY

12/31/2007
RATE

12/21/2007
AMOUNT

DESCRIPTION

7,635 Scan Documents 8NV to PDF 7,635 Electronic Bates Numbering Documents
1 Burn CD CA Sales Tax

0.12

916.20T 152.70T 15.00T
84.00

0.02 15.00
7.75%

$1,167.90
Federal Tax 10 No. 94-33B3741

IPlease Reference Invoice No. with Payment

MTC000156

Dec 21 07 05:11 p

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

pA

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 191 of 207

INVOICE
INVOICE #

~IlDFESS IONI\l

COpy & PRINT SERVICES

DATE
11f30/2007

400 Capitol Mall, Suite 690 Sacramento, CA 95814 Tel (916) 444-1414 Fax (916) 444-1011
BILL TO

39400

YOUR BILLING REFERENCE

Mark Wasser 400 Capitol Mall, 11th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814
Attn:

Jadwin v. County of Kern Response to Plaintiffs First Request for Production

Amy

TERMS

DUE DATE

DELIVERY DATE

Net 10
QUANTITY DESCRIPTION

12/1012007

11/30f2D07 AMOUNT

RATE

12,506 Scan Documents 8fW Tiff- Summation/OCR Format 12,506 Electronic Bates Numbering Documents 12,506 Digital Prints from DiskJEmail (B&W)

0.14

1,750.84T 250. '12T 1,250.60T

0.02
0.10

1 Burn CD
1 Copy DVD CA Sales Tax

15.00
35.00

15.00T
35.00T 255.87

7.75%

$3,557.43
Federal Tax 10 No. 94-3383741
I Please Reference Invoice No.

with Payment

MTC000157

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 192 of 207

EXHIBIT 21. Meet and confer emails between Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ attorney, 12/31/07

MTC000158

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Eugene D. Lee
From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status:

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 193 of 207

Eugene D. Lee [elee@LOEL.com] Monday, December 31, 2007 5:25 PM 'mwasser@markwasser.com' 'Joan Herrington' RE: Jadwin/KC: Deposition of Dr. Jadwin Follow up Completed

Mark, Your understanding and our understanding of what was agreed to are in conflict. That’s what I would call a “misunderstanding”. Saying that “there was no misunderstanding” and then to follow that by saying “the misunderstanding had to do with your and Ms. Herrington’s decision…” (besides being contradictory) is just your way of saying “I’m right and you two are wrong”. Our recollection is that we DID discuss the creation of a common set of deposition exhibits for everyone’s use. Just because you claim your recollection to be the definitive one doesn’t make it so. Joan and I recollect differently what was said. The second production was due on December 21, 2007. You were supposed to produce the privilege log then as well. The fact that we are now having a motion dispute over that production does not excuse your obligation to provide us with the final privilege log. I assume you aren’t asking us to pay you for the copy costs associated with printing out the privilege log, correct? We will address this refusal to give us a privilege log in our motion to compel. As for my sending emails to you, I only do so as a means of confirming our oral communications. There appear to be a lot of “misunderstandings” whenever we speak so I feel it is necessary to try to combat that by following up our calls in writing. Sincerely, Gene Lee
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LAW

OFFICE

OF

EUGENE
LAW

LEE

555 WEST FIFTH ST., STE. 3100 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 Tel: (213)992-3299 Fax: (213)596-0487 E - m a i l : elee@LOEL.com W e b s i t e : www.LOEL.com B l o g : www.CaLaborLaw.com  

EMPLOYMENT

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.

Califocnia Laboc & Emplo,ment Law Bl09 The Real Meaning of the Holidays O•••mb.c 25, 'II' From: Mark Wasser [mailto:mwasser@markwasser.com]

 

Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 5:00 PM To: elee@LOEL.com Subject: RE: Jadwin/KC: Deposition of Dr. Jadwin
1

" . " " ,y "'''"'"''

MTC000159

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Gene,

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 194 of 207

It requires some diligence to keep us on the same page. There was no misunderstanding about our agreement to prepare a common set of deposition exhibits for everyone’s use and I very clearly and repeatedly told you so. We are having the reporter sequentially number all deposition exhibits and put them in a binder for that reason. The misunderstanding had to do with your and Ms. Herrington’s decision to copy all the documents produced in the initial disclosures, put them in binders, tab them and treat THEM as the common set of deposition exhibits. We never discussed that and I see no reason to do that. Now that I understand that is what you are propose to do, I will think about how useful it will be and let you know about paying for one set of the binders. At present, I see no advantage to it. I have no interest in marking all the documents produced at the initial disclosures as deposition exhibits. We have already produced the privilege log and will supplement it to reflect the second production. My reference to our position “evolving” was in the context of Royce Johnson’s personnel file. I told you I have learned of new documents I have not yet seen on Friday. Whether they change our position remains to be seen. I will let you know. I also told you that KMC continues to find documents and send them to me. Some of those may need to be produced. I don’t know yet because I have not seen them. I do not recall saying that I intend to examine Dr. Jadwin on “thousands of documents.” I do not. I will examine him on some documents, maybe dozens, but far less than “thousands.” I am not aware of “thousands” of documents that even interest me in this case. If our past history is any indicator of the future, you will now send me an e-mail thanking me for promising to not ask Dr. Jadwin questions about more than a dozen documents. ☺ Mark

From: Eugene D. Lee [mailto:elee@LOEL.com] Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 4:33 PM To: mwasser@markwasser.com Cc: 'Joan Herrington' Subject: RE: Jadwin/KC: Deposition of Dr. Jadwin

Mark, I think the talk was useful in that at least it established that there was misunderstanding between the parties as to the deposition exhibits that plaintiff was preparing for everyone’s use. I agree we should review the transcript because my co-counsel, Joan Herrington, and I had understood that plaintiff was preparing a set of common deposition exhibits for the use of each party at all depositions, which is why we were asking for defendants to pay for a portion of the costs. You say your understanding was different. In any case, the call also established that there is no misunderstanding regarding numerous other issues which are the subject of plaintiff’s motion to compel. For instance, plaintiff’s review of the caselaw shows that responding party, not requesting party, should bear the costs of copying responsive discovery documents, and that responding party is not permitted to withhold document production pending a demand for reimbursement of copying costs. I’ll look for the caselaw, but I can’t name them off the top of my head. Also, as I had mentioned, defendants were supposed to produce a privilege log to plaintiff but never did. Contrary to what you said on the call, production of the privilege log should not be made contingent on actual production of the documents. I had mentioned to you numerous other issues: 1) defendants’ continued use of an overbroad objection referring generally to “federal and state law”, 2) defendants raising of numerous additional objections which had not
2

MTC000160

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 83 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 195 of 207 appeared in the initial responses and were thus waived, 3) defendants’ inappropriate citation to state privileges in a federal court involving federal question jurisdiction, 4) defendants’ refusal to produce any documents in response to numerous requests, 5) defendants’ refusal to produce any documents relating to Dr. Royce Johnson based upon the erstwhile distinction that he was only an “acting chair” and hence not a comparator for plaintiff (when in fact he had been for many many years, and continues to be, a chair in all but title only), etc. I had also mentioned to you that I am presently drafting the joint statement. You stated that defendants’ position continues to “evolve” and it’s possible defendants may change their stance on some of the above disputed issues. Plaintiff is certainly pleased to hear that, but until defendants actually commits to a change in position, plaintiff has no choice but to go ahead and observe the January 9 filing deadline for the joint statement. On a final note, your email mentions “thousands of documents” on which presumably you intend to examine Dr. Jadwin at his deposition. I would remind you of defendants’ ongoing duty under FRCP R 26 to supplement the initial disclosures on an ongoing basis. This duty is separate and apart from the discovery dispute we are having regarding plaintiff’s requests for production, set one. You should not expect to unfairly surprise plaintiff with documents at Dr. Jadwin’s deposition that you were under an ongoing duty to disclose but did not. If this scenario materializes, we intend to cease defendants’ deposition of Dr. Jadwin and immediately file a motion for protective order. Sincerely, Gene Lee
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LAW

OFFICE

OF

EUGENE
LAW

LEE

555 WEST FIFTH ST., STE. 3100 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 Tel: (213)992-3299 Fax: (213)596-0487 E - m a i l : elee@LOEL.com W e b s i t e : www.LOEL.com B l o g : www.CaLaborLaw.com  

EMPLOYMENT

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.

Califocnia Laboc &  Emplo,ment Law 0109 The Real Meaning of the Holidays o ••emb.c 25, 'II' From: Mark Wasser [mailto:mwasser@markwasser.com] " ..."

Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 3:19 PM To: elee@LOEL.com Subject: RE: Jadwin/KC: Deposition of Dr. Jadwin Gene,

,y ...oo,,"..

So, we talked, the talk was pleasant although we did not resolve much. We can review the transcript, if you want, but I do not recall any communication when you explained that you were going to copy all the initial disclosures and tab them and put them in binders and make me a set. I had no understanding that you were doing that. Now that we have discussed it, the question arises as to why we would do that with the initial disclosures and not the rest of the thousands of documents that have been produced. There is nothing special about the initial disclosures that I know of. You told me the cases do not support our request that you reimburse the copy costs. Although you did not cite any case, I will look at it further and let you know what I find.
3

MTC000161

Mark

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 196 of 207

From: Eugene D. Lee [mailto:elee@LOEL.com] Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 2:38 PM To: mwasser@markwasser.com Cc: 'Joan Herrington' Subject: RE: Jadwin/KC: Deposition of Dr. Jadwin

Mark, My view is different from yours. I have always understood that a phone call would clarify where written communications fail. In any case, we will be sending you the joint statement shortly. If you wish to discuss it (via written communications, per your wishes), please do not hesitate to let me know. Sincerely, Gene Lee
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LAW

OFFICE

OF

EUGENE
LAW

LEE

555 WEST FIFTH ST., STE. 3100 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 Tel: (213)992-3299 Fax: (213)596-0487 E - m a i l : elee@LOEL.com W e b s i t e : www.LOEL.com B l o g : www.CaLaborLaw.com  

EMPLOYMENT

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.

Califocnia Laboc &  Emplo,ment Law 0109 The Real Meaning of the Holidays Decembec 25, 'II' From: Mark Wasser [mailto:mwasser@markwasser.com] n ..." ,y "'",," ..

Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 2:23 PM To: elee@LOEL.com Subject: RE: Jadwin/KC: Deposition of Dr. Jadwin Gene,

I think this issue is best left to written communications. I know what I have written to you and you do not read what I have written the same way I do. That miscommunication is enough. I do not want to risk compounding it with an oral conversation. I expect our written communications will be provided to the Court and I have written them with that in mind. I agree with you that this detour is unfortunate and a waste of time but you are the moving party. The documents remain available upon payment of the cost cost. Mark

4

MTC000162

From: Eugene D. Lee [mailto:elee@LOEL.com] Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 2:03 PM To: mwasser@markwasser.com Cc: 'Joan Herrington' Subject: RE: Jadwin/KC: Deposition of Dr. Jadwin

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 197 of 207

Mark, Regarding accommodations for Dr. Jadwin at trial, I suggest we cross that bridge when the time comes. Trial is still a year off and Dr. Jadwin’s condition is subject to change. Are you claiming that the accommodations needed by Dr. Jadwin for a deposition in January 2008 will be exactly the same as those required for a trial in December 2008? I hope you will agree that we should leave those kinds of determinations to the medical professionals. As for your inability to comprehend the issue regarding the copies, please give me a call. I’ve already tried to explain the issue to you on numerous occasions in numerous ways and at this point, I think your confusion would best be remedied by a call. Also, I would kindly ask that you review your own emails to me before asking me to refresh your recollection for you as to your role in the discovery cost dispute. They will be attached to the joint statement. If you still require clarification, please give me a call. I would be happy to try to explain the content of your emails to you. Sincerely, Gene Lee
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LAW

OFFICE

OF

EUGENE
LAW

LEE

555 WEST FIFTH ST., STE. 3100 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 Tel: (213)992-3299 Fax: (213)596-0487 E - m a i l : elee@LOEL.com W e b s i t e : www.LOEL.com B l o g : www.CaLaborLaw.com  

EMPLOYMENT

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.

Califocnia Laboc &  Emplo,ment Law Bl09 The Real Meaning of the Holidays O•••mb.c 25, 'II' From: Mark Wasser [mailto:mwasser@markwasser.com]

Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 1:23 PM To: elee@LOEL.com Subject: RE: Jadwin/KC: Deposition of Dr. Jadwin Gene,

" . " " ,y "'''"'"''

Be sure you ask Dr. Jadwin’s treating physician to address the accommodations that will be necessary when he testifies in court. I know you won’t request accommodations in his deposition that you won’t also be requesting from Judge Wanger at trial. I expect Dr. Jadwin’s trial testimony will last more than one day, so we should discuss that, as well. The last part of your message does not make sense to me as I understand we are having a common set of deposition exhibits with a consistent numbering system. Have you changed that? Perhaps you can explain what you mean. Also, I do not recall creating a dispute about discovery costs. Clarification on that will be helpful, too. Mark
5

MTC000163

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 198 of 207

From: Eugene D. Lee [mailto:elee@LOEL.com] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 6:15 PM To: mwasser@markwasser.com Cc: 'Joan Herrington' Subject: RE: Jadwin/KC: Deposition of Dr. Jadwin

Mark, Thank you for your email. I do not recollect Dr. Jadwin behaving in anything close to the manner you describe. We can get a declaration from the court reporter, if you wish. Also, unless you have a background in disabling depression and its symptoms, I would submit that your clinical observations are in any event irrelevant. I happened to notice you and Ms. Barnes dozing off from time to time during the depositions; perhaps that might explain the discrepancies in your recollection. At other times, you were nearly supine in your chair as you stretched your feet under the table toward the deponent during testimony; perhaps as a result you didn’t have a good vantage point to notice what Dr. Jadwin was doing. I recommend we wait and see what restrictions Dr. Jadwin’s treating psychiatrist prescribes and then we can discuss reasonable accommodations. I just wanted to give you the courtesy of advance notice. I assume you are just as interested as we are in ensuring Dr. Jadwin’s best testimony. Regarding the copies of deposition exhibits, we had agreed to create a single common set of deposition exhibits (comprised of all Rule 26 Initial Disclosures in chronological order) for the use of BOTH plaintiff and defendants, i.e., you would have had the use of this set for your deposition of Dr. Jadwin and any other depositions you choose to conduct in the future. This way, we could’ve ensured a consistent exhibit numbering system and easily avoided duplicates of exhibits, not to mention made things more efficient for all future depositions for all parties. However, you changed your mind about bearing a portion of the photocopy cost (which does not even account for the time spent by plaintiff to create the set, work with Kinko’s and proof it) and decided to turn it into a broader dispute about discovery costs. That’s too bad – I fail to see how this has benefitted anybody. In any case, no hard feelings. I hope you have a good weekend. Sincerely, Gene Lee
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LAW

OFFICE

OF

EUGENE
LAW

LEE

555 WEST FIFTH ST., STE. 3100 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 Tel: (213)992-3299 Fax: (213)596-0487 E - m a i l : elee@LOEL.com W e b s i t e : www.LOEL.com B l o g : www.CaLaborLaw.com  

EMPLOYMENT

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.
6

MTC000164

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 199 of 207

Califocnia Laboc &  Emplo,ment Law 0109 The Real Meaning of the Holidays Decembec 25, 'II' From: Mark Wasser [mailto:mwasser@markwasser.com] " ..."

Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 5:33 PM To: elee@LOEL.com Subject: RE: Jadwin/KC: Deposition of Dr. Jadwin Gene,

,y "'oo,,"..

With regard to Dr. Jadwin’s deposition, his disabling depression did not seem to interfere with his ability to sit through 10 hours of back-to-back depositions in one day that exhausted the reporter a few weeks ago. In fact, he remained quite animated all day as he worked his laptop computer with you. He even left in the middle of one deposition to attend to other business. I am confident we can work something out to allow him to cope with his disabling depression in his deposition. I will not go past 5:00 and we can take more and longer breaks. We will not be going into the evening hours as you did. We will do our best to help him through it. With regard to the cost of deposition exhibits, we will be pleased to reimburse each other for all copies. Wanting us to pay your copy costs while balking at paying ours is not particularly consistent. Let us know what your position on copy costs is going to be. Mark

From: Eugene D. Lee [mailto:elee@LOEL.com] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 5:12 PM To: mwasser@markwasser.com Cc: 'Joan Herrington' Subject: Jadwin/KC: Deposition of Dr. Jadwin

Mark: With Dr. Jadwin’s deposition coming up, I need to discuss a couple of things with you. As you know, Dr. Jadwin has disabling depression for which he continues to receive medication and treatment. He is consulting his treating psychiatrist but it appears he may have difficulty sitting through more than 3 or 4 hours of deposition in a single day. We will let you know what his psychiatrist determines. If we can’t finish it this time around, it may be necessary as a reasonable accommodation to resume his deposition at a time in the near future. Also, as you know, we have already prepared a set of deposition exhibits that originally had been intended for the use of all parties (but you refused to pay any of the associated cost). Please note that our exhibits run from exhibit no. 27 to exhibit no. 558. Please begin the numbering of your deposition exhibits for the Dr. Jadwin deposition at exhibit no. 559. If you have any questions, please let me know. Otherwise, I hope you have a good weekend. Sincerely, Gene Lee
 
7

MTC000165

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008
LAW

Page 200 of 207

LAW

OFFICE

OF

EUGENE

LEE

EMPLOYMENT

555 WEST FIFTH ST., STE. 3100 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 Tel: (213)992-3299 Fax: (213)596-0487 E - m a i l : elee@LOEL.com W e b s i t e : www.LOEL.com B l o g : www.CaLaborLaw.com  

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.

Califocnia Laboc &  Emplo,ment Law 0109 The Real Meaning of the Holidays Decembec 25, 'II' n ..." ,y "'",," ..

8

MTC000166

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 201 of 207

EXHIBIT 22. Meet and confer emails between Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ attorney, 1/2/08

MTC000167

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Eugene D. Lee
From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status:

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 202 of 207

Eugene D. Lee [elee@LOEL.com] Wednesday, January 02, 2008 3:53 PM 'mwasser@markwasser.com' 'Joan Herrington' RE: Jadwin/KC: Deposition of Dr. Jadwin Follow up Flagged

Mark, I’m glad to see that you admit that my December 28 email had slipped your mind. But now you say, definitively, “That was the first time”. Again, my recollection is different. We had mentioned the initial disclosures as “common exhibits” to you several times both during the depositions and afterwards. It appears these other instances have slipped your mind as well. As for your confusion about “nondisclosure” of documents, I refer you to FRCP Rule 26 and its attendant caselaw. If you still remain confused about what Rule 26 and its ongoing duty to supplement entails, please feel free to give me a call and I will do my best to explain the issue to you. Given the way in which our written communications tend to get bogged down in mis-recollections of events, I believe a call would be more efficient. My cell is 213-4531781, please call me any time. Sincerely, Gene Lee
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LAW

OFFICE

OF

EUGENE
LAW

LEE

555 WEST FIFTH ST., STE. 3100 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 Tel: (213)992-3299 Fax: (213)596-0487 E - m a i l : elee@LOEL.com W e b s i t e : www.LOEL.com B l o g : www.CaLaborLaw.com  

EMPLOYMENT

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.

     

Califocnia Laboc &  Emplo,ment Law 0109 The Real Meaning of the Holidays Decembec 25, 'II' " ..."

,y "'oo,,"..

From: Mark Wasser [mailto:mwasser@markwasser.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 3:35 PM To: elee@LOEL.com Subject: RE: Jadwin/KC: Deposition of Dr. Jadwin Gene,
1

MTC000168

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 203 of 207

My mistake, you did mention using the initial disclosures as “common exhibits” on December 28. That was the first time. The issue remains that you did not inform me of your decision to use them earlier. When you write that “it is only natural that we had discussed them,” you lose me. Why is that only natural? The fact is, we did not discuss using the initial disclosures as a common set of exhibits. I am tired of this topic and will not go round and round with you on it any more. It is pointless. As I recall, the discussion originated in your request that I pay for one set of binders. I still do not see their utility. The rest of your message, about the “nondisclosure” of documents to Dr. Jadwin, loses me, again. I have no idea what you are referring to. Mark

From: Eugene D. Lee [mailto:elee@LOEL.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 12:25 PM To: mwasser@markwasser.com Cc: 'Joan Herrington' Subject: RE: Jadwin/KC: Deposition of Dr. Jadwin

Mark, Your email states: “At no point before our communications on Monday did either you or Ms. Herrington ever disclose that you had decided to mark all the documents produced at the initial disclosures as deposition exhibits.” By Monday, I assume you are referring to last Monday, December 31, 2007. As has so often been the case, regrettably, your recollections are flawed. I refer you to my email to you of December 28, 2007, where I stated: “Regarding the copies of deposition exhibits, we had agreed to create a single common set of deposition exhibits (comprised of all Rule 26 Initial Disclosures in chronological order) for the use of BOTH plaintiff and defendants, i.e., you would have had the use of this set for your deposition of Dr. Jadwin and any other depositions you choose to conduct in the future.” We had also discussed the above at the last set of depositions and on the phone afterwards. But perhaps you don’t recollect that either. I would also remind you that Rule 26 requires that the parties produce to each other all documents which are relevant to any claims or defenses in the action. Rule 26 also imposes on all parties a continuing duty to supplement their Initial Disclosures. Assuming defendants have complied with Rule 26, it’s only natural that we had discussed and agreed to turn the Initial Disclosures into a common set of deposition exhibits. You say you now disagree. May I ask what documents you intend to examine Dr. Jadwin on at his deposition outside of the Initial Disclosures and whether they have been disclosed to plaintiff as required by Rule 26? If they have not been disclosed, plaintiff intends to file a motion for protective order to ensure Dr. Jadwin is not unfairly surprised at his deposition. I had already mentioned this nondisclosure issue in a previous email, but I remind you again given the difficulties we are having with your ability to comprehend sentences and recollect events accurately. Sincerely, Gene Lee
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LAW

OFFICE

OF
2

EUGENE

LEE
MTC000169

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG M P L O Y M E83 T Filed 01/09/2008 Document N E LAW
555 WEST FIFTH ST., STE. 3100 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 Tel: (213)992-3299 Fax: (213)596-0487 E - m a i l : elee@LOEL.com W e b s i t e : www.LOEL.com B l o g : www.CaLaborLaw.com  

Page 204 of 207

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.

     

Califocnia Laboc &  Emplo,ment Law 0109 The Real Meaning of the Holidays o ••emb.c 25, 'II' " ..."

,y ...oo,,"..

From: Mark Wasser [mailto:mwasser@markwasser.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 9:39 AM To: elee@LOEL.com Subject: RE: Jadwin/KC: Deposition of Dr. Jadwin Gene, Why is it so hard to communicate with you? You write in this message, again, that you and Ms. Herrington recall that “we

DID discuss the creation of a common set of deposition exhibits for everyone’s use.” Yes. I know. I agree. There is no disagreement over that. Why do you insist on restating that which we agree on? The disagreement is over your undisclosed decision to make the initial disclosures the common set of exhibits. That is the issue. We have exchanged several e-mails about this and spoken about it but you still do not seem to get it. No one is disputing the wisdom of making a common set of exhibits. The issue is your decision to use the documents produced at the initial disclosures as the common set. I don’t know how to write that more clearly. As I wrote on Monday, I see no utility to marking all the initial disclosures as deposition exhibits. Why does that seem like a good idea? Perhaps you can explain that. Our agreement was to have the reporter prepare a binder with the sequentially marked deposition exhibits. That is the “common set.” She has done that. That is what we agreed to. At no point before our communications on Monday did either you or Ms. Herrington ever disclose that you had decided to mark all the documents produced at the initial disclosures as deposition exhibits. If you can refer to me to any communication where you did, please do so. Mark

MTC000170

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 205 of 207

EXHIBIT 23. Meet and confer emails between Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ attorney, 1/4/08

MTC000171

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Eugene D. Lee
From: Sent: To: Subject: Gene,

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 206 of 207

Mark Wasser [mwasser@markwasser.com] Friday, January 04, 2008 10:00 AM elee@LOEL.com RE: Photocopy costs.

No. I am not researching this for you. I have done my research. It is your motion to compel. I presume you have authority to support your motion. If not, too bad. If so, proceed with your motion. I am satisfied with my position. Mark

From: Eugene D. Lee [mailto:elee@LOEL.com] Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 9:53 AM To: mwasser@markwasser.com Cc: 'Joan Herrington' Subject: RE: Photocopy costs.

Mark, I would appreciate the case citations. I look forward to receiving them. Sincerely, Gene Lee
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LAW

OFFICE

OF

EUGENE
LAW

LEE

555 WEST FIFTH ST., STE. 3100 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 Tel: (213)992-3299 Fax: (213)596-0487 E - m a i l : elee@LOEL.com W e b s i t e : www.LOEL.com B l o g : www.CaLaborLaw.com  

EMPLOYMENT

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.

     

Califocnia Laboc &  Emplo,ment Law 0109 Minimum Wage IS Now $8,00 per Hour Janua..... , '00'
n ..." 'Y "'",," ..

From: Mark Wasser [mailto:mwasser@markwasser.com] Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 9:30 AM To: Eugene Lee Subject: Photocopy costs. Gene,
1

MTC000172

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 83

Filed 01/09/2008

Page 207 of 207

I have found cases that say the requesting party must pay the cost of photocopying documents. I have found no cases that hold otherwise. You said you had some. If you do, give me the cites. So far, I find no support for your position. Mark

Law Offices of Mark A. Wasser
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100 Sacramento, California 95814 Office: 916-444-6400 Fax: 916-444-6405 E-mail: mwasser@markwasser.com

2

MTC000173


				
DOCUMENT INFO
Description: David F. Jadwin v. Kern County: 1:07-cv-26 in the United Stated District Court for the Eastern District of California, Fresno Division before Judge Oliver W. Wanger. This was a 2009 federal employment lawsuit that went to a bench and jury trial resulting in a unanimous verdict and significant judgment for the plaintiff employee. Issues involved violations of medical leave and disability discrimination laws, as well as 42 U.S.C. 1983 procedural due process violation. Plaintiff was represented by Eugene Lee, a Los Angeles, California employment lawyer.