Docstoc

103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration re Joint Statement

Document Sample
103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration re Joint Statement Powered By Docstoc
					Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 1 of 16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

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 Attorneys for Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF KERN, et al., Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE re: INABILITY TO SECURE COOPERATION OF DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL TO PREPARE AND EXECUTE JOINT STATEMENT re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES Date: April 28, 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 Plaintiff submits this Declaration of Eugene D. Lee pursuant to Local Rule 37-251(d) in lieu of a joint statement re discovery disagreement. I, Eugene D. Lee, declare as follows: 1. I am counsel of record for Plaintiff. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth

11 12 Defendants. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

below and I could and would competently testify thereto if called as a witness in this matter. 2. On January 2, 2008, plaintiff served Interrogatories, Set One on defendant County of

Kern. Defendant served responses on February 1 which were deficient in numerous respects. The parties met and conferred several times by phone and in writing on the interrogatories which are at issue in this motion. Defendant initially agreed to supplement its responses to the interrogatories accordingly. Defendant later changed its mind. Plaintiff was left no choice but to bring a motion to compel on the DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE re: INABILITY TO SECURE COOPERATION OF DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL TO PREPARE AND EXECUTE JOINT STATEMENT re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 1

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

Document 103

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 2 of 16

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

remaining issues. 3. Briefing regarding Plaintiff’s above-referenced contentions is contained in the draft Joint

Statement, attached hereto as Attachment A. 4. 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. On Thursday, April 17, 2008, I both mailed (via certified mail with return receipt requested) and faxed Mr. Wasser a draft version of the Joint Statement re: Discovery Disagreement (with all exhibits attached), requesting his input. I explained in the cover letter that the draft was a work in progress and remained subject to change. Attached hereto as Attachment A is a true and correct copy of the draft Joint Statement which I had prepared. 5. In my rush, I unintentionally included the draft Declaration of Inability to Secure

Cooperation of Defendants’ Counsel which I had prepared ahead of time and was future-dated to April 23 (today’s date) in the fax to defense counsel. By accusing me of making representations about defense counsel’s refusal to cooperate that were “both misleading and false”, defense counsel makes much ado over nothing. (Doc. 101, 2:5-14). A simple email exchange would have cleared up this confusion over the accidentally included document. 6. I sent the draft joint statement to Mr. Wasser by both mail and fax a full week prior to

today in the expectation that he would review it and provide comments to me via email. Most of counsels’ communications have taken the form of writing rather than phone calls, and this meet and confer over the joint statement was no exception. To date, I did not receive any response from Mr. Wasser regarding the draft Joint Statement I had sent him a week ago, other than to receive electronic notification that he had filed the Declaration of Mark A. Wasser re Inability to Prepare Joint Statement on Discovery Dispute (Doc. 101), accusing me of failing to “attempt to discuss his proposed joint statement with me”. (Doc. 101, 2:21-22). 7. Despite Mr. Wasser’s accusations to the contrary (Doc. 101, 2:15-20), I did not know that

defense counsel was unavailable to accept service of filings and documents on April 17 and 18 and never received a Notice of Unavailability to that effect. Defense counsel had told me in emails that for DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE re: INABILITY TO SECURE COOPERATION OF DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL TO PREPARE AND EXECUTE JOINT STATEMENT re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 2

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

Document 103

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 3 of 16

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

deposition scheduling purposes only he would not be able to attend full days on April 17 and 18. He never once notified me that his office, which includes his assistant Ms. Amy Remly, was not receiving faxes, emails and mail during those days. I also had no knowledge of Mr. Wasser’s speech and, frankly, fail to see its relevance. Presumably, Mr. Wasser was aware that the deadline to file the joint statement for the instant motion to compel was today and planned his time accordingly as any responsible attorney would have. 8. Mr. Wasser accuses me of not referencing his letter of March 5 in my moving papers.

(Doc. 101, 2:26-28). I had attached Mr. Wasser’s March 5 letter as Exhibit 4 in the draft I sent to Mr. Wasser a week ago. In any case, despite what Mr. Wasser insinuates, the March 5 Letter can not and does not constitute binding responses by defendant to plaintiff’s interrogatories; it is not evidence upon which plaintiff can rely. It is nothing more than part of the extensive meet and confer effort between counsel leading up to the motion. As plaintiff has repeatedly told defendants, what plaintiff wants are defendants’ responses to his interrogatories on the record, nothing more. 9. It is hard to believe that defendants are “bewildered” by this latest motion to compel.

(Doc. 101, 3:6-7). Plaintiff repeatedly told defendants verbally and in written meet and confer that plaintiff would be filing a motion to compel. In my email to Mr. Wasser of March 5, 2008, I wrote: “I explained [to you] that Plaintiff intends to immediately file a motion to compel regarding any unresolved requests for production and/or interrogatories.” (See Exhibit 4 attached hereto). To date, defendants have failed to fully respond to plaintiff’s interrogatories. Hence, more than a month later, plaintiff is bringing this motion. 10. Mr. Wasser claims plaintiff has served 91 interrogatories on defendants. (Doc. 101, 3:9-

13). As I have explained at great length to Mr. Wasser already, subparts do NOT count as separate interrogatories under Rule 33 unless they are so logically discrete from the main inquiry as to constitute a separate interrogatory. Still Mr. Wasser, true to form, continues to count the subparts to plaintiff’s interrogatories so as to insinuate plaintiff has been abusive with its “91 interrogatories”. 11. Plaintiff agrees that the parties are presently negotiating a stipulation and order to limit

plaintiff’s interrogatories, deem documents business records and authenticated, etc. Assuming the DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE re: INABILITY TO SECURE COOPERATION OF DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL TO PREPARE AND EXECUTE JOINT STATEMENT re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 3

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

Document 103

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 4 of 16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

negotiations are successful and the parties reach an agreement, the parties will be filing the stipulation and order with the Court shortly. Defendants have also agreed to stipulate to leave for plaintiff to file a supplemented complaint. Assuming defendants remain true to their word, the parties will be filing this shortly as well.

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: April 23, 2008 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 re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 4 /s/ Eugene D. Lee EUGENE D. LEE Declarant

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

Document 103

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 5 of 16

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 ATTACHMENT A DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE re: INABILITY TO SECURE COOPERATION OF DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL TO PREPARE AND EXECUTE JOINT STATEMENT re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 5

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

Document 103

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 6 of 16

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

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 Attorneys for Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O. 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 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. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF KERN, et al., Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES Date: April 28, 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

20 21 Defendants. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 1

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

Document 103

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 7 of 16

1 2 3 4

This joint statement re: discovery disagreement is submitted pursuant to Local Rule 37-251(a) in advance of the April 28, 2008 hearing on Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to interrogatories and for sanctions. I. DETAILS OF THE PARTIES’ DISCOVERY CONFERENCES

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 II. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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 and regulatory violations at KMC. As a result, Plaintiff was forced to take medical and recuperative leave for disabling chronic 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, 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. JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 2 A STATEMENT OF THE NATURE OF THE CASE AND FACTUAL DISPUTES On January 2, 2008, plaintiff served Interrogatories, Set One (“Interrogatories”) on defendant County of Kern. Defendant served responses on February 1 which were deficient in numerous respects. The parties met and conferred several times by phone and in writing on the interrogatories which are at issue in this motion. Defendant initially agreed to supplement its responses to the interrogatories accordingly. Defendant later changed its mind. Plaintiff was left no choice but to bring a motion to compel.

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

Document 103

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 8 of 16

1 2 3 4 5

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 INTERROGATORY NO. 1

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A.

State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Third Affirmative Defense. DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1 The Third Affirmative Defense is a legal defense. Defendants object to it to the extent it seeks information protected under the attorney/client privilege and attorney work product privilege. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION The U.S. Supreme Court has stated in United States v. Procter, 356 U.S. 677 (U.S. 1958): Modern instruments of discovery serve a useful purpose, as we noted in Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495. They together with pretrial procedures make a trial less a game of blindman's buff and more a fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent. Only strong public policies weigh against disclosure. Id. at 682 [citations omitted][emphasis added]. Discovery in this action has been ongoing for eight months. Defendant has already completed its (four-day long) deposition of plaintiff. Tens of thousands of documents have been produced. Presumably defendant has had ample time to develop facts supporting its affirmative defenses. Defendant’s refusal to state a single fact responsive to this interrogatory despite numerous meet and confer efforts is a violation of discovery rules. Moreover, as plaintiff has already communicated to defendant several times, contention interrogatories are not objectionable on the ground that they encroach on attorney work product. See Security Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Trustmark Ins. Co. (D CT 2003) 218 FRD 29, 34; United States v. Boyce, 148 F. Supp. 2d 1069, 1086 (S.D. Cal. 2001) (“Under Rule 33(c), a party can serve an interrogatory the answer to which involves ‘an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact.’. The Government's contention interrogatories are not directed to issues of ‘pure law’ that would infringe on the attorney-work product doctrine as codified in Rule 26(b)(3). JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 3

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

Document 103

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 9 of 16

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

Rather, they seek the facts upon which the Boyces' relied for their defense to the Forms 4340. As such, the contention interrogatories were permissible and the Boyces were required to respond to them.” [citations omitted]). Defendant refuses to state a single fact. Defendant further asserts privilege objections. These objections are improper as is defendant’s refusal to respond. Rule 37 states: a party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection. This motion may be made if … (iii) a party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 33…. For purposes of this subdivision (a), an evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or respond. [emphasis added]. By failing to state a single fact in response to this interrogatory, defendant has engaged in behavior which this court is required to sanction pursuant to Rule 37. Defendant’s conduct is particularly hypocritical considering defendant showed no hesitance in asking plaintiff countless contention interrogatories at defendant’s 4-day long deposition of plaintiff. Despite the fact plaintiff has no legal training and was being placed on the spot in a videotaped deposition, plaintiff responded fully. DEFENDANT’S POSITION [INSERT HERE] B. INTERROGATORY NO. 2

19 State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Fourth Affirmative Defense. 20 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2 21 The Fourth Affirmative Defense is a legal defense. Defendants object to it to the extent it seeks 22 information protected under the attorney/client privilege and attorney work product privilege. 23 PLAINTIFF’S POSITION 24 See “Plaintiff’s Position” regarding Interrogatory No. 1 above. 25 DEFENDANT’S POSITION 26 [INSERT HERE] 27 28 JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 4

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

Document 103

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 10 of 16

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

C.

INTERROGATORY NO. 3

State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Fifth Affirmative Defense. DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3 Defendants will rely on the testimony of persons who worked with Plaintiff regarding the nature of his interpersonal communications and relationships with co-workers; his overbearing and dismissive attitude towards other members of the hospital staff; his intimidating style; his disrespectful and disagreeable interpersonal dealings, and his physical confrontations with other persons in the hospital. The Defendants will offer testimony about the efforts members of the medical staff and management made to counsel Plaintiff and his angry and dismissive responses to those efforts. Defendants will show how Plaintiff’s working relationships in the hospital steadily eroded and unraveled as a result of Plaintiff’s behavior. The testimony will be supported by letters, e-mails and other writings, all of which have been previously produced. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION The U.S. Supreme Court has stated in United States v. Procter, 356 U.S. 677 (U.S. 1958): Modern instruments of discovery serve a useful purpose, as we noted in Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495. They together with pretrial procedures make a trial less a game of blindman's buff and more a fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent. Only strong public policies weigh against disclosure. Id. at 682 [citations omitted][emphasis added]. Defendant’s response is incomplete and evasive. It is devoid of any facts and consists only of general themes. It fails to specify, among other things (i) what efforts were made to “counsel Plaintiff”, by whom, at whose direction, etc., (ii) what physical confrontations Plaintiff allegedly had with other persons and with whom, (iv) to whom plaintiff was “overbearing and dismissive”, (v) which of plaintiff’s “interpersonal dealings” were “disrespectful and disagreeable”, (vi) which of plaintiff’s “working relationships” “steadily eroded and unraveled”, with whom, and what behavior by plaintiff allegedly caused that. Discovery in this action has been ongoing for eight months. Defendant has already completed a (4-day long) deposition of plaintiff. Presumably defendant has had ample time to develop facts supporting its affirmative defenses. Defendant’s one paragraph response, devoid of any facts, is an effort to hide the ball from plaintiff and surprise plaintiff at trial. JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 5

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

Document 103

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 11 of 16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Defendant initially agreed in meet and confer to supplement its response accordingly. As has often been the case in this action, defendant changed its mind. Rule 37 states: a party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection. This motion may be made if … (iii) a party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 33…. For purposes of this subdivision (a), an evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or respond. [emphasis added]. By giving an evasive and incomplete response to this interrogatory which fails to state any facts, defendant has engaged in behavior which this court is required to sanction pursuant to Rule 37. DEFENDANT’S POSITION [INSERT HERE] D. INTERROGATORY NO. 4

12 State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Sixth Affirmative Defense. 13 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4 14 The Sixth Affirmative Defense is a legal defense. Defendants object to it to the extent it seeks 15 information protected under the attorney/client privilege and attorney work product privilege. 16 PLAINTIFF’S POSITION 17 See “Plaintiff’s Position” regarding Interrogatory No. 1 above. 18 DEFENDANT’S POSITION 19 [INSERT HERE] 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 E. INTERROGATORY NO. 5

State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Seventh Affirmative Defense. DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5 The Seventh Affirmative Defense is a legal defense. Defendants object to it to the extent it seeks information protected under the attorney/client privilege and attorney work product privilege. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION See “Plaintiff’s Position” regarding Interrogatory No. 1 above. DEFENDANT’S POSITION JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 6

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

Document 103

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 12 of 16

1 2

[INSERT HERE] F. INTERROGATORY NO. 6

3 State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Eighth Affirmative Defense. 4 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6 5 The Eighth Third Affirmative Defense is a legal defense. Defendants object to it to the extent it 6 seeks information protected under the attorney/client privilege and attorney work product privilege. 7 PLAINTIFF’S POSITION 8 See “Plaintiff’s Position” regarding Interrogatory No. 1 above. 9 DEFENDANT’S POSITION 10 [INSERT HERE] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 H. 22 IDENTIFY each DOCUMENT or portion thereof contained in PLAINTIFF's FRCP Rule 26 23 Initial Disclosures that YOU contend is privileged; state the nature of each privilege asserted; and state 24 in detail the factual bases for each such asserted privilege. 25 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 46 26 We do not understand this Interrogatory and are, consequently, unable to answer it. What is 27 privileged about the documents Plaintiff produced? 28 JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 7 INTERROGATORY NO. 46 G. INTERROGATORY NO. 7

State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Ninth Affirmative Defense. DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7 The Ninth Affirmative Defense is a legal defense. Defendants object to it to the extent it seeks information protected under the attorney/client privilege and attorney work product privilege. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION See “Plaintiff’s Position” regarding Interrogatory No. 1 above. DEFENDANT’S POSITION [INSERT HERE]

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

Document 103

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 13 of 16

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

PLAINTIFF’S POSITION Rule 37 states: a party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection. This motion may be made if … (iii) a party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 33…. For purposes of this subdivision (a), an evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or respond. [emphasis added]. After meet and confers which addressed defendant’s “confusion”, defendant still has not supplemented this evasive and incomplete response which fails to state even any objection. Plaintiff had explained to defendant several times during meet and confers that this interrogatory is intended to determine which documents in the Rule 26 Initial Disclosures will be subject to privilege-based admissibility challenges by defendant. Defendant had subsequently agreed to supplement its response. Defendant had further acknowledged at the time that the meaning of the term “IDENTIFY” as used in plaintiff’s interrogatory includes the name(s) of the author(s), name(s) of recipient(s), date of creation, date of modification, date of delivery, date of execution, effective date, subject matter, bates numbers, page numbers, paragraph numbers, line numbers and/or section numbers. To date, defendants have not carried through on their promises. This has been characteristic throughout this action. By effectively failing to respond to the interrogatory, defendant has engaged in behavior which this court is required to sanction pursuant to Rule 37. DEFENDANT’S POSITION [INSERT HERE] I. INTERROGATORY NO. 47

21 IDENTIFY each DOCUMENT or portion thereof contained in YOUR FRCP Rule 26 Initial 22 Disclosures that YOU contend is privileged; state the nature of each privilege asserted; and state in 23 detail the factual bases for each such asserted privilege. 24 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 47 25 We do not understand this Interrogatory and are, consequently, unable to answer it. What is 26 privileged about the documents Plaintiff produced? 27 PLAINTIFF’S POSITION 28 JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 8

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

Document 103

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 14 of 16

1 2 3 4

See “Plaintiff’s Position” regarding Interrogatory No. 46 above. DEFENDANT’S POSITION [INSERT HERE] J. INTERROGATORY NO. 48

5 State each and every job function which YOU contend were the essential functions of 6 PLAINTIFF'S position as Chair of Pathology at KMC. 7 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 48 8 The essential functions of Plaintiffs position are set forth in the KMC Medical Staff Bylaws at 9 page 46, section 9.7, Department Chairs; section 9.7-1, Qualifications and pages 48- 50, section 9.7-5, 10 Responsibilities and Duties of Department Chairs and Plaintiffs job description. 11 PLAINTIFF’S POSITION 12 As plaintiff repeatedly explained to defendant during meet and confer, an answer to an 13 interrogatory should be complete in itself and should not refer to the pleadings, or to depositions or other 14 documents, or to other interrogatories. See Scaife v. Boenne (N.D. Ind. 2000) 191 FRD 590, 594. 15 Moreover, it is the employer’s burden to state what the essential functions of an employee’s 16 position are. 17 Defendant initially agreed in meet and confer to supplement its response accordingly. As has 18 often been the case in this action, defendant changed its mind, necessitating this motion. 19 Rule 37 states: 20 21 22 23 By giving an evasive and incomplete response to this interrogatory which fails to state any facts, 24 defendant has engaged in behavior which this court is required to sanction pursuant to Rule 37. 25 DEFENDANT’S POSITION 26 [INSERT HERE] 27 28 JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 9 a party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection. This motion may be made if … (iii) a party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 33…. For purposes of this subdivision (a), an evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or respond. [emphasis added].

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

Document 103

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 15 of 16

1 2

IV.

CONCLUSION

The party who prevails on a motion to compel is entitled to his or her expenses, including 3 reasonable attorney fees, unless the losing party was substantially justified in making or opposing the 4 motion (or other circumstances make such an award unjust). FRCP 37(a)(5); H. K. Porter Co., Inc. v. 5 Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (6th Cir. 1976) 536 F2d 1115, 1124–1125. 6 Plaintiff has met and conferred several times with defendant by phone and in writing, clearing up 7 any “confusion” and responding to any concerns. Despite this, defendant has insisted on maintaining 8 incomplete and evasive responses which violate discovery rules. Plaintiff requests this court compel 9 defendant to fully and properly respond to the above disputed interrogatories without further delay. 10 Due to motion practice which has thus far required upwards of 5 months and counting to resolve, 11 defendant has had the benefit of lengthy delays in providing responses to plaintiff’s discovery responses. 12 With less than 3 months remaining before the discovery cutoff, time is of the essence to ensure plaintiff 13 is not further prejudiced than he already has been in this action. 14 Pursuant to Rule 37, plaintiff further seeks attorney fees in the amount of $2,000 in consideration 15 of 5 of the hours which plaintiff has spent meeting and conferring, preparing this motion and anticipates 16 spending attending the hearing on this motion. Finally, plaintiff requests whatever other sanctions this 17 court deems proper and just. 18 19 Respectfully submitted, 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 10 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 Dated: April __, 2008 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER

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

Document 103

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 16 of 16

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

Dated: April___, 2008

LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE

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

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 11

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 1 of 130

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

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 Attorneys for Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O. 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 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. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF KERN, et al., Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG EXHIBITS TO JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT re: INTERROGATORIES Date: April 28, 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

20 21 Defendants. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

EXHIBITS TO JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT re: INTERROGATORIES

1

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 2 of 130

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 EXHIBITS TO JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT re: INTERROGATORIES 2 EXHIBIT 1: Plaintiff’s Interrogatories, Set One – served 1/2/08 EXHIBIT 2: Defendant’s Responses to Interrogatories – served 2/1/08 EXHIBIT 3: Defendant’s Supplemental Responses to Interrogatories – served 3/5/08 EXHIBIT 4: Meet and confer correspondence between the parties EXHIBIT 5: Declaration of Eugene Lee in Support of Motion

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 3 of 130

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 EXHIBITS TO JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT re: INTERROGATORIES 1 EXHIBIT 1: Plaintiff’s Interrogatories, Set One – served 1/2/08

To: 213-596-0487

From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee

Pg 1/26 01/02/08 3:58 pm

(213) 992-3299
TELEPHONE

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

LAW
555

OFFICE

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008 ELEE@LOEL.COM Page 4 of 130

OF

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: 26 (including cover page) Re: Jadwin/KC: Interrogatories 1 From: Law Office of Eugene Lee Date: 01/02/2008 Comments:

Mark: Please see the attached.

To: 213-596-0487

From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee
Document 103-2

Pg 2/26 01/02/08 3:58 pm

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

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 5 of 130

1

2
3 4

Eugene D. Lee SB# 236812 LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100 Los Angeles, California 90013 Telephone: (213) 992-3299 Facsimile: (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. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

7
8
9

10
11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
v.

DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., Plaintiff,

Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT COUNTY OF KERN (SET ONE). Date Action Filed: Date Set for Trial: January 6, 2007 December 3 , 2008

COUNTY OF KERN; et aI. Defendants.

PROPOUNDING PARTY: 21 RESPONDING PARTY:
22

Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., F.C.A.P. Defendant COUNTY OF KERN One

SET NO.: 23 24

Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff David F. Jadwin requests 25 that you serve written answers to the following interrogatories under oath within thirty (30) days of 26 service hereof 27 III 28
INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT KERN COUNTY (SET ONE)

To: 213-596-0487

From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee
Document 103-2

Pg 3/26 01/02/08 3:58 pm

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

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 6 of 130

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 A.

DEFINITIONS

The term "PERSON" as used herein includes, without limitation, any natural person,

firm, entity, corporation, partnership, association, cooperative, governmental entity or agency, or any other entity. B. C. D. The term "PLAINTIFF" means plaintiff David F. Jadwin, D.O., F.C.A.P. The term "DEFENDANT" means defendant County of Kern. The term "KMC" means Kern Medical Center, a hospital owned and operated by

DEFENDANT. E. The terms "YOU" and "YOUR" as used herein include DEFENDANT and include

without limitation each predecessor and successor-in-interest, as well as any officer, agent, employee, attorney, representative of DEFENDANT and/or any other PERSONS acting under the control of DEFENDANT or on behalf of DEFENDANT. F. The term "DOCUMENT" or "DOCUMENTS" as used herein is broadly defined to

include all media on which information is recorded or stored, as well as all non-identical copies thereof including copies which bear any notes, notations or markings not found on the originals and all preliminary, intermediate, final and revised drafts of such document. This includes but is not limited to any writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, video or audio recordings, microfilm, data compilations, and electronically-stored information stored in any medium from which information can be obtained such as e-mails, internet browser bookmarks and history, voicemail messages, websites, electronic messages or bulletin boards. As used herein, the term "writings" shall include but is not limited to letters, memoranda, reports, and notes whether handwritten or otherwise recorded, whether internal or external to G.

you. Electronically-stored information should be printed for production.

The phrase "RELATING TO" as used herein includes referring to, relating to, relates to,

responding to, concerning, connected with, commenting on, in respect of, about, regarding, discussing, showing, describing, depicting, mentioning, reflecting, analyzing, comprising, constituting, evidencing, and pertaining to, whether in whole or in part. H. The term "PERSONNEL FILE" as used herein is broadly defined to include all

DOCUMENTS RELATING TO an process improvement file; employee's credentials; medical staff file,
INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT KERN COUNTY (SET ONE)

2

To: 213-596-0487

From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee
Document 103-2

Pg 4/26 01/02/08 3:58 pm

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

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 7 of 130

1

qualifications for employment, promotions, transfers, salary, raises, pension eligibility, discipline, separation or other employment action; as well as the "folder", "jacket" or other container of each such file and any attachments thereto and all files maintained by PERSONS employed by

2
3 4

you.

r.

The term "PATHOLOGY REPORT" as used herein is broadly defined to include all

5
6

DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the description of cells and tissues made by a pathologist based on microscopic evidence and lab testing and used to render a diagnosis of a disease, including but not limited to the DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the following associated items: original requisitions and attached DOCUMENTS, HBO electronic documentation logs, peer reviewer comment sheets and attached DOCUMENTS, pathology specimens listed in the clinical history, subsequent pathology specimens, operative reports for pathology specimens, progress notes made by pathology, outside pathologist reports, correspondence and contracts with outside reviewing pathologists, dictation logs from transcription, laboratory reports, surgical pathology reports, cytology reports, and bone marrow reports.

7
8
9

10
11

12
13

14
15

1.

The term "IDENTIFY" when used in connection with natural PERSONS includes the

name, address, phone number, the current or most recent position held with YOU ifthe PERSON is or was employed with YOU as ofthe date these interrogatories are answered, and the last day of the PERSON's employment with

16 17 18
19

you.

When used in connection with DOCUMENTS, the term

"IDENTIFY" includes the name(s) of the author(s), name(s) ofrecipient(s), date of creation, date of modification, date of delivery, date of execution, effective date, subject matter, bates numbers, page numbers, paragraph numbers, line numbers and/or section numbers. K.
L.

20
21
22

The terms "and" and "or" when used herein each mean "and/or". All references to the singular include the plural, and all references to the plural include

23 24
25

the singular. All references to the masculine gender include the feminine and neuter genders and viceversa.

INSTRUCTIONS

26 27 28

A.

YOU are required to answer each interrogatory separately and fully in writing under oath.

If YOU cannot answer an interrogatory in full, YOU must answer as fully as possible, specify the reason for YOUR inability to fully answer, and state any information YOU have concerning the unanswered
INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT KERN COUNTY (SET ONE)

3

To: 213-596-0487

From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee
Document 103-2

Pg 5/26 01/02/08 3:58 pm

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

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 8 of 130

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

portion.

B.

In answering an interrogatory, YOU are required to furnish not only such information as

is within YOUR own personal knowledge, but also any and all information which is in the possession of YOUR officers, agents, employees, attorneys, representatives and/or any other PERSONS acting under YOUR or their control or on YOUR or their behalf, or which is otherwise available to you. C. Whenever YOU refuse to answer any interrogatory based upon an objection, YOU are

required to (l) fully answer the interrogatory to the extent it is not objectionable, (2) meaningfully state the nature of YOUR objection, (b) meaningfully set forth each and every ground for YOUR objection, and (c) meaningfully describe the factual basis, if any, upon which YOU rely in making such objection. D.
An answer to an interrogatory should be complete in and of itself and should not refer to

the pleadings, or to depositions or other documents, or to other interrogatories. E. YOU are under a duty to supplement and/or correct these responses upon learning that

the earlier answers were in some material respect incomplete or incorrect when made or are no longer true, pursuant to Rule 26(e) ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
INTERROGATORIES

INTERROGATORY NO. 1: State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Third Affirmative Defense. INTERROGATORY NO.2: State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Fourth Affirmative Defense. INTERROGATORY NO.3: State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Fifth Affirmative Defense. INTERROGATORY NO.4: State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Sixth Affirmative Defense. INTERROGATORY NO.5: State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Seventh Affirmative Defense. INTERROGATORY NO.6: State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Eighth Affirmative Defense. INTERROGATORY NO.7:
INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT KERN COUNTY (SET ONE)

4

To: 213-596-0487

From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee
Document 103-2

Pg 6/26 01/02/08 3:58 pm

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

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 9 of 130

1 2 3 4 5
6

State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Ninth Affirmative Defense. INTERROGATORY NO.8: IDENTIFY any and all ofthe following PERSONS whom YOU contend were not employees while they worked at KMC at any time from October 24,2000 to the present; for each such PERSON, state all facts on which you base YOUR contention: a) Peter Bryan; b) Irwin Harris; c) Eugene Kercher; d) Jennifer Abraham; e) Scott Ragland;
f)

7
8
9

10
11

Toni Smith;

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

g) William Roy; h) Philip Dutt. INTERROGATORY NO.9: IDENTIFY any and all of YOUR current and former employees listed in the "WITNESSES" section (Section 1 and Appendix 1) of PLAINTIFF's FRCP Rule 26 Initial Disclosures, dated August 6, 2007. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: For each ofthe PERSONS YOU listed in the "WITNESSES" section (Section 1 and Appendix 1) of YOUR FRCP Rule 26 "Supplement to Defendants' Rule 26(a)(l) Initial Disclosures", dated September 13, 2007, state the following: a) Whether each PERSON is YOUR current employees or former employees, and ifso, their dates of employment and job titles; b) For each PERSON who is YOUR former employees, the date and reason for their separation from employment. c) For each PERSON who is YOUR former employees, whether the employee resigned, abandoned his job, was fired, was laid off, or was otherwise terminated. INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT KERN COUNTY (SET ONE)

5

To: 213-596-0487

From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee
Document 103-2

Pg 7/26 01/02/08 3:58 pm

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

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 10 of 130

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who are or were members of each ofthe following committees at KMC from October 4, 2001 to the present, their roles on each such committee, and the dates oftheir membership: a) Medical Executive Committee b) Joint Conference Committee c) Quality Management Committee d) Cancer Committee e) Second Level Peer Review Committee
f) Transfusion Committee

1 0 9 ) Executive Staff Meetings 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 INTERROGATORY NO. 12: State the dates, times and locations of each meeting held by the following committees from October 4, 2001 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 INTERROGATORY NO. 13: IDENTIFY all PERSONS to whom the Cancer Committee at KMC sent a DOCUMENT requesting such PERSONS refrain from exceeding presentation time limits at the "ONCOLOGY CONFERENCE" (as that term is used in the memo from Dr. Albert McBride to Dr. David Jadwin, dated May 9,2005 [DFJ381]) from October 4, 2001 to the present. INTERROGATORY NO. 14: IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who conducted any investigations for or on YOUR behalf into any aspect of PLAINTIFF's claims against YOU that are alleged in the Second Supplemental
INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT KERN COUNTY (SET ONE)

6

To: 213-596-0487

From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee
Document 103-2

Pg 8/26 01/02/08 3:58 pm

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

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 11 of 130

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

Complaint; state the claims each such PERSON investigated; and IDENTIFY any written reports RELATING TO said investigations that each such PERSON produced, authored or otherwise contributed to. INTERROGATORY NO. 15: IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS whom YOU contend participated in any "PEER REVIEW" (as that term is defined in the KMC Bylaws) of PLAINTIFF's work from April 15,2005 to the present, describe each such PERSON's role in the PEER REVIEW, and IDENTIFY the work and/or PATHOLOGY REPORTS each such PERSON peer reviewed. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC other than PLAINTIFF whom YOU removed or suspended from the position of Chair ofa Department at KMC since October 4, 1996; state the date and any and all reasons for each and every such removal or suspension; and describe the opportunities provided to such former or current employees to defend themselves, present evidence and/or cross-examine witnesses RELATING TO their removal or suspensIOn. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who held the position of Acting Chair of a Department at KMC since October 24, 1995; state the dates of their tenure in said position; and state any and all reasons for the end oftheir tenure in said position. INTERROGATORY NO. 18: IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS other than PLAINTIFF who took or were placed on "PERSONAL NECESSITY LEAVE" (as that term is used in Rule 1202.20 ofthe Civil Service Commission Rules for the County of Kern) in excess of one month while holding the position of Chair of a Department at KMC since October 24, 1995; state any and all reasons for each such period of PERSONAL NECESSITY LEAVE; and state the dates of each and every such period of PERSONAL NECESSITY LEAVE. INTERROGATORY NO. 19: IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC other than
INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT KERN COUNTY (SET ONE) 7

To: 213-596-0487

From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee
Document 103-2

Pg 9/26 01/02/08 3:58 pm

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

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 12 of 130

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

PLAINTIFF who were not reinstated to their same position following a period of PERSONAL NECESSITY LEAVE taken since October 24, 1995; state any and all reasons for each such nonreinstatement. INTERROGATORY NO. 20: IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC who were demoted during the pendency of, or within one month after their return to work from, a period of PERSONAL NECESSITY LEAVE taken since October 24,2005. INTERROGATORY NO. 21: IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC other than PLAINTIFF who took "SICK LEAVE" (as that term is used in the Civil Service Commission Rules for the County of Kern) in excess of one month while holding the position of Chair of a Department at KMC since October 24, 1995; and for each such PERSON state the dates of each and every such period of SICK LEAVE. INTERROGATORY NO. 22: IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC other than PLAINTIFF who were not reinstated to their same position following a period of SICK LEAVE since October 24, 1995. INTERROGATORY NO. 23: IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC who were demoted during the pendency of, or within one month after their return to work from, a period of SICK LEAVE since October 24, 1995. INTERROGATORY NO. 24: IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC other than PLAINTIFF who took leave pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act or California Family Rights Act since October 24, 1995; and state the dates of each and every such period of leave. INTERROGATORY NO. 25: IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC other than PLAINTIFF who were not reinstated to their same position following a period of leave taken pursuant to
INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT KERN COUNTY (SET ONE)

8

To: 213-596-0487

From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee
Document 103-2

Pg 10/26 01/02/08 3:58 pm

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

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 13 of 130

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

the Family and Medical Leave Act or California Family Rights Act since October 24, 1995. INTERROGATORY NO. 26: IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC who were demoted during the pendency of or within one month after their return to work from a period of leave taken pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act or California Family Rights Act since October 24, 1995. INTERROGATORY NO. 27: IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC other than PLAINTIFF who took or were placed on "ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE" (as that term is used in David Culberson's letter to PLAINTIFF, dated December 7, 2006 [DFJO 1482]) in excess of one month while holding the position of Chair ofa Department at KMC since October 24,1995; for each such PERSON state the dates of each and every such period of ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE; state whether each such period of ADMINSTRATIVE LEAVE was paid or unpaid; and state any and all reasons for each such period of ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE. INTERROGATORY NO. 28: During the period from October 24,2000 to the present, IDENTIFY any and all former members ofthe "MEDICAL STAFF" at KMC (as that term is defined in the Bylaws of KMC) other than PLAINTIFF whose employment contract with YOU was not renewed or extended; state whether the contract expired or was terminated; state the date each such contract expired or was terminated; and state any and all reasons for non-renewal or non-extension of each such contract. INTERROGATORY NO. 29: IDENTIFY any and all of YOUR former or current members of the MEDICAL STAFF other than PLAINTIFF whose employment contract was extended or renewed for a contract term ofless than five years during the period from October 24,2000 to November 16,2006. INTERROGATORY NO. 30: IDENTIFY any and all of YOUR former or current members ofthe MEDICAL STAFF whose employment contract was extended or renewed for a contract term offive or more years during the period from October 24,2000 to November 16,2006.
INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT KERN COUNTY (SET ONE)

9

To: 213-596-0487

From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee
Document 103-2

Pg 11/2601/02/08 3:58 pm

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

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 14 of 130

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

INTERROGATORY NO. 31: IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked as a staff pathologist at KMC after October 24, 2000 other than PLAINTIFF whose job description or employment contract contained a provision requiring him or her to be responsible for providing onsite shift coverage during specifically stated hours, unless otherwise assigned or excused by the department chairman. INTERROGATORY NO. 32: IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked as a staff pathologist at KMC after October 24, 2000 other than PLAINTIFF whose job description or employment contract contained a provision requiring him or her to carry a pager when on call and respond to KMC within a specific number minutes of being called. INTERROGATORY NO. 33: IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who worked as a staff pathologist at KMC after October 24, 2000 other than PLAINTIFF whose job description or employment contract contained a provision requiring him or her to perform according to productivity standards set by the department chairman, but at no time read out and report less than an average of a specified number cases per day, for "County Responsible" (which means medically indigent adults pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 17000 et seq., and adult inmates and juvenile detainees in custody in County-owned or operated detention facilities) undercompensated and uninsured patients. INTERROGATORY NO. 34: IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to solicit and/or collect "LETTERS OF DISSATISFACTION" (as that term is used in the letter from Drs. Eugene Kercher, Scott Ragland, Jennifer Abraham and Irwin Harris to PLAINTIFF, dated October 17,2005 [DFJ588]) in on or about October 12,2005; and state the date that such decision was made. INTERROGATORY NO. 35: IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the initial decision to place LETTERS OF DISSATISFACTION in PLAINTIFF'S PERSONNEL FILE on or about October 17, 2005; and state the date that decision was made. INTERROGATORY NO. 36:
INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT KERN COUNTY (SET ONE)

10

To: 213-596-0487

From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee
Document 103-2

Pg 12/26 01/02/08 3:58 pm

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

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 15 of 130

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

IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to convert PLAINTIFF's reduced work schedule leave to full-time leave on or about April 28, 2006; and state the date that decision was made. INTERROGATORY NO. 37: IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to recommend removal of PLAINTIFF from his position as Chair of Pathology at KMC in 2006; and state the date that decision was made. INTERROGATORY NO. 38: IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decisions RELATING TO each and every provision contained in the DOCUMENT entitled "Amendment NO.1 to Agreement for Professional Services" [DFJl416]; and state the date each such decision was made. INTERROGATORY NO. 39: IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to recommend reduction of PLAINTIFF's base salary in 2006; and state the date that decision was made. INTERROGATORY NO. 40: IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in calculating the amount of the reduction of PLAINTIFF's base salary in 2006. INTERROGATORY NO. 41: State the manner in which YOU calculated the amount of the reduction of PLAINTIFF's base salary in 2006; and state all factual bases on which YOU relied in support thereof. INTERROGATORY NO. 42: IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to place PLAINTIFF on administrative leave with pay on or about December 7, 2006; and state the date that decision was made. INTERROGATORY NO. 43: IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to lift the restrictions on PLAINTIFF's administrative leave (as that term is used in the letter of April 30, 2007 from Mark Wasser, DEFENDANT'S counsel [DFJ7101]); and state the date that decision was made. INTERROGATORY NO. 44:
INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT KERN COUNTY (SET ONE)

11

To: 213-596-0487

From: Law Office of Eugene Lee OFFice
Document 103-2

Pg 13/26 01/02/08 3:58 pm

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

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 16 of 130

1
2 3 4

IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to propose to PLAINTIFF
1,2007 a "BUYOUT" (as that tenn is used in the email of May 1, 2007 from Mark Wasser, DEFENDANT'S

[DFJOI482]); counsel [DFJ01482]); and state the date that decision was made.
INTERROGATORY NO. 45:

5
6 7

IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision not to renew
PLAINTIFF's employment contract with YOU; and state the date that decision was made. INTERROGATORY NO. 46:

8
9

IDENTIFY each DOCUMENT or portion thereof contained in PLAINTIFF's FRCP Rule 26
Initial Disclosures that YOU contend is privileged; state the nature of each privilege asserted; and state

lOin detail the factual bases for each such asserted privilege. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT KERN COUNTY (SET ONE)

INTERROGATORY NO. 47:

IDENTIFY each DOCUMENT or portion thereof contained in YOUR FRCP Rule 26 Initial
Disclosures that YOU contend is privileged; state the nature of each privilege asserted; and state in detail the factual bases for each such asserted privilege. INTERROGATORY NO. 48: State each and every job function which YOU contend were the essential functions of PLAINTIFF'S position as Chair of Pathology at KMC.

Date: January 2, 2008

QgeneD. Lee
LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE

555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100 Los Angeles, California 90013 Telephone: (213) 992-3299 Facsimile: (213) 596-0487 Email: elee@LOEL.com Attorneys for Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.

12

To: 213-596-0487

From: Law Office of Eugene Lee OFFice
Document 103-2

Pg 14/26 01/02/08 3:58 pm

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

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 17 of 130

1 2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, hereby declare: I am a resident of Los Angeles in the State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the action described herein. I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, California. My business address is LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE, 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100, Los Angeles, CA 90013. On the date of execution ofthis DOCUMENT, I served the following: INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT COUNTY OF KERN (SET ONE). on the following parties in this action by and through their attorneys addressed as follows: Mark A. Wasser LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100 Sacramento, CA 95814 Fax: (916) 444-6405 Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern, Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher, Jennifer Abraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smith and William Roy
~ BY UNITED STATES MAIL: I enclosed the DOCUMENT(s) listed above in a sealed envelope [2J with postage thereon fully prepaid, addressed to the PERSON(s) listed above, and deposited the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service at Los Angeles, California. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.

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

[2J ~ BY FACSIMILE: I transmitted via facsimile the DOCUMENT(s) listed above to the fax number(s) set forth above on this date before 5:00 p.rn. The outgoing facsimile machine telephone p.m. number in this office is (213) 596-0487. The facsimile service used in this office creates a transmission report for each outgoing facsimile transmitted. A copy ofthe transmission report(s) for the service of this DOCUMENT, properly issued by the facsimile service that transmitted this DOCUMENT and showing that such transmission was (transmissions were) completed without error, is attached hereto. [2J ~ FEDERAL: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe United States of America that the above is true and correct and that I took said actions at the direction of a licensed attorney authorized to practice before this Federal Court.
Executed on January 2, 2008, at Los Angeles, California.

~ V0}':U

-A~

\ Eugene D. Lee

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 18 of 130

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 EXHIBITS TO JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT re: INTERROGATORIES 2 EXHIBIT 2: Defendant’s Responses to Interrogatories – served 2/1/08

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 19 of 130

Mark Wasser [mwasser@markwasser.com] Friday, February 01, 2008 5:28 PM Eugene Lee Response to Plaintiffs Interrogatories 1.16.08 Response to Plaintiffs Interrogatories 1.16.08.doc

Here are Defendants' responses to Plaintiff's first set of interrogatories. A hard copy is in the mail. Mark

1

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 20 of 130

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 Truxtun 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 INTEROGATORIES (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 INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 21 of 130

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, consisting of answers and objections, to Plaintiff David F. Jadwin’s Interrogatories, Set One. INTERROGATORY NO. 1 State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Third Affirmative Defense. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1 The Third Affirmative Defense is a legal defense. Defendants object to it to the extent it seeks information protected under the attorney/client privilege and attorney work product privilege. INTERROGATORY NO. 2 State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Fourth Affirmative Defense. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2 The Fourth Affirmative Defense is a legal defense. Defendants object to it to the extent it seeks information protected under the attorney/client privilege and attorney work product privilege. INTERROGATORY NO. 3 State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Fifth Affirmative Defense. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3 Defendants will rely on the testimony of persons who worked with Plaintiff regarding the nature of his interpersonal communications and relationships with co-workers; his overbearing and dismissive attitude towards other members of the hospital staff; his intimidating style; his disrespectful and disagreeable interpersonal dealings, and his physical confrontations with other persons in the hospital. The Defendants will offer testimony about the efforts members of the medical staff and management made to counsel Plaintiff and his angry and dismissive responses to those efforts. Defendants will show how Plaintiff’s working relationships in the hospital steadily eroded and unraveled as a result of Plaintiff’s behavior. The testimony will be supported by letters, e-mails and other writings, all of which have been previously produced. INTERROGATORY NO. 4 State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Sixth Affirmative Defense. 2 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 22 of 130

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 INTERROGATORY NO. 4 The Sixth Affirmative Defense is a legal defense. Defendants object to it to the extent it seeks information protected under the attorney/client privilege and attorney work product privilege. INTERROGATORY NO. 5 State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Seventh Affirmative Defense. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5 The Seventh Affirmative Defense is a legal defense. Defendants object to it to the extent it seeks information protected under the attorney/client privilege and attorney work product privilege. INTERROGATORY NO. 6 State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Eighth Affirmative Defense. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6 The Eighth Third Affirmative Defense is a legal defense. Defendants object to it to the extent it seeks information protected under the attorney/client privilege and attorney work product privilege. INTERROGATORY NO. 7 State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Ninth Affirmative Defense. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7 The Ninth Affirmative Defense is a legal defense. Defendants object to it to the extent it seeks information protected under the attorney/client privilege and attorney work product privilege. INTERROGATORY NO. 8 IDENTIFY any and all of the following PERSONS whom YOU contend were not employees while they worked at KMC at any time from October 24, 2000 to present; for each such PERSON, state all facts on which you base YOUR contention: a) Peter Bryan; 3 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 23 of 130

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

b) c) d) e) f) g) h)

Irwin Harris; Eugene Kercher; Jennifer Abraham; Scott Ragland; Toni Smith; William Roy; Philip Dutt.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8 William Roy was an independent contractor who served under contract from about September 1, 2005 to about March 30, 2007. INTERROGATORY NO. 9 IDENTIFY any and all of YOUR current and former employees listed in the “WITNESSES” section (Section 1 and Appendix 1) of PLAINTIFF’s FRCP Rule 26 Initial Disclosures, dated August 6, 2007. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9 Leonard Perez, Adam Lang, Elsa Ang, Fangluo Liu, Savita Shertukde, Gilbert Martinez, Royce Johnson, Irwin Harris, Antoinette Smith, Susie Price, Evangeline Gallegos, Yolanda Figueroa, Tracy Lindsey, Catrina Manuel, Denise Rhynes, Tracy Subriar, Carol Wedding, Rae McDonald, Arlene Ramos-Aninion, Jane Thornton, Kathy Griffith, David Hill, Bernard Barmann, Marvin Kolb, Nitin Athavale, Margo Raison, Jennifer Abraham, Eugene Kercher, Scott Ragland, Jose Perez, Peter Bryan, Edward Taylor, Michelle Burris, Javad Naderi, Maureen Martin, Navin Amin, Chester Lau, Steve O’Connor, Renita Nunn, Albert McBride, Alice Hevle, Dianne McConnehey, Philip Dutt, Mary Cortez, Karen Barnes, Ronald Errera, Jordan Kaufman, Tai Yoo, Aaron Baldwin, Linda Nipper, Bonnie Quinonez, Patricia Parada, Serena SepulvedaRini, Carol Gates and Denise Long.

4 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 24 of 130

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

INTERROGATORY NO. 10 For each of the PERSONS YOU listed in the “WITNESSES” section (Section 1 and Appendix 1) of YOUR FRCP Rule 26 “Supplement to Defendants’ Rule 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures”, dated September 13, 2007, state the following: a) Whether each PERSON is YOUR current employees or former employees, and if so, their dates of employment and job titles; b) For each PERSON who is YOUR former employees, the date and reason for their separation from employment; c) For each PERSON who is YOUR former employees, whether the employee resigned, abandoned his job, was laid off, or was otherwise terminated. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10 Defendants object to this Interrogatory, to the extent it requests the dates of employment of current and former employees, on the grounds it is burdensome and oppressive and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving that objection, Defendants answer as follows: Leonard Perez (former), Adam Lang (former), Elsa Ang (former), Fangluo Liu (former), Savita Shertukde (current), Gilbert Martinez (current), Royce Johnson (current), Irwin Harris (former), Antoinette Smith (current), Susie Price (former), Evangeline Gallegos (current), Yolanda Figueroa (current), Tracy Lindsey (current), Catrina Manuel (former), Denise Rhynes (former), Tracy Subriar (current), Carol Wedding (current), Rae McDonald (current), Arlene Ramos-Aninion (current), Jane Thornton (current), Kathy Griffith (current), David Hill (former), Bernard Barmann (current), Marvin Kolb (former), Nitin Athavale (former), Margo Raison (current), Jennifer Abraham (current), Eugene Kercher (current), Scott Ragland (current), Jose Perez (former), Peter Bryan (former), Edward Taylor (current), Michelle Burris (current), Javad Naderi (current), Maureen Martin (current), Navin Amin (current), Chester Lau (former), Steve O’Connor (current), Renita Nunn (current), Albert McBride (current), Alice Hevle (current), Dianne McConnehey (current), Philip Dutt (current), Mary Cortez (current), Karen Barnes (current), Ronald Errera (current), Jordan Kaufman (current), Tai Yoo (current), Aaron Baldwin (former), Linda Nipper (former), Bonnie Quinonez 5 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 25 of 130

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

(former), Patricia Parada (current), Serena Sepulveda-Rini (former), Carol Gates (current) and Denise Long (former). Defendants object to the balance of this Interrogatory on the grounds it requests confidential personnel information about employees or former employees that is protected under California Evidence Code section 1040 and case authority. In some cases, it also requests personal medical information that is protected from disclosure under HIPAA and Defendants object on that ground, as well. INTERROGATORY NO. 11 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who are or were members of each of the following committees at KMC from October 4, 2001 to the present, their roles on each such committee, and the dates of their membership: 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 INTERROGATORY NO. 11 a) Medical Executive Committee: October 2001 – June 2002 Jose A. Perez, Jr., MD Navin Amin, MD Royce Johnson, MD James Sproul, MD Augustine Munoz, MD Soheil Etesham, MD Eugene Kercher, MD President President-Elect, Chair, Department of Family Practice Past President, Chair, Department of Medicine Member At Large Member At Large Chair, Department of Anesthesiology Chair, Department of Emergency Medicine 6 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 26 of 130

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

Parameswaran Aiylam, MD Leonard Perez, MD David Jadwin, DO Tai Yoo, MD Javad Naderi, MD Jack Bloch, MD NON-VOTING MEMBERS Peter Bryan Marvin Kolb, MD Toni Smith, RN Holly Gallagher Vipul Dev, MD A. Scott Ragland, DO July 2002 – June 2003 Navin Amin, MD Jennifer Abraham, MD Jose A. Perez, Jr., MD William Meyer, MD Augustine Munoz, MD Royce Johnson, MD Soheil Etesham, MD Eugene Kercher, MD Parameswaran Aiylam, MD Leonard Perez, MD David Jadwin, DO Tai Yoo, MD Javad Naderi, MD Maureen Martin, MD

Division Chief, Pediatrics Chair, Department of OB/GYN Chair, Department of Pathology Chair, Department of Psychiatry Chair, Department of Radiology Chair, Department of Surgery

Chief Executive Officer Chief Medical Officer Nursing Administrator County Counsel President, Resident Staff Chair, Quality Management Committee

President, Chair, Department of Family Practice President-Elect Past President Member At Large Member At Large Chair, Department of Medicine Chair, Department of Anesthesiology Chair, Department of Emergency Medicine Division Chief, Pediatrics Chair, Department of OB/GYN Chair, Department of Pathology Chair, Department of Psychiatry Chair, Department of Radiology Chair, Department of Surgery 7

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 27 of 130

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

NON-VOTING MEMBERS Peter Bryan Marvin Kolb, MD Toni Smith, RN Karen Barnes John Ngoi Amit Shah, MD A. Scott Ragland, DO July 2003 – June 2004 Jennifer Abraham, MD Eugene Kercher, MD Navin Amin, MD David Moore, MD James Sverchek, MD Royce Johnson, MD Soheil Etesham, MD Parameswaran Aiylam, MD Leonard Perez, MD David Jadwin, DO Tai Yoo, MD Javad Naderi, MD Maureen Martin, MD NON-VOTING MEMBERS Peter Bryan Marvin Kolb, MD Toni Smith, RN Karen Barnes Jose A. Perez, Jr., MD Chief Executive Officer Chief Medical Officer Nursing Administrator County Counsel Director, Medical Education 8 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES President President-Elect, Chair, Deparmtent of Emergency Medicine Past President, Chair, Department of Family Practice Member At Large Member At Large Chair, Department of Medicine Chair, Department of Anesthesiology Division Chief, Pediatrics Chair, Department of OB/GYN Chair, Department of Pathology Chair, Department of Psychiatry Chair, Department of Radiology Chair, Department of Surgery Chief Executive Officer Chief Medical Officer Nursing Administrator County Counsel Associate Director, Medical Education President, Resident Staff Chair, Quality Management Committee

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 28 of 130

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

John Ngoi Brian Penton, MD A. Scott Ragland, DO July 2004 – June 2006 Eugene Kercher, MD A. Scott Ragland, DO Jennifer Abraham, MD Navin Amin, MD David Moore, MD James Sverchek, MD Royce Johnson, MD Soheil Etesham, MD Parameswaran Aiylam, MD Leonard Perez, MD David Jadwin, DO Tai Yoo, MD Javad Naderi, MD Maureen Martin, MD NON-VOTING MEMBERS Peter Bryan Marvin Kolb, MD Irwin Harris, MD Toni Smith, RN David Hill Karen Barnes Jose A. Perez, Jr., MD John Ngoi Murali Naidu, MD

Associate Director, Medical Education President, Resident Staff Chair, Quality Management Committee

President, Chair, Deparmtent of Emergency Medicine President-Elect Past President Chair, Department of Family Practice Member At Large Member At Large Chair, Department of Medicine Chair, Department of Anesthesiology Division Chief, Pediatrics Chair, Department of OB/GYN Chair, Department of Pathology Chair, Department of Psychiatry Chair, Department of Radiology Chair, Department of Surgery

Chief Executive Officer Chief Medical Officer (until 9/2004) Chief Medical Officer (As of 7/2005) Nursing Administrator Director of Ambulatory Care (As of 9/2004) County Counsel Director, Medical Education Associate Director, Medical Education President, Resident Staff 9

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 29 of 130

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

A. Scott Ragland, DO July 2006 – December 2007 A. Scott Ragland, DO Eugene Kercher, MD Jose A. Perez, Jr., MD Jennifer Abraham, MD Navin Amin, MD Vasanthi Srinivas, MD E. William Taylor, MD Royce Johnson, MD Soheil Etesham, MD Thomas Schares, MD Parameswaran Aiylam, MD Leonard Perez, MD Robert Wallace, MD Philip Dutt, MD Tai Yoo, MD Javad Naderi, MD Maureen Martin, MD NON-VOTING MEMBERS Peter Bryan David Culberson Paul Hensler Irwin Harris, MD Toni Smith, RN David Hill Karen Barnes John Ngoi

Chair, Quality Management Committee

President Past President, Chair, Deparmtent of Emergency Medicine President-Elect (until 6/2007) President-Elect (As of 8/2007) Chair, Department of Family Practice Member At Large Member At Large Chair, Department of Medicine Chair, Department of Anesthesiology (until 6/2007) Chair, Department of Anesthesiology (until 7/2007) Division Chief, Pediatrics Chair, Department of OB/GYN (until 8/2007) Chair, Department of OB/GYN (As of 8/2007) Chair, Department of Pathology (As of 8/2006) Chair, Department of Psychiatry Chair, Department of Radiology Chair, Department of Surgery

Chief Executive Officer (until 9/2006) Interim, Chief Executive Officer (9/2006-5/2007) Chief Executive Officer (As of 5/2007) Chief Medical Officer (7/2005-9/2007) Nursing Administrator Director of Ambulatory Care (9/2004-12/2006) County Counsel Associate Director, Medical Education 10

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 30 of 130

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

Tony Hoang, MD Anthony Maldonado, MD A. Scott Ragland, DO

Co-President, Resident Staff Co-President, Resident Staff Chair, Quality Management Committee

b) Joint Conference Committee: October 2001-November 2007 Supervisor Barbara Patrick Supervisor Ken Peterson Peter Bryan, CEO Marvin Kolb, MD, CMO Toni Smith, RN Jose A. Perez, Jr., MD Navin Amin, MD Royce Johnson, MD Scotte E. Jones, CAO Alberto Diaz, CFO January 2002-October 2002 Supervisor Steve Perez Supervisor Barbara Patrick Peter Bryan, CEO Marvin Kolb, MD, CMO Toni Smith, RN Jose A. Perez, Jr., MD Navin Amin, MD Jennifer Abraham, MD Scott E. Jones, CAO Alberto Diaz, CFO January 2003-December 2003 Supervisor Pete Para 11 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 31 of 130

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

Supervisor Barbara Patrick Peter Bryan, CEO Marvin Kolb, MD, CMO Toni Smith, RN Jennifer Abraham, MD Navin Amin, MD Eugene Kercher, MD Scott E. Jones, CAO Albert Diaz, CFO Michael Ewald, Dir. HR January 2004-December 2004 Supervisor Jon McQuiston Supervisor Ray Watson Peter Bryan, CEO Marvin Kolb, MD, CMO Toni Smith, RN Jennifer Abraham, MD Navin Amin, MD Eugene Kercher, MD A. Scott Ragland, DO Scott E. Jones, CAO Alberto Diaz, CFO Michael Ewald, Dir. Of HR David Hill, Dir. Of Ambulatory Care January 2005-December 2005 Supervisor Jon McQuiston Supervisor Ray Watson Peter Bryan, CEO 12 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 32 of 130

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

Irwin Harris, MD, CMO Toni Smith, RN Jennifer Abraham, MD Eugene Kercher, MD A. Scott Ragland, DO Ron Errea, CAO Tom Willman, CFO Sandi Chester, Dir. Of HR David Hill, Dir. Of Ambulatory Care January 2006-December 2006 Supervisor Barbara Patrick Supervisor Ray Watson David Culberson, Internim CEO Irwin Harris, MD, CMO Toni Smith, RN Jose A. Perez, Jr., MD Eugene Kercher, MD A. Scott Ragland, DO Ron Errea, CAO Kent Johnson, CFO
David Hill, Dir. Of Ambulatory Care

January 2007-December 2007 Supervisor Don Maben Supervisor Ray Watson Paul Hensler CEO Irwin Harris, MD, CMO Toni Smith, RN Jose A. Perez, Jr., MD 13 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 33 of 130

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

Eugene Kercher, MD A. Scott Ragland, DO Ron Errea, CAO Fred Plane, CFO c) Quality Management Committee: October 2001-November 2001 A. Scott Ragland, DO Antonio Garcia, MD David Jadwin, DO Charles Brown, MD Chester Lau, MD Dianne McConnehey, RN Elaine Castroverde, MD Marvin Kolb, MD J. Paul Miller, MD Sarojini Rajguru, MD Thomas Purcell, MD Toni Smith, RN Ted Uchio, MD January 2002-November 2002 A. Scott Ragland, DO Vasanthi Ramaswami, MD David Jadwin, DO Jack Bloch, MD Charles Brown, MD Chester Lau, MD Dianne McConnehey, RN Elaine Castroverde, MD Chair, Medicine OB/GYN Pathology Surgery Surgery Radiology Quality Management Pediatrics 14 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES Chair, Medicine OB/GYN Pathology Surgery Radiology Quality Management Pediatrics Chief Medical Officer Family Practice Psychiatry Emergency Medicine Nursing Admintration Anesthesiology

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 34 of 130

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

Marvin Kolb, MD J. Paul Miller, MD Stephen Williams, MD Thomas Purcell, MD Toni Smith, RN Ted Uchio, MD Richard Busch, MD January 2003-November 2003 A. Scott Ragland, DO Vasanthi Ramaswami, MD David Jadwin, DO Jack Bloch, MD Chester Lau, MD Dianne McConnehey, RN Elaine Castroverde, MD Marvin Kolb, MD J. Paul Miller, MD David Lai, MD Thomas Purcell, MD Toni Smith, RN
Ted Uchio, MD

Chief Medical Officer Family Practice Psychiatry Emergency Medicine Nursing Admintration Anesthesiology Surgery

Chair, Medicine OB/GYN Pathology Surgery Radiology Quality Management Pediatrics Chief Medical Officer Family Practice Psychiatry Emergency Medicine Nursing Admintration
Anesthesiology

January 2004-November 2004 A. Scott Ragland, DO Chair, Medicine

Vasanthi Srinivas (Ramaswami, MD)OB/GYN David Jadwin, DO Jack Bloch, MD Chester Lau, MD Dianne McConnehey, RN Pathology Surgery Radiology Quality Management 15 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 35 of 130

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

Elaine Castroverde, MD Marvin Kolb, MD J. Paul Miller, MD David Lai, MD Thomas Purcell, MD Toni Smith, RN Ted Uchio, MD January 2005-November 2005 J. Paul Miller, MD A. Scott Ragland, DO Vasanthi Srinivas, MD David Jadwin, DO Jack Bloch, MD Chester Lau, MD Irwin Harris, MD Dianne McConnehey, RN Elaine Castroverde, MD Marvin Kolb, MD David Lai, MD Thomas Purcell, MD Toni Smith, RN Ted Uchio, MD January 2006-November 2006 J. Paul Miller, MD A. Scott Ragland, DO Vasanthi Srinivas, MD Philip Dutt, MD Jack Bloch, MD

Pediatrics Chief Medical Officer Family Practice Psychiatry Emergency Medicine Nursing Admintration Anesthesiology

Chair, Family Practice Medicine OB/GYN Pathology Surgery Radiology Chief Medical Officer Quality Management Pediatrics Chief Medical Officer Psychiatry Emergency Medicine Nursing Admintration Anesthesiology

Chair, Family Practice Medicine OB/GYN Pathology Surgery 16

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 36 of 130

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

Bahram Raofi, MD Irwin Harris, MD Dianne McConnehey, RN Elaine Castroverde, MD Marvin Kolb, MD David Lai, MD Thomas Purcell, MD Toni Smith, RN Ted Uchio, MD David Culberson David Hill Evelyn Elliott, Shirley Strickler, RN January 2007-November 2007 J. Paul Miller, MD A. Scott Ragland, DO Vasanthi Srinivas, MD Philip Dutt, MD Jack Bloch, MD Bahram Raofi, MD Irwin Harris, MD Dianne McConnehey, RN Elaine Castroverde, MD Marvin Kolb, MD David Lai, MD Thomas Purcell, MD Toni Smith, RN Ted Uchio, MD

Radiology Chief Medical Officer Quality Management Pediatrics Chief Medical Officer Psychiatry Emergency Medicine Nursing Admintration Anesthesiology Chief Executive Officer Director, Ambulatory Care Director, Pharmacy Manager, Med Surg/Telemetry

Chair, Family Practice Medicine OB/GYN Pathology Surgery Radiology Chief Medical Officer Quality Management Pediatrics Chief Medical Officer Psychiatry Emergency Medicine Nursing Admintration Anesthesiology 17

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 37 of 130

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

Paul Hensler Evelyn Elliott, Shirley Strickler, RN d) Cancer Committee: October 2001-December 2001 Ravi Patel, MD David Kanamori, MD Ali Bazmi Peter Bryan John Byfield, MD Laura Heredia Annie Hollingsead, RN David Jadwin, DO Bonnie Klein, MFCC Marvin Kolb, MD Chester Lau, MD Joseph Mansour, MD Linda Marham, MSW Albert McBride, MD Dianne McConnehey, RN Linda McMillan Ray Purcell, NP Sergio Perticucci, MD Bonnie Quinonez, CTR Angelina Reyes Toni Smith, RN Michael Wells, DO March 2002-November 2002

Chief Executive Officer Director, Pharmacy Manager, Med Surg/Telemetry

Chair, Oncology Co-Chair, Oncology Oncology Pharmacy Chief Executive Officer Radiation Oncology Cancer Registry Quality Management Pathology Department of Medicine Chief Medical Director Radiology OB/GYN Social Services Physician Liason/Surgery Quality Management Medical Records Medicine Gynecology Oncology Cancer Registrar Medical Records Nursing Adminstration Radiology

18 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 38 of 130

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

Ravi Patel, MD David Kanamori, MD Ali Bazmi Peter Bryan John Byfield, MD Laura Heredia David Jadwin, DO Marvin Kolb, MD Chester Lau, MD Linda Marham, MSW Albert McBride, MD Hope Donovan, RN Ray Purcell, NP Sergio Perticucci, MD Bonnie Quinonez, CTR Angelina Reyes Toni Smith, RN February 2003-December 2003 Ravi Patel, MD David Kanamori, MD Shawn Abrishamy, MD Ali Bazmi John Byfield, MD Laura Heredia David Jadwin, DO Marvin Kolb, MD Chester Lau, MD Linda Marham, MSW

Chair, Oncology Co-Chair, Oncology Oncology Pharmacy Chief Executive Officer Radiation Oncology Cancer Registry Pathology Chief Medical Director Radiology Social Services Physician Liason/Surgery Quality Management Medicine Gynecology Oncology Cancer Registrar Medical Records Nursing Adminstration

Chair, Oncology Co-Chair, Oncology Family Practice Oncology Pharmacy Radiation Oncology Cancer Registry Pathology Chief Medical Director Radiology Social Services 19

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 39 of 130

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

Albert McBride, MD Maureen Martin, MD Hope Donovan, RN Ray Purcell, NP Sergio Perticucci, MD Bonnie Quinonez, CTR Angelina Reyes Toni Smith, RN Abu Taher, MD Micheal Wells, MD Kathryn VanMeter, NP January 2004-November 2004 Ravi Patel, MD David Kanamori, MD Ali Bazmi John Byfield, MD Chris Gambrioloi, MD Sandra Gordon, MD Mary Guerrero, RN Laura Heredia David Jadwin, DO Marvin Kolb, MD Chester Lau, MD Linda Marham, MSW Albert McBride, MD Maureen Martin, MD Hope Donovan, RN Ray Purcell, NP

Physician Liason/Surgery Surgery Quality Management Medicine Gynecology Oncology Cancer Registrar Medical Records Nursing Adminstration Pediatric Oncology Radiology Medicine

Chair, Oncology Co-Chair, Oncology Oncology Pharmacy Radiation Oncology Family Practice Medicine/Palliative Care Chemo/Oncology Cancer Registry Pathology Chief Medical Director Radiology Social Services Physician Liason/Surgery Surgery Quality Management Medicine 20

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 40 of 130

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

Sergio Perticucci, MD Bonnie Quinonez, CTR Angelina Reyes Toni Smith, RN Abu Taher, MD Kara Shaw, RN Kathryn VanMeter, NP January 2005-December 2005 Ravi Patel, MD Ali Bazmi Philip Dutt, MD Chris Gambrioloi, MD Mary Guerrero, RN Laura Heredia David Jadwin, DO Irwin Harris, MD Chester Lau, MD Linda Marham, MSW Albert McBride, MD Maureen Martin, MD Hope Donovan, RN Ray Purcell, NP Sergio Perticucci, MD Bonnie Quinonez, CTR Angelina Reyes Bahram Raofi, MD William Roy, MD Toni Smith, RN

Gynecology Oncology Cancer Registrar Medical Records Nursing Adminstration Pediatric Oncology Chemo Nurse Medicine

Chair, Oncology Oncology Pharmacy Pathology Family Practice Chemo/Oncology Cancer Registry Pathology Chief Medical Director Radiology Social Services Physician Liason/Surgery Surgery Quality Management Medicine Gynecology Oncology Cancer Registrar Medical Records Radiology Gynecology/Oncology Nursing Adminstration 21

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 41 of 130

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

Abu Taher, MD Kevin Taubman, MD Kathryn VanMeter, NP January 2006-December 2006 Ravi Patel, MD Ali Bazmi Patsy Bradshaw, CTR David Culberson Ajay Desai, MD Hope Donovan, RN Philip Dutt, MD Irwin Harris, MD Royce Johnson, MD Linda Markham, MSW Maureen Martin, MD Albert McBride, MD Javad Naderi, MD Jemi Olak, MD Laura Quinonez, CTR William Roy, MD Toni Smith, RN Abu Taher, MD Kathryn VanMeter, RN January 2007-November 2007 Ravi Patel, MD Ali Bazmi Patsy Bradshaw, CTR Socorro Carrillo

Pediatric Oncology Surgery Medicine

Chair, Oncology Oncology Pharmacy Cancer Registrar Chief Executive Officer Radiation Oncology Quality Management Pathology Chief Medical Officer Medicine Social Services Surgery Physician Liason/Surgery Radiology Surgery Cancer Registrar Gynecology/Oncology Nursing Adminstration Pediatric Oncology Medicine

Chair, Oncology Oncology Pharmacy Cancer Registrar ACS Program Coordinator 22

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 42 of 130

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

Paul Hensler Ajay Desai, MD Michelle Langston, RN Philip Dutt, MD Irwin Harris, MD Royce Johnson, MD Linda Markham, MSW Maureen Martin, MD Albert McBride, MD Javad Naderi, MD Jemi Olak, MD Laura Quinonez, CTR William Roy, MD Kara Shaw, RN Toni Smith, RN Abu Taher, MD Kathryn VanMeter, RN

Chief Executive Officer Radiation Oncology Quality Management Pathology Chief Medical Officer Medicine Social Services Surgery Physician Liason/Surgery Radiology Surgery Cancer Registrar Gynecology/Oncology Chemo/Onc Nursing Adminstration Pediatric Oncology Medicine

e) Second Level Peer Review Committee: October 2001 – Present Thomas Purcell, MD, Chair Navin Amin, MD Jack Bloch, MD Dianne McConnehey, RN, Manager, Quality Management Marvin Kolb, MD (Until 9/2004) Irwin Harris, MD (7/2005-9/2007) f) Transfusion Committee: October 2001

23 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 43 of 130

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

Adam Lang, MD David Jadwin, DO Gilbert Martinez Michelle Burris

Chair, Pathology Pathology Lab Designee Lab Manager/Blood Bank

AD-HOC COMMITTEE MEMBERS Rick McPheeters, DO Charles Brown, MD Vasanthi Ramaswami, MD David Kanamori, MD Marvin Kolb, MD Steve Watson Lon Lancaster January 2002-August 2002 Adam Lang, MD David Jadwin, DO Gilbert Martinez Michelle Burris Alice Hevle Dianne McConnehey Steve Watson February 2003-December 2003 February 21, 2003 Dr. Jadwin, Chair Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor March 19, 2003 Dr. Jadwin, Chair Dr. Lang, Pathologist Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor 24 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES Chair, Pathology Pathology Lab Designee Lab Manager/Blood Bank Quality Management Manager, Quality Management Respiratory Therapy Manager Emergency Medicine Surgery OB/GYN Medicine CMO Respiratory Therapy Manager Respiratory Therapy

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 44 of 130

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

Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager April 23, 2003 Dr. Lang, Pathologist Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager. Don Bull, Pulmonary Services (provides cell saver data) Dr. Jadwin, Chair (absent) May 29, 2003 Dr. Jadwin, Chair Dr. Lang, Pathologist Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC June 17, 2003 Dr. Jadwin, Chair Dr. Lang, Pathologist Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC Lonnie Lancaster, Pulmonary Services (provides cell saver data) October 21, 2003 Dr. Jadwin, Chair Dr. Lang, Pathologist Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC Toni Smith, RN

25 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 45 of 130

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 16, 2003 Dr. Jadwin, Chair Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC February 2003-December 2003 February 21, 2003 Dr. Jadwin, Chair Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor March 19, 2003 Dr. Jadwin, Chair Dr. Lang, Pathologist Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager April 23, 2003 Dr. Lang, Pathologist Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager. Don Bull, Pulmonary Services (provides cell saver data) Dr. Jadwin, Chair (absent) May 29, 2003 Dr. Jadwin, Chair Dr. Lang, Pathologist Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC June 17, 2003 Dr. Jadwin, Chair 26 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 46 of 130

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

Dr. Lang, Pathologist Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC Lonnie Lancaster, Pulmonary Services (provides cell saver data) October 21, 2003 Dr. Jadwin, Chair Dr. Lang, Pathologist Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC Toni Smith, RN December 16, 2003 Dr. Jadwin, Chair Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC January 2006-December 2006 January 31, 2006 Dr. Dutt, Pathologist Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager February 21, 2006 Dr. Jadwin, Chair Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager March 28, 2006 Dr. Dutt, Pathologist 27 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 47 of 130

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

Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC April 18, 2006 Dr. Dutt, Pathologist Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC May 9, 2006 Dr. Dutt, Pathologist Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC June 20, 2006 Dr. Dutt, Pathologist Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC September 13, 2006 Dr. Dutt, Chair Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager September 27, 2006 Dr. Dutt, Chair Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC October 18, 2006 Dr. Dutt, Chair Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager 28 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 48 of 130

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

November 1, 2006 Dr. Dutt, Chair Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC December 12, 2006 Dr. Dutt, Chair Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC Diane McConnehey, QRC January 2007-April 2007 February 2, 2007 Dr. Ragland, Chair (absent) Dr. Dutt, Pathology Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC (absent) Diane McConnehey, QRC (absent) Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager (absent) March 15, 2007 Dr. Ragland, Chair (absent) Dr. Dutt, Pathology Dr. Sorensen, Surgery Dr. Dong, Emergency Medicine Diane McConnehey, QRC Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor Dr. Taher, Pediatrics (absent) Dr. Lascano, OB-GYN (absent) 29 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 49 of 130

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

Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC (absent) g) Executive Staff Meetings: February 9, 2005 Peter Bryan, CEO Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care Tom Willman, Special Projects Manager Michael Ewald, Dir., HR March 2, 2005 Peter Bryan, CEO Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care Tom Willman, Special Projects Manager Michael Ewald, Dir., HR March 9, 2005 Peter Bryan, CEO Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care Tom Willman, Special Projects Manager Michael Ewald, Dir., HR March 30, 2005 Peter Bryan, CEO Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care Tom Willman, Special Projects Manager Michael Ewald, Dir., HR April 6, 2005 Peter Bryan, CEO 30 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 50 of 130

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

Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care Tom Willman, Special Projects Manager Michael Ewald, Dir., HR April 13, 2005 Peter Bryan, CEO Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care Tom Willman, Special Projects Manager Michael Ewald, Dir., HR April 20, 2005 Peter Bryan, CEO Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care Tom Willman, Special Projects Manager Michael Ewald, Dir., HR April 27, 2005 Peter Bryan, CEO Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care Tom Willman, Special Projects Manager Michael Ewald, Dir., HR May 4, 2005 Peter Bryan, CEO David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care Tom Willman, CFO Michael Ewald, Dir., HR May 11, 2005 31 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 51 of 130

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

Peter Bryan, CEO Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care Tom Willman, CFO Michael Ewald, Dir., HR May 18, 2005 Peter Bryan, CEO Irwin Harris, MD, CMO Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care Tom Willman, CFO Michael Ewald, Dir., HR Linda Nipper, Interim, Dir., HR June 1, 2005 Peter Bryan, CEO Irwin Harris, MD, CMO Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care Tom Willman, CFO Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR June 15, 2005 Peter Bryan, CEO Irwin Harris, MD, CMO Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care Tom Willman, CFO Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR July 13, 2005 32 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 52 of 130

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

Irwin Harris, MD, CMO Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive Tom Willman, CFO Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR July 25, 2005 Peter Bryan, CEO Irwin Harris, MD, CMO Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care Tom Willman, CFO Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR August 3, 2005 Peter Bryan, CEO Irwin Harris, MD, CMO Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care Tom Willman, CFO Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR August 10, 2005 Peter Bryan, CEO Irwin Harris, MD, CMO Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care Tom Willman, CFO Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR August 17, 2005 Peter Bryan, CEO Irwin Harris, MD, CMO 33 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 53 of 130

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

Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care Tom Willman, CFO Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR August 24, 2005 Peter Bryan, CEO Irwin Harris, MD, CMO Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care Tom Willman, CFO Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR September 7, 2005 Peter Bryan, CEO Irwin Harris, MD, CMO Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care Tom Willman, CFO Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR September 14, 2005 Peter Bryan, CEO Irwin Harris, MD, CMO Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care Tom Willman, CFO Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR September 21, 2005 Peter Bryan, CEO Irwin Harris, MD, CMO 34 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 54 of 130

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

Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care Tom Willman, CFO Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR September 28, 2005 Peter Bryan, CEO Irwin Harris, MD, CMO David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care Tom Willman, CFO Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR October 5, 2005 Peter Bryan, CEO Irwin Harris, MD, CMO Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care Tom Willman, CFO Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR October 19, 2005 Irwin Harris, MD, CMO Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care Tom Willman, CFO Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR October 26, 2005 Irwin Harris, MD, CMO Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care Tom Willman, CFO 35 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 55 of 130

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

Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR November 2, 2005 Peter Bryan, CEO Irwin Harris, MD, CMO Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care Tom Willman, CFO Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR November 9, 2005 Peter Bryan, CEO Irwin Harris, MD, CMO Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care Tom Willman, CFO Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR November 16, 2005 Peter Bryan, CEO Irwin Harris, MD, CMO Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care Tom Willman, CFO Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR November 23, 2005 Peter Bryan, CEO Irwin Harris, MD, CMO Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care Tom Willman, CFO 36 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 56 of 130

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

Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR November 30, 2005 Peter Bryan, CEO Irwin Harris, MD, CMO Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care Tom Willman, CFO Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR December 14, 2005 Peter Bryan, CEO Irwin Harris, MD, CMO Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care Tom Willman, CFO Sandra Chester, Dir., HR December 21, 2005 Peter Bryan, CEO Irwin Harris, MD, CMO Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care Tom Willman, CFO December 29, 2005 Peter Bryan, CEO Irwin Harris, MD, CMO Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care January 4, 2006 Peter Bryan, CEO 37 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 57 of 130

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

Irwin Harris, MD, CMO Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care Tom Willman, CFO Sandra Chester, Dir. HR January 11, 2006 Peter Bryan, CEO Irwin Harris, MD, CMO Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care Tom Willman, CFO February 1, 2006 Peter Bryan, CEO Irwin Harris, MD, CMO Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care Tom Willman, CFO Sandra Chester, Dir., HR February 8, 2006 Peter Bryan, CEO Irwin Harris, MD, CMO David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care Tom Willman, CFO Sandra Chester, Dir., HR February 15, 2006 Peter Bryan, CEO Irwin Harris, MD, CMO Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive 38 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 58 of 130

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

David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care Tom Willman, CFO Sandra Chester, Dir., HR February 22, 2006 Peter Bryan, CEO Irwin Harris, MD, CMO Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care Tom Willman, CFO Sandra Chester, Dir,. HR March 1, 2006 Peter Bryan, CEO Irwin Harris, MD, CMO Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care Tom Willman, CFO Sandra Chester, Dir., HR March 8, 2006 Peter Bryan, CEO Irwin Harris, MD, CMO David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care Tom Willman, CFO Sandra Chester, Dir., HR March 15, 2006 Irwin Harris, MD, CMO Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care Tom Willman, CFO 39 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 59 of 130

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

Sandra Chester, Dir., HR March 22, 2006 Peter Bryan, CEO Irwin Harris, MD, CMO Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care Sandra Chester, Dir., HR April 5, 2006 Peter Bryan, CEO Irwin Harris, MD, CMO Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care Sandra Chester, Dir., HR April 6, 2006 Peter Bryan, CEO Irwin Harris, MD, CMO Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care Sandra Chester, Dir., HR April 12, 2006 Peter Bryan, CEO Irwin Harris, MD, CMO Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care Sandra Chester, Dir., HR April 19, 2006 Peter Bryan, CEO Irwin Harris, MD, CMO 40 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 60 of 130

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

Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care Sandra Chester, Dir., HR April 26, 2006 Peter Bryan, CEO Irwin Harris, MD, CMO Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care Sandra Chester, Dir., HR May 3, 2006 Peter Bryan, CEO Irwin Harris, MD, CMO Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care Sandra Chester, Dir., HR August 9, 2006 Peter Bryan, CEO Irwin Harris, MD, CMO Kent Johnson, CFO Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care Sandra Chester, Dir., HR INTERROGATORY NO. 12 State the dates, times and locations of each meeting held by the following committees from October 4, 2001 to the present: a) b) c) Medical Executive Committee Joint Conference Committee Quality Management Committee 41 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 61 of 130

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

d) e) f) g)

Cancer Committee Second Level Peer Review Committee Transfusion Committee Executive Staff Meetings

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12 MEDICAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 1ST Tuesday, monthly at 7:30 a.m. in room 3321 SECOND LEVEL PEER REVIEW 2ND Friday, monthly at 11:30 a.m. in the administrative conference room CANCER COMMITTEE 1st Wednesday, quarterly at 7:30 a.m. in room 1437 QUALITY MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 4th Wednesday, monthly at 7:30 a.m. in room 1437 JOINT CONFERENCE COMMITTEE 2nd Monday, monthly at 10:00 a.m. in the administrative conference room ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF MEETINGS Every Wednesday at 9:00 a.m. in the administrative conference room TRANSFUSION COMMITTEE Meet monthly, different days. In 2003 met at 11:00 a.m. in room 1437 In 2004, met at 10:00 a.m or 11:00 a.m. in room 1437 In 2005, no record of any meetings In 2006, met at 2:00 p.m. , once at 3:00 p.m. and once at 12:00 p.m. in room 1437 In 2007, met at 12:00 p.m. and 12:30 p.m. in room 1437 INTERROGATORY NO. 13 IDENTIFY all PERSONS to whom the Cancer Committee at KMC sent a DOCUMENT requesting such PERSONS refrain from exceeding presentation time limits at the “ONCOLOGY CONFERENCE” (as that term is used in the memo from Dr. Albert McBride to Dr. David Jadwin, dated May 9, 2005 [DFJ381]) from October 4, 2001 to the present. 42 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 62 of 130

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 INTERROGATORY NO. 13 We do not know the answer to this Interrogatory. The only such documents we know of were sent to Plaintiff. There may be others but we have not found any. INTERROGATORY NO. 14 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who conducted any investigations for or on YOUR behalf into any aspect of PLAINTIFF’s claims against YOU that are alleged in the Second Supplemental Complaint; state the claims that each such PERSON investigated; and IDENTIFY any written reports RELATING TO said investigations that each such PERSON produced, authored or otherwise contributed to. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14 None. INTERROGATORY NO. 15 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS whom YOU contend participated in any “PEER REVIEW” (as that term is defined in the KMC Bylaws) of PLAINTIFF’s work from April 15, 2005 to the present, describe each such PERSON’s role in the PEER REVIEW, and IDENTIFY the work and/or PATHOLOGY REPORTS each such PERSON peer reviewed. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15 PEER REVIEW Masukh Ghadiya, MD MR#1152531 (S06-4619) Mohammed Molla, MD MR #266068 (S06-4131 and S06-5229) Mia Lagunda, MD MR #1029588 (S06-5394) William J. Colburn, MD PATHOLOGY SLIDES/REPORT Quality Assessment Review by William J. Colburn, MD Kern Medical Center 43 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 63 of 130

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

Case # S05-2186 S05-3265 S05-2176 S05-1066 S05-1680 S05-7551 S05381 S06-91 S05-812 S04-7471 S05-3286 S05-2811 S05-1514 S06-728 S05-2246 S05-923 S05-592 S04-6857 S04-4674 N04-222 S05-7114 S05-1347 S06-981 N06-51 S06-757

MR # 1145729 679293 1146515 1029137

Name WHEAT BURTON MATHIS THOMPSON

# of Slides 63 93 73 2 14

1146283 1138812 1100262 1142312 1138692 870589

VOSS UNRICH VILLAREAL KAUR, S. MASSONI DAWSON

32 6 4 4 2 16 12 5

800794 1146465 1128182 1141122 633431 1000548

PERALES MARTINEZ RODRIQUEZ KAUR, N. SPILLERS KIRSCH

32 36 59 35 37 12 3

1142693 1135192 1155514

CISNEROS HOLSCHER SANCHEZ

22 2 38 1 1

44 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 64 of 130

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

S06-541 C04-28

0871307 1097368

BORQUEZ CARPIO

38 0 Consult only, slides sent back (9)

Jonathan I. Epstein, MD S06-4131 Parakrama T. Chandrasoma, MD S06-3933 S05-123 S02-4614 INTERROGATORY NO. 16 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC other than Plaintiff whom YOU removed or suspended from the position of Chair of a Department at KMC since October 4, 1996; state the date and any and all reasons for each and every such removal or suspension; and describe the opportunities provided to such former or current employees to defend themselves, present evidence and/or cross-examine witnesses RELATING TO their removal or suspension. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 16 None. INTERROGATORY NO. 17 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who held the position of Acting Chair of a Department at KMC since October 24, 1995; state the dates of their tenure in said position; and state any all reasons for the end of their tenure in said position. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 17 Royce Johnson, Dept of Medicine, December 8, 1998 to Present; Leonard Perez, Dept of OB/Gyn, August 31, 1996 to June 11, 2007, voluntary resignation; Robert Wallace, Dept of OB/GYN, June 12, 2007 – Present; Phillip Dutt, Dept of Pathology, August 2006 – Present; Rick

45 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 65 of 130

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

McPheeters, Dept of Emergency Medicine, December 12, 2007 – Present; Elsa Ang, replaced by Plaintiff. INTERROGATORY NO. 18 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS other than PLAINTIFF who took or were placed on “PERSONAL NECESSITY LEAVE” (as that term is used in Rule 1202.20 of the Civil Service Commission Rules for the County of Kern) in excess of one month while holding the position of Chair of a Department at KMC since October 24, 1995, state any all reasons for each such period of PERSONAL NECESSITY LEAVE; and state the dates of each and every such period of PERSONAL NECESSITY LEAVE. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 18 None. INTERROGATORY NO. 19 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC other than PLAINTIFF who were not reinstated to their same position following a period of PERSONAL NECESSITY LEAVE taken since October 24, 1995; state any and all reasons for each such non-reinstatement. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 19 None INTERROGATORY NO. 20 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC who were demoted during the dependency of, or within one month after their return to work from, a period of PERSONAL NECESSITY LEAVE taken since October 24, 2005. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 20 None INTERROGATORY NO. 21 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC other than PLAINTIFF who took “SICK LEAVE” (as that term is used in the Civil Service Commission Rules for the County of Kern) in excess of one month while holding the position of 46 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 66 of 130

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

Chair of a Department at KMC since October 24, 1995; and for each such PERSON state the dates of each and every such period of SICK LEAVE. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 21 None. INTERROGATORY NO. 22 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC other than PLAINTIFF who were not reinstated to their same position following a period of SICK LEAVE since October 24, 1995. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 22 None. INTERROGATORY NO. 23 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC who were demoted during the pendency of, or within one month after their return to work from, a period SICK LEAVE since October 24, 1995. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 23 Defendants object to this Interrogatory on the grounds it seeks confidential personnel and personal medical information that is protected from disclosure by California Evidence Code section 1040 and HIPAA. INTERROGATORY NO. 24 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC other than PLAINTIFF who took leave pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act or California Family Rights Act since October 24, 1995; and state the dates of each and every such period of leave. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 24 Defendants object to this Interrogatory on the grounds it seeks confidential personnel and personal medical information that is protected from disclosure by California Evidence Code section 1040 and HIPAA.

47 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 67 of 130

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

INTERROGATORY NO. 25 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC other than PLAINTIFF who were not reinstated to their same position following a period of leave taken pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act or California Family Rights Act since October 24, 1995. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 25 To the extent this Interrogatory suggests or implies that Plaintiff was not reinstated to his same position following a period of leave taken pursuant to the FMLA, Defendants object on the grounds that the Interrogatory mistakes the evidence and is factually incorrect and misleading. Defendants are, therefore, not able to respond further. INTERROGATORY NO. 26 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC who were demoted during the pendency of or within one month after their return to work from a period of leave taken pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act or California Family Rights Act since October 24, 1995. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 26 None INTERROGATORY NO. 27 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC other than PLAINTIFF who took or were placed on “ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE” (as that term is used in David Culberson’s letter to PLAINTIFF, dated December 7, 2006 [DFJ01482]) in excess of one month while holding the position of Chair of a Department at KMC since October 24, 1995; for each such PERSON state the dates of each and every such period of ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE; state whether each such period of ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE was paid or unpaid; and state any and all reasons for each such period of ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 27 Sheldon Freedman, 2000. 217 hours, paid 48 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 68 of 130

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

INTERROGATORY NO. 28 During the period from October 24, 2000 to the present, IDENTIFY any and all former members of the “MEDICAL STAFF” at KMC (as the term is defined in the Bylaws of KMC) other than PLAINTIFF who employment contract with YOU was not renewed or extended; state whether the contract expired or was terminated; and state any and all reasons for non-renewal or non-extension of each such contract. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 28 Defendants object to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is burdensome and oppressive and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also object on the grounds it seeks confidential personnel and personal medical information that is protected from disclosure by California Evidence Code section 1040 and HIPAA. Without waiving these objections, Defendants state that members of the Medical Staff have left KMC for almost every reason imaginable, including such reasons as moving to Pakistan, lack of credentials, careers opportunities and undisclosed personal reasons. We do not know the reasons in many, if not most cases. INTERROGATORY NO. 29 IDENTIFY any and all of YOUR former or current members of the MEDICAL STAFF other than PLAINTIFF whose employment contract was extended or renewed for a contract term of less than five years during the period from October 24, 2000 to November 16, 2006. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 29 None. INTERROGATORY NO. 30 IDENTIFY any and all of YOUR former or current members of the MEDICAL STAFF other than PLAINTIFF whose employment contract was extended or renewed for a contract term of five or more years during the period from October 24, 2000 to November 16, 2006. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 30 None.

49 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 69 of 130

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

INTERROGATORY NO. 31 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked as a staff pathologist at KMC after October 24, 2000 other than PLAINTIFF whose job description or employment contract contained a provision requiring him or her to be responsible for providing onsite shift coverage during specifically stated hours, unless otherwise assigned or excused by the department chairman. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 31 Plaintiff issued rules for the Pathology Department that required this. INTERROGATORY NO. 32 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked as a staff pathologist at KMC after October 24, 2000 other than PLAINTIFF whose job description or employment contract contained a provision requiring him or her to carry a pager when on call and respond to KMC within a specific number minutes of being called. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 32 Plaintiff issued rules for the Pathology Department that required this. INTERROGATORY NO. 33 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who worked as a staff pathologist at KMC after October 24, 2000 other than PLAINTIFF whose job description or employment contract contained a provision requiring him or her to perform according to productivity standards set by the department chairman, but at no time read out and report less than an average of a specified number cases per day, for “County Responsible” (which means medically indigent adults pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 17000 et seq., and adult inmates and juvenile detainees in custody in County-owned or operated facilities) under compensated and uninsured patients. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 33 None.

50 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 70 of 130

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

INTERROGATORY NO. 34 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to solicit and/or collect “LETTERS OF DISSATISFACTION” (as that term is used in the letter from Dr. Eugene Kercher, Scott Ragland, Jennifer Abraham and Irwin Harris to PLAINTIFF, dated October 17, 2005 [DFJ588]) in or about October 12, 2005; and state the date that such decision was made. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 34 None. INTERROGATORY NO. 35 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the initial decision to place LETTERS OF DISSATISFACTION in PLAINTIFF’S PERSONNEL FILE on or about October 17, 2005; and state the date that decision was made. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 35 None. INTERROGATORY NO. 36 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to convert PLAINTIFF’S reduced work schedule leave to full-time leave on or about April 28, 2006; and state the date that decision was made. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 36 Peter Bryan and Plaintiff. INTERROGATORY NO. 37 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to recommend removal of PLAINTIFF from his position as Chair of Pathology at KMC in 2006; and state the date that decision was made. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 37 Peter Bryan. INTERROGATORY NO. 38 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decisions RELATING TO each and every provision contained in the DOCUMENT entitled “Amendment No. 1 to 51 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 71 of 130

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

Agreement for Professional Services” [DFJ1416]; and state the date that each such decision was made. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 38 Peter Bryan, David Culberson, Karen Barnes, Eugene Lee, Kern County Board of Supervisors. The decision was made on the date the amendment was approved by the Board of Supervisors. INTERROGATORY NO. 39 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to recommend reduction of PLAINTIFF’S base salary in 2006; and state the date that decision was made. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 39 Peter Bryan, David Culberson, Karen Barnes, Eugene Lee, Kern County Board of Supervisors. The decision was made on the date the amendment was approved by the Board of Supervisors. INTERROGATORY NO. 40 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in calculating the amount of the reduction of PLAINTIFF’S base salary in 2006. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 40 David Culberson and Peter Bryan INTERROGATORY NO. 41 State the manner in which YOU calculated the amount of the reduction of PLAINTIFF’S base salary in 2006; and state all factual bases on which YOU relied in support thereof. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 41 The new salary was comparable to that of a core pathologist. INTERROGATORY NO. 42 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to place PLAINTIFF on administrative leave with pay on or about December 7, 2006; and state the date that decision was made.

52 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 72 of 130

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 INTERROGATORY NO. 42 David Culberson, Irwin Harris, Phil Dutt and counsel. INTERROGATORY NO. 43 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to lift the restriction on PLAINTIFF’S administrative leave (as that term is used in the letter of April 30, 2007 from Mark Wasser, DEFENDANT’S counsel [DFJ7101]); and state the date that decision was made. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 43 Mark Nations and Mark Wasser. INTERROGATORY NO. 44 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to propose to PLAINTIFF a “BUYOUT” (as that term is used in the email of May 1, 2007 from Mark Wasser, DEFENDANT’S counsel [DFJ01482]); and state the date that decision was made. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 44 It was a settlement offer communicated to Plaintiff’s counsel. INTERROGATORY NO. 45 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision not to renew PLAINTIFF’S employment contract with YOU; and state the date that decision was made. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 45 None. INTERROGATORY NO. 46 IDENTIFY each DOCUMENT or portion thereof contained in PLAINTIFF’S FRCP Rule 26 Initial Disclosures that YOU contend is privileged; state the nature of each privilege asserted; and state in detail the factual bases for each such asserted privilege. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 46 We do not understand this Interrogatory and are, consequently, unable to answer it. What is privileged about the documents Plaintiff produced?

53 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 73 of 130

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

INTERROGATORY NO. 47 IDENTIFY each DOCUMENT or portion thereof contained in YOUR FRCP Rule 26 Initial Disclosures that YOU contend is privileged; state the nature of each privilege asserted; and state in detail the factual bases for each such asserted privilege. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 47 We do not understand this Interrogatory and are, consequently, unable to answer it. Are you inquiring about our privilege log? INTERROGATORY NO. 48 State each and every job function which YOU contend were the essential functions of PLAINTIFF’S position as Chair of Pathology at KMC. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 48 Medical Staff Bylaws and job description for the position.

Dated: February 1, 2008

LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER

By:

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

54 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 74 of 130

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 EXHIBITS TO JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT re: INTERROGATORIES 3 EXHIBIT 3: Defendant’s Supplemental Responses to Interrogatories – served 3/5/08

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 75 of 130

1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8
9 9

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. 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: 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 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 vs.

DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O. Plaintiff,

COUNTY OF KERN, et aI., Defendants.

j j j ) j ~)

Case No.: 1:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTEROGATORIES (SET ONE) Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007 Trial Date: August 26, 2008

) ) -------------)

PROPOUNDING PARTY:
RESPONDING PARTY:

Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., F.C.A.P.

Defendant COUNTY OF KERN ONE (1) SUPPLEMENTAL

SET NUMBER:

1
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 76 of 130

1

Defendants hereby submit these supplemental responses to Plaintiff David F. Jadwin's Interrogatories, Set One.

2
3 4 5

INTERROGATORY NO. 10
For each ofthe PERSONS YOU listed in the "WITNESSES" section (Section 1 and Appendix 1) of YOUR FRCP Rule 26 "Supplement to Defendants' Rule 26(a)(l) Initial Disclosures", dated September 13,2007, state the following: a) Whether each PERSON is YOUR current employees or former employees, and if so, their dates of employment and job titles; b) For each PERSON who is YOUR former employees, the date and reason for their separation from employment; c) For each PERSON who is YOUR former employees, whether the employee resigned, abandoned his job, was laid off, or was otherwise terminated.

6
7
8

9
10 11 12
13

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10
NAME Leonard Perez Adam Lang ElsaAng Fangluo Liu Ellen BunyiTeopengc
0

14 15 16 17 18

JOB TITLE

19
20 21

Chairman!O B-GYN Associatel Pathology Associatel Pathology Associatel Pathology Independent Contractor

EMPLOYMENT STATUS Former Former Former Former Never employed

DATE OF HIRE 8/11/90

DATE OF SEPARATION 1/17108

EXPLANATION Terminated Personal Retired No record

8129/85 712/79 73/95

11117/03 5/11/02 5120102

22
23

24
25 26 27

Savita Shertukde Gilbert Martinez Royce Johnson Irwin Harris

28

Associatel Pathology Manager, Clinical Lab Services Chairman! Medicine Medical Director

Current Current

10/5/04 1/5/81

Current Former

7115/75 5/16/05 8/31/07
Resigned

2 DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 77 of 130

1 1

NAME Antionette Antionette Smith Smith David David Culberson Culberson

JOB TITLE Hospital Nurse Executive Interim Chief Executive Officer Supervising Clinical Lab Scientist Supervisor, Core Lab/Client Services nla County Counsel Associate/ Radiology Associate/ Medicine Chief Medical Officer Associate/ Medicine Chief Executive Officer Associate/ Surgery Supervising Clinical Lab Scientist Chairmanl Radiology Chairmanl Surgery

2
3 3

EMPLOYMENT STATUS Current

DATE OF HIRE 9/3/96

DATE OF SEPARATION

EXPLANATION EXPLANATION

4 4 5 5
6 6

Never employed

7 7
8 8 9 9 10 10

Jane Jane Thornton Thornton Kathy Kathy Griffith Griffith

Current

8/21195

Current

5/22/79

11 11
12 12 13 13
14 14 15 15 16 16 17 17 18 18 19 19 20 20 21 21

Juan Felix Juan Bernard Bernard Barmann Barmann Nitin Nitin Athavale Athavale Jennifer Jennifer Abraham Abraham Eugene Eugene Kercher Kercher
Scott Scott Ragland Ragland Peter Peter Bryan Bryan Edward Edward Taylor Taylor Michele Michele Burris Burris Javad Javad Naderi Naderi Maureen Maureen Martin Martin

Never employed Current Former Current Current

112/75
11112/01 6/23/87
12/1/87 9/30/03 Personal

Current Former

6/23/89 7/15/96

11110/06

Retired

Current Current

6/23/87 3112/84

22 22
23 23 24 24 25 25 26 26 27 27 28 28

Current Current

8/31/01 6/18/02

3 DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 78 of 130

1 1

NAME Navin Navin Amin Amin Chester Chester Lau Lau Steve Steve O'Connor O'Connor Albert Albert McBride McBride Alice Alice Hevle Hevle Philip Philip Dutt Dutt Karen Karen Barnes Barnes

JOB TlTLE Chairman! Family Practice Associatel Radiology Human Resources Director Associatel Surgery Quality Management Analvst Associatel Pathology Chief Deputy County Counsel County Administrative Officer nla Resident

2
3 3
4 4

EMPLOYMENT STATUS Current

DATE OFHlRE 9/4/79

DATE OF SEPARATlON

EXPLANATlON EXPLANATlON

Former Current

8/31101 7128180

9126106

5 5
6 6 7 7

Other employment

Current Current

10113/97 4/15/91 6/25/05 10/22/01

8 8
9 9 10 10

Current Current

11 11
12 12

13 13
14 14 15 15 Ronald Ronald Errera Errera Cindy Cindy Lighthill Lighthill Erin Erin Baldwin Baldwin Carol Carol Gates Gates Denise Denise Long Long

Current

8/22/88

16 16
17 17

Never employed Former

No record

No record

18 18
19 19 20 20 21 21
Office Services Specialist Office Services Specialist Current

Completed residency training

1115/90

Current

11118/02

22 22
23 23

INTERROGATORY INTERROGATORY NO. 15
IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS whom YOU contend participated in any "PEER

24
25 25

REVIEW" REVIEW" (as that term is defined in the KMC Bylaws) of PLAINTIFF's work from April 15, 2005 IDENTIFY 2005 to the present, describe each such PERSON's role in the PEER REVIEW, and IDENTIFY the the work and/or PATHOLOGY REPORTS each such PERSON peer reviewed.

26 26
27 27

28
4
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 79 of 130

1 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15 1 SUPPLEMENTAL

2 Masukh Ghadiya, MD Masukh
3 3
4 4 Kern Medical Center Kern Department of Family Practice Department 1830 Flower Street 1830 Bakersfield, California 93305 Bakersfield, Mohammed Molla, MD Mohammed Kern Medical Center Kern Department of Psychiatry Department 1830 Flower Street 1830 Bakersfield, California 93305 Bakersfield, Mia Lagunda, MD Mia Sagebrush Pediatric Care Center Sagebrush 1111 Columbus Street, Suite 1100 1111 Bakersfield, California 93305 Bakersfield, William 1. Colburn, MD William Tarzana Regional Medical Center Tarzana Department of Anatomic Pathology Department 18321 18321 Clark Street Tarzana, Tarzana, California 91356

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 21 21

Jonathan Jonathan 1. Epstein, MD The The Johns Hopkins Hospital Department Department of Pathology 401 N 401 N Broadway Weinberg Weinberg Building, Rm 2242 Baltimore, Baltimore, Maryland 21231 Parakrama Parakrama T. Chandrasoma, MD GNH2900 GNH2900 1200 1200 North State Street Los Los Angeles, California 90033

22 22
23 23 24 24 25 25 26 26 27 27 28 28

INTERROGATORY INTERROGATORY NO. 23
IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC who who were were demoted during the pendency of, or within one month after their return to work from, a period period SICK LEAVE since October 24, 1995.

SUUPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 23
Michael Ardis, Sara Diaz, Rosann Guadian, Linda Huggins and Rosanna Ruiz.

5
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 80 of 130

1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7

INTERROGATORY NO. 24 INTERROGATORY other IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or fonnerly worked at KMC other than PLAINTIFF who took leave pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act or California than Family Rights Act since October 24, 1995; and state the dates of each and every such period of Family leave. leave. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 24 SUPPLEMENTAL NAME NAME Acosta, Cynthia Acosta, Acosta, Cynthia Acosta, Acosta, Cynthia Acosta, Acosta, Manuel Acosta, Acosta, Manuel Acosta, Aguilar, Cynthia Aguilar, BEGIN LEAVE END LEAVE

8 8
9 9 10 10 11 11 12 12 13 13

03/23/98 04/05/01 11104/03 01105198 09/22/03 10/31105 03/25/03 03/15/00 09/16103 03/08/05 01122/07 01129/04
06/24/04

06/14/98

05/21101
01/02/04 01117/98 10116103 11104/05 04/24/03 05/01100 12110/03 03117105 01131107 03/08/04 11108104 10102/06 01129/07 02/14/06 02/01107 02/16107 08121103 09/26107

14 14 15 15 16 16
17 17

Aguilera, Aguilera, Elizabeth Aguirre, Aguirre, Mary Aguirre, Aguirre, Mary Alaniz, Alaniz, Felipa Alaniz, Alaniz, Felipa Alcala, Alcala, Phillis Alcala, Phillis Alfaro, Alfaro, Beverly Alfaro, Alfaro, Beverly Alire, Alire, Rosalina Alkhouri, George Allen, Allen, Nonna Allen, Allen, Tracy Allen, Tracy

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

09/17/06 01119107 01126106
01122/07

01118/07 08/06103
08/30107

6
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 81 of 130

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Allen, Tracy Amaya, Victoria Amaya, Victoria Amaya, Victoria Ancheta, Kathleen Araujo, Yolanda Arguello-Rizo, Maria Arguello-Rizo, Maria Arguello-Rizo, Maria AUclair, Barbara Bakalar, Debra Baldivia, Patricia Baldivia, Patricia Baldivia, Patricia Baldivia, Patricia Baldoz, Nancy Baldoz, Vilma Bareng, Mafe Bazmi, Ali Bazmi, Ali Bernal, Angelica Bernal, Angelica Bickford, Lisa Black, Shirley Black, Shirley Blank, Rosearme Blommers, Mercedes

01/28/08 12/14/01 06/02/04 03/03/06 04/13/06 01/13/04 12/23/97 09/13/03 06/12/06 10/02/03 03/13/07 09/06/06 12/16/06 05/19/07 06/28/07 12/19/05 06/18/00 01/08/07 03/19/06 04/10/06 02/27/07 01/09/08 10/08/06 OS/25/05 OS/26/06 12/25/99 11/03/00 01/02/07 11/11/05 OS/27/07 12/26/99 11/25/00 01/21/02 08/16/04 05/30/06 07/13/06 01/24/04 02/03/98 11/18/03 09/06/06 12/26/03 03/24/07 10/19/06 12/31/06 06/02/07 07/12/07 01/19/06 07/05/00 02/02/07 03/27/06 04/17/06 04/28/07

11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

7 DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAlNTlFF'S lNTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 82 of 130

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

Boschini, Deborah Bouldokian, Anne Boxley, Sandra Boxley, Sandra Boyd, Susan Boyd, Susan Braswell, Debra Braswell, Debra Braswell, Debra Braswell, Debra Braswell, Debra Braswell, Debra Broom, Serena Brown, Janice Burger, David Burrell, Kellie Burrell, Kellie Camarillo, Veronica Cameron, Alice Cameron, Jennifer Campa, Andree Carbaj aI, Delfina Carey, Todd Carrillo, Eduardo Castro, Marisol Celestino, Virginia Cervantes, Mary

08/14/04 09/07/01 03/09/01 08/16/01 11/29/97 09/17/07 02/17/06 OS/20/06 06/24/06 08/04/06 08/19/06 09/28/06 07/25/05 07/16/07 04/16/07 05/12/06 04/24/07 03/19/07 12/05/04 06/15/06 12/16/05 01/26/06 01/05/08 02/16/05 10/25/06 02/25/05 06/01/04

10/15/04 11/21/01 03/27/01 09/09/01 12/21/97 12/21/97 04/01/06 OS/28/06 07/01/06 08/11/06 08/26/06 10/16/06 09/01/05 07/28/07 06/11/07 06/24/06 07/16/07 04/27/07 01/07/05 06/22/06 01/30/06 02/06/06

13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

03/10/05 01/02/07 03/15/05 07/10/04

8 DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 83 of 130

1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 10
II II

Chacon Jr, Ezequiel Chahal, Manjinder Chahal, Colgan, Nieves Colgan, Collett, Catherine Collett, Contancio, Teresa Contancio, Contreras-Hernandez, Contreras-Hernandez, Melissa Melissa Coodey, Monica Coodey, Coodey, Monica Coodey, Cozby, Maria Cozby, Crow, James Crow, Crow, James Crow, Teresa Cueto, Estella Davin, Jennifer Davin, Jennifer Davis, Nancy Decker, Rita Dhaliwal, Paramjit
Diaz, Diaz, Alicia Diaz, Diaz, Alicia

05/01105 12/22/07 01120/07 11/29/07 02/11/99 07/21/04 07/22/06 12/19/06 OS/23/06 07/23/07 09/06/07 09/27/07 02/23/04 05/13/06 10/23/06 08/30/05 11/19/05 03/24/06
OS/21/07

05/16/05

03/03/07
01107/08 04/13/99 09/13/04 10/02/06 01119/07 06/23/06 08/14/07 09/28/07 11/09/07 03/01/04 06/25/06 10/29/06 09/26/05 11/28/05 03/31106 06/02/07 07/04/07 06/25/04 03/21/98 10/08/07 01/14/08 06/18/07 07/24/07 10/26/05

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

06/18/07 OS/23/04 12/26/97
09/11107

Divinagracia, Mary Dodson, Lorene
Domingo, Domingo, Luz

Dominguez, Eva-Marie Doss, Justin
Doss, Doss, Justin Douglas, Douglas, Shayla

12/19/07 06/05/07
07/11107

10/26/04 9

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 84 of 130

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11

Doyle, Darlene Duarte, Sofia Ducato, Diane Dumlao, Shellby Dunn, Debbie Elliott, Evelyn Espinoza, Patricia Esposo, Rosalind Esqueda, Christina Fadipe, Regina Ferra, Nicole Fischer, Dawn Flaharty, Linda Flanagan, Eva Marie Flatt, Carolyn Fox, Pamela Fox, Pamela Gaeta, Patricia Gallegos, Evangeline Gamez, Betty Garcia, Abigail Garcia, Caroline Garcia, Cheryl Garcia, Esmeralda Gamette, Theodora Garnette, Theodora Gamette, Theodora

05114/04 02128/02 02/10/99 01114/06 08/18/98 09/25/06 03115/05 05/26105 02115107 12115/06 07/22106 10104/06 03/31101 06124/06 02101199 08/08/06 02112107 01114/08 06118/07

03/03/05 03/04/02 03/24/99 02122106 03/26/99 10113/06 03/22105 06/16105 02124/07 12125/06 09/15/06 11116106 05/21101 06124/06 02105/99 08/11106 03112107

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

09111107
10124/07 03123107 04/01101 08/15/99 11105/07 05129198 06/27/01 12/18/03

09111107
12127/06 02115/01 07/29/99 10/30107 05/20/98 06/02/01 11117/03

10
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 85 of 130

1 1
2 2

Gates, Heather Gates, Gelle, Triah Gelle, George, Donna George, George, Gloria George, Gervasi, Debbie Gervasi, Gill, Prabhjot Gill, Gill, Prabhjot Gill, Gimena, leana Gimena, Gomez, Enrique Gomez, Gonzalez, Anna Gonzalez, Gonzalez, Cynthia Gonzalez, Goodwin, Barbara Goodwin, Graham, Caryn Graham,
Gray, Gray, Suzann Green, Green, Danielle Green, Green, Terri Greene, Greene, Amy Greenfield, Greenfield, Traci Grewal, Grewal, Da1j i t Guajardo, Guajardo, Sandra Haile, Haile, Asghedet Halko1a, Halko1a, Kurt Ha1ko1a, Ha1ko1a, Kurt Ha1ko1a, Ha1ko1a, Kurt Harder, Harder, Debra Harris, Harris, Frances Hawkins, Hawkins, Karen

09/21107 09/26/07 02/02/05 05/06/05 12120104 01125/06 04116/06 03/04/05 03/09/06 09/19/99 04/30107 10/26/04 08/16/99 06/05/07 05/03/07 09/05/00 07/16/99 07113/00 03/24/06 03/01100 07/04/06
01113/05

11102/07 11120107

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

02119105
05120105 04/11/05 03/09/06

04/21106
03/23/05 03120106 12/08/99 05/09/07 05/26/06 09116199 06/21107 05114107 09/11100 08/25/99 08107/00 04/01106 04/03/00 09117106 02114/05 04/30107 05/27/07 04/11106 03/28/05 12/17/07

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

04/16/07 05/05/07 03/30106
03/21105

11126107

11 DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 86 of 130

I

Heer, Jagdipak Heer, Jagdipak Hernandez, Cecilia Hernandez, Eva Hernandez, Lorraine Herron, Wanda Herron, Wanda Hicks, Kimberly Hodges, Chavon Hosseini, Gowhartaj Idolyantes, Edna Irias, Cecilia Ivey, Sharon Jimenez, Evangeline Jimenez, Pamela Johnson, Kerrie Juarez, Grace Juarez, Grace Kalish, David Karunakar, Arsr Kennison, Carolyn Kent, April Khan, Farah Khandaker, Nurun King, Carie Kinsella, Robert Larios, Guadalupe

02/14/01 08/08/05 09/12/03 09/29/07 09/28/05 09/10103 01105104 05/20105 06108/06 05/28/03 03/16104 03/20100 03/09/99 06102/03 11104/00 04/03/04 05/14/97 02/19/99 07/15/07 06/25/07 09/25/07 08/23/04 03/12/07 08115/07 08/07/07 11110199 09/05/05

03/14/01 08/21105 10106103 11110107 10/10105 10/20103 01110104 06104/05 07/08/06 06/29/03 03/29/04 04/24/00 03117199 06112103 12/06100 03/20104 05/21/97 02124199 08/03/07 07/10107 01118108 08129104 04/19107 09/24/07 09117107 12101199 10119105

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11

12
13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22

23 24 25 26 27 28

12
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 87 of 130

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

Ledezma, Gladys Lee, Ruth Liu, Hsin Lizalde, Kathleen Lomely, Veronica Lynch, Laura Lynch, Laura Macias, Cruz Macias, F Magno, Maria Malaque, Marygrace Marderosian, Susanne Marichalar, Nereyda Martinez, Laura Martinez, Rosa Martinez, Susan Mcaliste, Tracie Mcconnehey, Diane McNinch, Kathleen Medrano, Jdarius Medrano, Jdarius Menchaca, Vicki Merabi, Shila
Miller, Miller, Lori

12118/07 06/12/04 09/08/05 02/25/05 09/11107 10/30103 05/23/02 03112/07 04/07/97 08110105 01127/07 05/24/03 06/30/97 05/04/05 10102/06 04117/04 12/01/98 01124/05 03118/07 05112107 11123/07 12/24/06 09/12/05
07/07/98

08/16/04
12/01105 03/21105 11102/07

12/04/03
06110102 04116/07

12/30/97
08/29/05 03/08/07 08/24/03 07/12/97 05111105 10116106 04/20104 12116198 02114/05 03/26/07 05/27/07 12109/07 01128107 01106106 09/02/98 01127/07 03/03/07 03124107

14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 21

22 23 24
25 25

Montano, Rovelyn Montano, Rovelyn Montano, Rovelyn

01120107 02/24/07 03/17/07

26 27
28 28

13

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAlNTIFF'S lNTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 88 of 130

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

Montano, Rove1yn Montano, Rove1yn Montano, Rove1yn Montemayor, Martha Moon, Nicole Morales, Maria Morris, Jeneal Morrow, Antonieta Mudryk, Cheri Mullen, Amanda Murr, George Negranza, Melita Nitro, Gilbert Nunez, Leticia Nunez, Nicole Nunez, Nicole Nunn, Patsy Ochoa, Gary Ornelas, Petra Ortiz, Mary Ortiz, Rosario Padgett, Shirley Patrick, Brian Patterson, Shane Peet, John Pensinger, Stephanie Perez, Esperanza

04114/07 OS/27/07 06/23/07 10/28/01 07110/03 12/04/07 11/19/03 06118/07 03/26/99 07/26/03 05/04/05 08111/99 04/25/04 07/21/06 01/10/07 11/29/07 11115/06 01/09/05 10116/06 09/24/07 06/19/01 09/14/98 07/21/06 02/21/06 10/16/06 11120/05 02/14/07

04/21/07 06/03/07 06/30/07 01/19/02 09/08/03 01/14/08 12/09/03 09/30/07 04/27/99 12/16/03 05116/05 09/03/99 05/08/04 08/4/06 03/28/07

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

11/30/06 02/21/05 10/27/06 10/04/07 06/25/01 10112/98 09/29/06 02/27/06 10/23/06 01/03/06 02119/07

28 28 14 DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 89 of 130

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 21 21 22 22 23 23 24 24 25 25 26 26 27 27 28 28

Perez, Jeanette Perez, Perez, Maria Perkins, Lois Peterson, Michelle Peterson, Peterson, Sandra Peterson, Pob1ete, Ma Pob1ete, Poindexter, Lisa Poindexter, Powers, Alexandra Powers, Prince, Lynn Prince, Probert-Thomas, G Probert-Thomas, Prows, Jodi Prows, Quintero, Gloria Quintero, Rabe, Thomas Rabe,
Radica, Radica, Rebecca Radica, Radica, Rebecca Ramirez, Ramirez, Jesus Ramirez, Ramirez, Jose Ramirez-Padua, Ramirez-Padua, Lizie1

11103/03 02/23/05 01108/07 09/25/07 03/19/02 OS/22/03 06/01198 11120/07 12111106 09/14/99 06/03/02 11/06/05 06/01100 02117/99 09/08/00 07/07/07
03/17/05

ll/17/03

04/14/05
01117/07 11/08/07 03/26/02

06/13/03
01102/99

01115/07 12115/99 06/17/02 ll/09/05 08/12/00 05/18/99 12/04/00 08/03/07 03/22/05 07/12/06 02118/01 09/25/07 02/16/99 07/22/02 05/02/05 05/03/03 01120/00 11105/04 03/03/05

OS/29/06 02/13/01 08/11107 11111/98 07119/02 03/07/05
04/21103

Ramos, Esperanza Recio, Allison
Reneau, Reneau, Olga

Reyes, Joslyn
Reyes, Reyes, Joslyn Reyes, Reyes, Ruth Richardson, Richardson, Genetra

10/18/99 10/25/04 02/23/05

Rippy, Anna Rivera, Redempta

15

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAlNTIFF'S lNTERROGATORlES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 90 of 130

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

Robles-Gonzalez, D Rogers, Nicole Roldan, Mario Rubio, Marcella Ruiz, Rosanna Ruiz, Rosanna Ruiz, Rosanna Ruiz, Rosanna Ruiz, Rosanna Sabo, Krita Sagun, Jocelyn Sagun, Jocelyn Sagun, Rbodora Salazar, Renato Sa1eewong, Pat Sa1eewong, Pat Salinas, Natalia Salinas, Natalia Salinas, Nora Salzman, Anne Sanchez, Nancy Sanchez, Nancy Sanchez, Rosanna Sanchotena, Mary Sandoval, Nora Sandoval, Norma Santerre, Eric

09/29/05

10/05/05 12/20/07 10/31106 08/04/07 OS/25/05 06/21105 06/21105 07/23/06 08/02/06 10/20/05 12/08/05 11101107 04/11106 10/18/97 04/18/05 07/02/07

12126/06
11101105 06/22/07 05/11105 06/06/05 08/17/05 OS/28/06 07/24/06 09/10/05 10/08/05 09/20/07 02/28/06 07/18/97 03/07/05 06/25/07 01117/06 01119/07 05/08/06 08/15/98 OS/24/06

02121106
06/08/07 09/25/06 09/25/98 09/04/06 01113/07 07/09/07 05/01100 11114/04 06/01104 02/24/99

10131106
06/18/07 03/15/00 08/21104 05/04/04 02/16/99

16 DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 91 of 130

II

Sceales, Patricia Serrano, Lydia Sevillano, Maritza Shafa, Haleh Sharma, Ira Shaw, Judith Shaw, Judith Shaw, Judith Shergill, Ramanjit Shiao, Tu Singh, Manjit Singh, Manjit Siritaratiwat, Pat Smith, April Smith, Daian Smith, Sara Smith, Sara Smith-White, Regina Snook, Karan Solanki, Sangita
Solorio, Solorio, Irene

11101106
02/10101 09114/03 08/03/99 10/23/07

01125/07

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 11

04116101
09/29103 08/22/99 10/31107

08111101
06108/04 05117106 07/13/06 04/11198 10/30104 01109108 06116103 10117106 05/24/04 03/31/07 06/23/07 04/05/00 08/04/04 06105/04
02/28/06

08118/01
06/24/04 10102/06 09101106 05/28/98 12/20104

12
13 13

06/27/03 11117/06 10/21104 04/21107 07114107 04/26100 08/30104 07/20104 05/24/06 02/23/05 11118/04 07/25/02 03/27/00 01103/00 06107/07

14 15 16 17
18

19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26

Soto, Mary Standlee, Angela Standridge, Donna
Steward, Steward, Kathy

02114105 09113104 06120102
03/20100

Struzyna, Karen Tabano, Gil

11127/99 05128/07

27 28

17
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 92 of 130

II

Tagumpay, Shiela Tagumpay, Shiela Tagumpay, Shiela Tajran, Deena Tak, Vandana Tak, Vandana Thiara, Kiranbir Thomas, Julie Thomas, Julie Torres, Ramon Valadez, Angelina Valencia, Luz Vazquez, Lorraine Vela, Isabel Vela, Isabel Velasquez, Vincent Velasquez, Vincent Vickery, Laura Villarreal, Nicole Villarreal, Nicole Villarreal, Nicole Walker, Dawnelle
Walker, Walker, Misty

12/14/06 08/04/07 09/26/07 10101/97 07/24/01 11116/03 02/07/07 08117105 08/09/07 04113106 07/16/97 09/23/00 02113105 01106107 04/19/07 04113103 09/16/05 05/18/97 01127198
10123199

01/24/07
08/18/07 10118/07

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 11

11117/97
09/01/01
12112/03 03/14/07 09112/05 09/20107 01118/07 09/22/97

12
13 13

10/16/00
03128/05 03/30107 06/03/07 05101103

14 15 16 17 18 19
20 20

10/11105
06/09/97 02/22/98 01114/00 02/14/06 03126/07 10/27/05 06113199 07/02/01 09/28/06 11110106

21 22 23
24 24

11122/05 03112/07
09/15/05

Weese, Charlene Weese, Charlene Wells, Deborah
Wenceslao, Wenceslao, Norma

06/12/98 06121101 08110106
10109/06

25 26
27 27 28 28

18
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 93 of 130

1

Wesson, Earnest Wetlesen, Dorothy White, Caitlyn Whittier, Nancy Williams, Herman Wilson, Brenda Wilson, Brenda Wilson, Brenda Wilson, Frances Wood, Deborah Yee, Angelina Young, Ma Rhodora Yzaguirre, S Zarate, Lucila Zuniga, Maricela

10108/05 09113/97 10103/05
11101106

11110105 09128/97 11112105 10101107 03/19/07 02/28/04 02/28/05 02/28/06 09/22/07 8114/958 01/24/06 05/30107 11109109 01103102 02/08/08

2 3 4

5
6 7
8

03/08/07 08112103 03/01/04 03/01105 08127107 06/20/98 10131/05 04110107 10/28/99 12/29/01 11117/07

9 10
11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

INTERROGATORY NO. 25
IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC other than PLAINTIFF who were not reinstated to their same position following a period of leave taken pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act or California Family Rights Act since October 24,1995.

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 25
None.

INTERROGATORY NO. 27
IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC other than PLAINTIFF who took or were placed on "ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE" (as that term is used in David Culberson's letter to PLAINTIFF, dated December 7, 2006 [DFJ01482]) in excess of one month while holding the position of Chair of a Department at KMC since October 24, 1995; for each such PERSON state the dates of each and every such period of 19 DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 94 of 130

I I 2 2 3 3
4 4

ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE; state whether each such period of ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE LEAVE was paid or unpaid; and state any and all reasons for each such period of ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 27

5 5 6 6 7 7
8 8

Dr. Sheldon Freedman was on paid administrative leave from April 13, 2000 to June 30, 30, 2000. His persounel file was discarded in 2003 pursuant to the County's records retention policy policy and we have no record of the reason for his leave of absence.
INTERROGATORY NO. 28

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

During the period from October 24, 2000 to the present, IDENTIFY any and all former members of the "MEDICAL STAFF" at KMC (as the term is defined in the Bylaws ofKMC) other than PLAINTIFF who employment contract with YOU was not renewed or extended; state state whether the contract expired or was terminated; and state any and all reasons for non-renewal or or non-extension of each such contract.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 28

Leonard Perez - involuntary termination Cary Freeman - involuntary termination
Irwin Irwin Harris - resigned

Mark Root - resigned Miguel Lascano - resigned Deng Fong - resigned John Digges - contract not renewed Peter Meade - resigned Jose Perez - resigned
Albert Ma - resigned

Jaafar Zada - resigned HA Pershadsingh - retired Lisa Burgess - resigned
Richard Richard Prather - resigned

20 DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 95 of 130

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

Arash Heideri - resigned then returned and is currently employed Tha Cha - resigned Shehla Baqi - resigned Chester Lau - resigned Nitin Athavale - resigned Daniel D'Amico - retired Stephen Docherty - resigned Stephen Williams - resigned Victor Ettinger - resigned
INTERROGATORY NO. 29

See response to Interrogatory No. 30.
INTERROGATORY NO. 30

1.

Saman Ratnayake, M.D. - Dr. Ratnayake was hired as a non-core, contrac contrac

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

employee on September 1, 1998. His contract was supposed to terminate on August 31, 2001 2001 but he entered into an interim core agreement with the County effective June 26, 2001. Tha Tha agreement was to remain in effect through November 30, 2006. It expired on November 30, 30, 2006 but, on June 19,2007 it was extended to June 22, 2007, retroactive to November 30,2006. 30,2006. Dr. Ratnayake entered into a new core agreement on June 23, 2007 for a term of five years. 2. Irene Spinello, M.D. - Dr. Spinello entered into an interim core agreement with with

the County on March 12, 2002. The agreement was to remain in effect through November 30, 30, 2006 but Dr. Spinello entered into a new core agreement on December 27, 2003 for a term 0 0 five years. 3. Khosrow Mostofi, M.D. - Dr. Mostofi was hired as a non-core, contract employee employee

in 1993. The last non-core contract between Dr. Mostofi and the County had an effective date 0 0 January 1, 1999 and was for a term of two years. Dr. Mostofi entered into an interim core core agreement with the County on January 1, 2002. Dr. Mostofi entered into a new core agreemen agreemen on December 1, 2006, for a term of five years.

21 DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 96 of 130

I 1

4.

Charles Wrobel, M.D. - Dr. Wrobel began providing services to the County as

2 3

independent contractor in 1991. He was hired as a non-core, contract employee in 1997. Th
last non-core contract between Dr. Wrobel and the County had an effective date of January 1 2000 and was for a term of two years. On November 12, 2001, Dr. Wrobel entered into interim core agreement with the County. Dr. Wrobel entered into a new core agreement 0 a November 1, 2003 for a term of five years.
5.
~ Juan Lopez, M.D. - Dr. Lopez entered into an interim core agreement with th

4
5 6 7 8

a County on July 1, 2004 for a term of five years. Dr. Lopez entered into a core agreement 0 January 8, 2005 for a term of five years.

9 10 11 12
13

6.

Mansukh Ghadiya, M.D. - Dr. Ghadiya entered into an interim core agreemen

with the County on July 1,2002. He entered into a new core agreement on March 20, 2004, for term of five years.

7.

Paul Miller, M.D. - Dr. Miller was hired as a non-core employee on July 6, 1999. ~

14 15
16 17 18 19

His contract was for a term of two years. On July 2, 2001, Dr. Miller entered into an interi core agreement. The agreement was to remain in effect through November 30, 2006. Dr. Mille
entered into a core agreement on March 20, 2004, for a term of five years. 8. Jose Perez, M.D. - Dr. Perez entered into an interim core agreement with th

County on July 1, 2001. The agreement was to remain in effect through November 30, 2006.
Dr. Perez entered into a new core agreement on September 6, 2003, for a term of five years. Dr. Perez left County employment before the contract expired.
9.

20 21 22 23
24

Richard Frelinger, D.O. - Dr. Frelinger was hired as a non-core, contrac Fre1inger,

employee in 1995. The last non-core contract between Dr. Frelinger and the County had a

effective date of July 1, 1999 and was for a term of two years. Dr. Frelinger entered into a
interim core agreement with the County on July 1, 2001. The agreement was to remain in effec 1,2001.

25
26

through November 30, 2006 but Dr. Fre1inger entered into a new core agreement on March 20 Frelinger
2004 for a term of five years. 10.

27 28

Fidel Huerta, M.D. - Dr. Huerta was hired as a non-core employee in 1998. Th

only non-core contract employee agreement between Dr. Huerta and the County had an effectiv
22

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 97 of 130

I 1 2 3 4
5

date of November 16, 1998 and was for a term of two years. On November 10,2000, Dr. Huert entered into an interim core agreement. The agreement was to remain in effect throug

November 30, 2006. On March 20, 2004, Dr. Huerta entered into a new core agreement for term of five years. offive

II. 11.

Gary Zohman, M.D. - Dr. Zohman entered into an interim core agreement wi

6 7
8

26, 2004 the County on June 26,2004 for a term of five years. On July 1,2005, Dr. Zohman entered int a core agreement for a term of five years. 12. Maureen Martin, M.D. - Dr. Martin entered into an interim core agreement wit ~

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

the County on June 18, 2002 for a term of five years. On November 15, 2003, Dr. Marti entered into a core agreement for a term of five years. 13. Donald Jagger, M.D. - Dr. Jagger was hired as a non-core contract employee i

I, 1996. His last non-core contract was effective on October 1, 2003 and was for a term of tw years. On July 24, 2004, Dr. Jagger entered into a core agreement for a term of five years. 14. Vahdatyar Amirpour, M.D. - Dr. Amirpour began providing services to

county as an independent contractor in 1994. He was hired as a non-core contract employee i 1997. His last non-core contract had an effective date of October 1, 1999. On July 24, 2004, Dr. I, Amirpour entered into a core agreement for a term of five years. offive 15. Daniel D'Amico, M.D. - Dr. D' Amico was hired as a non-core contract employe

in 1997. His last non-core contract had an effective date of October 1, 1999 and was for a ter I, of two years. On September 17, 200 I, Dr. D' Amico entered into an interim core agreement wi 17,2001, the County for a term through November 30, 2006. Dr. D'Amico entered into a core agreemen on July 24, 2004 for a term of five years. He retired in 2006 16. Nurun Khandaker, M.D. - Dr. Khandaker was hired as a non-core contrac

employee in 1997. Her last non-core contract had an effective date of July 11, 1999 and was fo 11,1999 a term of two years. On June 12, 2001, Dr. Khandaker entered into an interim core agreemen with the County that was to remain in effect through November 30, 2006. On August 20, 2002 Dr. Khandaker entered into an interim core for a term of five years. On March 20, 2004, Dr. Khandaker entered into a core agreement for a term of five years. 23 DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 98 of 130

1 2 3 4 5 6
7

17.

Rick McPheeters, D.O. - Dr. McPheeters entered into an interim core agreemen

with the County on July 25, 2000 for a term through November 30, 2006. On August 24, 2002, Dr. McPheeters entered into a core agreement for a term of five years. On August 21, 2007, th agreement was amended to extend the term through October 12, 2007. On October 8, 2007, th agreement was amended to extend the term through December 7, 2007. On December 4,2007 4, 2007 the agreement was amended to extend the term through December 6,2008. 6, 2008. 18. Stephan Sway, M.D. - Dr. Sway was hired as a non-core contract employee
0

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

September 1, 1998 for a term of two years. On August 29, 2000, Dr. Sway entered into interim core agreement that expired on November 30, 2006. On December 19, 2006, Dr. Swa entered into a core agreement that was retroactive to December 1, 2006. The agreement is for term of five years. 19. William Meyer, M.D. - Dr. Meyer was hired as a non-core contract employee
0

June 15, 1999 for a term of two years. On June 12,2001, Dr. Meyer entered into an interim cor agreement for a term through November 30, 2006. On November 1, 2003, Dr. Meyer entere into a core agreement for a term of five years. 20. Chester Lau, M.D. - Dr. Lau entered into an interim core agreement effectiv

September 25, 2001 that was to remain in effect through November 30, 2006. On December 2, 2003, Dr. Lau entered into an interim core agreement, effective January 5, 2004, for a term five years. Dr. Lau resigned his position before the agreement expired.
21.
0

Javad Naderi, M.D. - Dr. Naderi entered into an interim core agreement

0

September 25, 2001 that was to remain in effect through November 30, 2006. On December 2 25,2001 2003, Dr. Naderi entered into an interim core agreement effective January 5, 2004, for a term five years.
22.
0

Tai Yoo, M.D. - Dr. Yoo entered into an interim core agreement effective May 1,

2001 for a term through November 30,2006. On September 23, 2003, Dr. Yoo entered into 23,2003, 30, 2006. core agreement with an effective date of August 9, 2003 for a term of five years. 23. Victor Ettinger, M.D. - Dr. Ettinger was hired as a non-core contract employee 0

January 19,1999, for a term of two years. On January 17,2001, Dr. Ettinger entered into a 24 DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 99 of 130

1 2 3 4

interim core agreement that was to remain in effect through November 30, 2006. Dr. Ettinge

resigned before the agreement expired.

On January 24, 2003, Dr. Ettinger began providin
0

services to the County as an independent contractor and he entered into a core agreement February 22, 2005 for a term of five years. 24.

5
6 7 8 9

Savita Shertukde, M.D. - Dr. Shertukde entered into a non-core contract with th

County on October 5, 2004 for a term of one year. On October 18, 2005, the agreement wa 1,2005, extended through October 31,2005. On November 1, 2005, Dr. Shertukde entered into a cor 31, 2005. agreement for a term of five years.

25.

Joshua Tobias, M.D. - On August 14, 2001, Dr. Tobias began providing service 14,2001,
0

10 to the County as an independent contractor. He was hired as a non-core contract employee IOta 11
12

April 24, 2001. On February 26, 2002, Dr. Tobias entered into an interim core agreement tha was to remain in effect through November 30, 2006. Dr. Tobias entered into a core agreemen on August 24,2002 for a term of five years. On August 21, 2007, the agreement was amende

13 14 15 16
17 18

to extend the term through October 12, 2007. On October 8, 2007, the agreement was amende 12,2007. to extend the term through December 7, 2007.
On December 4, 2007, the agreement wa

amended to extend the term through December 6, 2008.

26.

Arash Heidari, M.D. - Dr. Heidari was hired initially as a non-core contrac

employee on July 1, 2003 for a term of one year. On June 8, 2004, Dr. Heidari entered into
interim core agreement effective July 1, 2004 for a term of five years. Dr. Heidari resigne

19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26

before the agreement expired. On July 9,2007, Dr. Heidari entered into a core agreement with 9, 2007,
term of five years.

27.

Jack Bloch, M.D. - Dr. Bloch was hired as a non-core contract employee on Jul ~

3, 2000. His agreement was terminated effective March 20, 2004. On March 16, 2004, Dr.

Bloch entered into a core agreement effective March 20, 2004 for a term of five years. Th
agreement was terminated effective October 14, 2006. On October 9, 2006, Dr. Bloch entere 14,2006 into a non-core contract employee agreement effective October 14, 2006 for a term of one year.

27 28

On October 8, 2007, Dr. Bloch entered into a non-core contract effective October 14, 2007, for 14,2007,
term of one year. 25 DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 100 of 130

1
2 3 4 5 6 7

28.

Albert McBride, M.D. - Dr. McBride was hired as a non-core contract employe non~core

in 1997. The last non-core contract between Dr. McBride and the County had an effective dat of October 13, 1999 and was for a term of two years. On May 29, 2001, Dr. McBride entere into an interim core agreement effective May 29, 2001. The agreement was to remain in effec through November 30, 2006. On February 8, 2003, Dr. McBride entered into a core agreemen for a term of five years. On February 26, 2008, the agreement was amended to extend the te through February 7, 2009. 29. Vasanthi (nee Ramaswami) Srinivas, M.D. - Dr. Srinivas was hired as a non-cor

8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

contract employee on September 1, 1998 for a term of three years. On August 30,2001, Dr. Srinivas entered into an interim core agreement that was to remain in effect through Novembe 30, 2006. On January 8, 2005, Dr. Srinivas entered into a core agreement for a term of fiv years. 30. Joseph Mansour, M.D. - Dr. Mansour was hired as a non-core contract employe

on September 15, 1999 for a term extending through November 30, 2002. On November 26, 2002, Dr. Mansour entered into an interim core agreement effective November 30, 2002 for term of five years. On January 8, 2005, Dr. Mansour entered into a core agreement with a ter of five years. 31. Siu-Keung (Ray) Chung, M.D. - Dr. Chung was hired as a non-core contrac

employee on July 1,1999 for a term of two years. On June 26,2001, Dr. Chung entered into 1, 1999 30, 2006. interim core agreement that was to remain in effect through November 30,2006. On October 5, 2002, Dr. Chung entered into a core agreement for a term of five years. On October 2, 2007, th 2,2007, agreement was amended to extend the term through December 7, 2007. On December 4, 2007 the agreement was amended to extend the term through December 6, 2008.
INTERROGATORY NO. 36

IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to convert PLAINTIFF'S reduced work schedule leave to full-time leave on or about April 28, 2006; and Apri128, state the date that decision was made.

26 DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 101 of 130

1 1

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 36

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 21 21 22 22 23 23 24 24 25 25 26 26 27 27 28 28

Peter Bryan, Steve O'Connor, Karen Barnes and Plaintiff participated in the decision to convert Plaintiffs leave to full-time leave. The decision to do so was made at their meeting on April 28, 2006. INTERROGATORY NO. 37 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to recommend removal of PLAINTIFF from his position as Chair of Pathology at KMC in 2006; and state the date that decision was made.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 37

Peter Bryan made the decision to recommend that Plaintiff be removed from his chairmanship and the decision to make that recommendation was made on July 10, 2006.
INTERROGATORY NO. 38

IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decisions RELATING TO each and every provision contained in the DOCUMENT entitled "Amendment No.1 to Agreement for Professional Services" [DFJl416]; and state the date that each such decision was made.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 38

Peter Bryan, David Culberson, Karen Barnes, Plaintiff, Eugene Lee, and the Kern County County Board of Supervisors participated in the decisions regarding Amendment No.1 to Plaintiffs contract. The decision was made on the October 3, 2006, which is the date the amendment was approved by the Board of Supervisors.
INTERROGATORY NO. 39

IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to recommend

reduction of PLAINTIFF'S base salary in 2006; and state the date that decision was made.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 39

Peter Bryan, David Culberson, Karen Barnes, Plaintiff, Eugene Lee, and the Kern County County

Board of Supervisors participated in the decision to reduce Plaintiffs base salary. The decision

27

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 102 of 130

I I 2 2

was made on the October 3, 2006, which is the date the amendment was approved by the Board of Supervisors.
INTERROGATORY NO. 42

3 3
4 4 5 5 6 6
7 7

IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to place PLAINTIFF on administrative leave with pay on or about December 7, 2006; and state the date that decision was made.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 42

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

David Culberson, Irwin Harris, Phil Dutt, Margo Raison and Karen Barnes. The decision decision was made on December 6, 2006.
INTERROGATORY NO. 43

IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to lift the restriction on PLAINTIFF'S administrative leave (as that term is used in the letter of April 30, 2007 from Mark Wasser, DEFENDANT'S counsel [DFJ7101]); and state the date that decision was made.
SUPPLEMETAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 43

Mark Nations and Mark Wasser. The decision was made on April 27, 2007.
INTERROGATORY NO. 44

IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to propose to PLAINTIFF a "BUYOUT" (as that term is used in the email of May I, 2007 from Mark Wasser, DEFENDANT'S counsel [DFJOI482]); and state the date that decision was made.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 44

Mark Nations and Mark Wasser. The decision was made on April 27, 2007.
INTERROGATORY NO. 48

State each and every job function which YOU contend were the essential functions of PLAINTIFF'S position as Chair of Pathology at KMC.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 48

The essential functions of Plaintiffs position are set forth in the KMC Medical Staff Bylaws at page 46, section 9.7, Department Chairs; section 9.7-1, Qualifications and pages 4828

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 103 of 130

I 1 2
3

50, section 9.7-5, Responsibilities and Duties of Department Chairs and Plaintiffs job description.

4 5 6 7 8
9

SIGNATURE OF PARTY UNDER OATH
J. I, Paul 1. Hensler, have read Plaintiffs first set of interrogatories to Defendants and the

foregoing supplemental answers thereto and certify under penalty of perjury that the supplemental answers are true and correct. Dated: March _, 2008

10
11 12 13

By:

_ _

J. Paul 1. Hensler Chief Executive Officer, Kern Medical Center
SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY AS TO OBJECTIONS Dated: March

14

S , 2008

LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER

IS 15
16
17
By:_-#==.I,..loo=::;!.......::=:....:!...--::..=.===---~
__l

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

18 19 20
21

22
23

24
25

26
27

28

29
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 104 of 130

1 Mark A. Wasser CA SB #060160 1 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER 2 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 11 00 2 Sacramento, CA 95814 3 Phone: (916) 444-6400 3 Fax: (916) 444-6405 4 E-mail: mwasser@markwasser.com 5 Bernard C. Barmann, Sr. KERN COUNTY COUNSEL Mark Nations, Chief Deputy 6 1115 Truxtun Avenue, Fourth Floor 6 Bakersfield, CA 93301 7 Phone: (661) 868-3800 7 Fax: (661) 868-3805 8 E-mail: mnations@co.kern.ca.us 8 Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern, 10 Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher, 10 Jennifer Abraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smith 11 and William Roy 11 12 12
13 13 14 14 15 15 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O. 16 16 17 17
~

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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

Plaintiff, vs.

18 18 COUNTY OF KERN, et a\.,

) 20 20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - . )

19 19

Defendants.

~ ~ ~)

21 21 22 22 23 23 24 24 25 25 26 26 27 27 28 28
PROOF OF SERVICE PROOF OF SERVICE

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 105 of 130

party to 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 95814. On 3 March 5, 2008, I served the within documents: Defendants' Supplemental Responses to Plaintifrs Plaintifrs 3 Interrogatories (Set One). 4 o 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 A copy 5 of the transmittal/confirmation sheet is attached, and 6 6 by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully thereon fully 7 7 forth prepaid, in the United States mail at Sacramento, California addressed as set forth below.

8

9 9

o
o

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 Delivery envelope and affixing a pre-paid air bill, and causing the envelope to be delivered to a delivered to a Overnight Delivery Federal Express agent for delivery at the address set forth below. below. Eugene Lee Law Offices of Eugene Lee 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100 Los Angeles, California 90013-1010

10 10 11 11

12
13 13 14 14 15 15

I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with day with 16 the party 16 postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party 17 17 served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. above is true I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true 19 19 and correct. 20 20 Executed on March 5, 2008, at Sacramento, California. 18 18

21 21
22 22 23 23 24 24 25 25 26 26
27 27

Ov~1!,~V\

~ ~

28 28
-2PROOF OF SERVICE PROOF OF SERVICE

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 106 of 130

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 EXHIBITS TO JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT re: INTERROGATORIES 4 EXHIBIT 4: Meet and confer correspondence between the parties

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 107 of 130

Mark Wasser [mwasser@markwasser.com] Wednesday, February 13, 2008 8:48 AM elee@LOEL.com RE: Jadwin/KC: Interrogatories

Sorry. That was my oversight. I will get you a verification. Mark

From: Eugene D. Lee [mailto:elee@LOEL.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 8:59 PM To: mwasser@markwasser.com Subject: Jadwin/KC: Interrogatories

Mark, We still haven’t received any verification by Defendants’ of Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories, set one. As you know, the responses were due on February 1. Please send us the verification immediately. 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 0109 Plaintiff Gets $30,300, His Lawyers Get $1,1 mil, Febn>o..... , , ... " ..." ,y "'oo,,"..

 

1

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 108 of 130

Assistant [assistant@markwasser.com] Thursday, February 14, 2008 10:22 AM 'Eugene Lee' assistant@markwasser.com FW: Jadwin Jadwin.Signature of Party Under Oath.021408.pdf

Transmitted herewith is the verification to Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories.

Amy Remly, Assistant to Mark A. Wasser

1

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
INTERROGATORY NO. 47

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 109 of 130

2
J 4 5 6 7 8

IDENTIFY each DOCUMENT or portion thereof contained in YOUR FRCP Rule 26
Initial Disclosures that YOU contend is privileged; slale the nature oreach privilege asserted; and state in detail the factual bases for each such asserted privilege. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 47 We do not understand this Interrogatory and are, consequently, unable to answer it. Are

you inquiring about our privilege log?
INTERROGATORY NO. 48

9
J0

State each and every job function which YOU contend were the essential functions of
PLAINTIFF'S position as Chair of Pathology at KMC. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 48 Medical Stafr Bylaws and job description for the position.

II 12

13
14 15 16 17 18
19

SIGNATURE OF PARTY UNDER OATI·I I, Paul J. Hensler, have read Plaintilrs first set ofinterrogalorics to Defendants and the foregoing answers thereto and certi fy under penalty of perjury that the answers are true and correct. Dated: February /..J. 2008

20 21 22

BY::---!-Y--~) ==~_
! c.::...b=' {

Puul1. Hensler

Chief Executive Officer, Kern Medical Center

SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY AS TO OIl.IECTIONS 24 Dated: February 1,2008 LA W OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER

26
27 28 By:
/s/ Mark A. Wasser Mark A. Wasser Attorney for Defendants, COUllty of Kern, et <II.

54
DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 110 of 130

Eugene D. Lee [elee@LOEL.com] Tuesday, February 19, 2008 3:57 PM 'mwasser@markwasser.com' RE: Jadwin/KC: Interrogatories

Mark, I’ll call 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 Plaintiff Gets $30,300, His Lawyers Get $1,1 mil,
Febn>Arf', , . . .

 

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

From: Mark Wasser [mailto:mwasser@markwasser.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 3:30 PM To: elee@LOEL.com Subject: RE: Jadwin/KC: Interrogatories Gene, 3:00 p.m. tomorrow is fine. Will you call me? Mark

From: Eugene D. Lee [mailto:elee@LOEL.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 3:22 PM To: mwasser@markwasser.com Subject: RE: Jadwin/KC: Interrogatories

Mark, 3 p.m. tomorrow works for me. Let me know.
1

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 111 of 130

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

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 Plaintiff Gets $30,300, His Lawyers Get $1,1 mil, Febn>o..,', , ... " ..." ,y "'oo,,"..

From: Mark Wasser [mailto:mwasser@markwasser.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 2:55 PM To: elee@LOEL.com Subject: RE: Jadwin/KC: Interrogatories Gene, I am back in the office and will be here the rest of the week. We can talk tomorrow, if you want. What time is good for you? Mark

From: Eugene D. Lee [mailto:elee@LOEL.com] Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 10:46 AM To: mwasser@markwasser.com Subject: Jadwin/KC: Interrogatories

Mark, Let’s discuss Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories, set one. When are you available to talk this week? Sincerely, Gene Lee
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LAW

OFFICE

OF

EUGENE
LAW

LEE

555 WEST FIFTH ST., STE. 3100 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 2

EMPLOYMENT

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

Document) 103-2 2 9 9 Filed 04/23/2008 Tel: (213 992-3
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 112 of 130

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 Plaintiff Gets $30,300, His Lawyers Get $1,1 mil, Febn>o..,', , ... " ..." ,y "'oo,,"..

 

3

To: 213-596-0487

From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee

Pg 1/ 6 02/20/08 8:37 pm

(213) 992-3299
TELEPHONE

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

LAW
555

OFFICE

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

OF

Page 113 of 130 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: 6 (including cover page) Re: Jadwin/KC: Rog1 From: Law Office of Eugene Lee Date: 02/20/2008 Comments:

Mark,
Please see attached.

To: 213-596-0487

From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee
Document 103-2

Pg 2/ 6 02/20/08 8:37 pm

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

Filed 04/23/2008
OF
3100

Page 114 of 130
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

February 20, 2008 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 Interrogatories, 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 today regarding Defendant Kern County's deficient responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories, Set One. We are writing this letter in follow-up to our
discussion.

As discussed, Defendant has agreed to fully supplement its responses as described below by no later than March 5, 2008. Ifthe following issues are not fully resolved at that time, Plaintiff will have no choice but to immediately file a motion to compel. Response
toRog

Issue

No. 1,2,4,5, 6, 7

Defendant refuses to state any facts. Plaintiff's position is that Defendant is required to state the facts upon which it contends supports its affirmative defenses. Contention interrogatories are not objectionable on the ground that they encroach on attorney work product. See Security Ins. Co. ofHartford v. Trustmark Ins. CO. (D CT 2003) 218 FRD 29, 34; United States v. Boyce, 148 F. Supp. 2d 1069, 1086 (D. Cal. 2001)(" Under Rule 33(c), a party can serve an interrogatory the answer to which involves "an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application oflaw to fact." Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(c); O'Connor v. Boeing NorthAm., Inc., 185 F.R.D. 272, 280-81 (C.D. Cal. 1999). The Government's contention interrogatories are not directed to issues of "pure law" that would infringe on the attorney-work product doctrine as codified in Rule 26(b)(3). Rather, they seek the facts upon which the Boyces' relied for their defense to the Forms 4340. As such, the contention interrogatories were permissible and the Boyces were required to respond to them." You stated Defendant disagrees. Plaintiff intends to move to compel. Defendant's response is vague and non-specific. It fails to specify (i) what efforts were made by whom to "counsel Plaintiff', (ii) what physical confrontations

3

To: 213-596-0487

From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee
Document 103-2

Pg 3/ 6 02/20/08 8:37 pm

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

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 115 of 130

Plaintiff allegedly had with other persons and with whom, etc.

9

You stated Defendant would supplement its response by March 5. The term "IDENTIFY" when used in connection with natural PERSONS includes the name, address, phone number, the current or most recent position held with YOU if the PERSON is or was employed with YOU as of the date these interrogatories are answered, and the last day ofthe PERSON's employment with YOu. Defendant has not fully responded to the interrogatory. You stated Defendant will supplement its response by giving the last date of employment and current or most recent position for each person listed. Plaintiff's position is that it is entitled to know the dates of employment, job titles, dates, circumstances and reasons for departure of County employees named as potential witnesses by Defendant. Moreover, all grounds for objection to an interrogatory must be stated "with specificity." FRCP 33(b)(4); see Nagele v. Electronic Data Systems Corp. (WD NY 2000) 193 FRD 94,109 (objection that interrogatories were "burdensome" overruled because objecting party failed to "particularize" basis for objection). Regarding Ev. C. 1040, it is a generally-worded statute regarding "official information". Defendants have the burden under Ev. C. 1040 to establish the specific "official information" privilege.
Defendant disagrees. Plaintiff intends to move to compel. The term "IDENTIFY" when used in connection with natural PERSONS includes the name, address, phone number, the current or most recent position held with YOU if the PERSON is or was employed with YOU as of the date these interrogatories are answered, and the last day ofthe PERSON's employment with you. Defendant has not fully responded to the interrogatory. When used in connection with DOCUMENTS, the term "IDENTIFY" includes the name(s) ofthe author(s), name(s) of recipient(s), date of creation, date of modification, date of delivery, date of execution, effective date, subject matter, bates numbers, page numbers, paragraph numbers, line numbers and/or section numbers. Defendant has not fully responded to the interrogatory. Also, Defendant has failed to state the "role" each person listed played in the PEER REVIEW.

10

IS

23

You stated Defendant will supplement its response. All grounds for objection to an interrogatory must be stated "with specificity." FRCP 33(b)(4); see Nagele v. Electronic Data Systems Corp. (WD NY 2000) 193 FRD 94, 109 (objection that interrogatories were "burdensome" overruled because objecting party failed to "particularize" basis for objection). Regarding Ev. C. 1040, it is a generally-worded statute regarding "official information". Defendants have the burden under Ev. C. 1040 to establish the specific "official information" privilege.
Moreover, no HIPAA protected information has been requested.

24

You stated Defendant will supplement its response. All grounds for objection to an interrogatory must be stated "with specificity." FRCP
2

To: 213-596-0487

From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee
Document 103-2

Pg 4/ 6 02/20/08 8:37 pm

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

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 116 of 130

33(b)(4); see Nagele v. Electronic Data Systems Corp. (WD NY 2000) 193 FRD 94, 109 (objection that interrogatories were "burdensome" overruled because objecting party failed to "particularize" basis for objection). Regarding Ev. C. 1040, it is a generally-worded statute regarding "official information". Defendants have the burden under Ev. C. 1040 to establish the specific "official information" privilege. Moreover, no HIPAA protected information has been requested.

25

You stated Defendant will supplement its response. Plaintiff's position is that Defendant's objection only goes to the phrase "other than PLAINTIFF". When objection is made to part of an interrogatory, the remainder of the interrogatory must be answered (unless an extension is obtained). FRCP 33(b)(l). You stated Defendant will supplement its response. The term "IDENTIFY" when used in connection with natural PERSONS includes the name, address, phone number, the current or most recent position held with YOU if the PERSON is or was employed with YOU as of the date these interrogatories are answered, and the last day ofthe PERSON's employment with you. Defendant has not fully responded to the interrogatory..
Moreover, Defendant has failed to state the dates of administrative leave, and any and all reasons for such leave.

27

28

29/30

You stated Defendant will supplement its response and understands that it has waived objections by failing to raise them in its Response. Absent extension or good cause, failure to timely respond to interrogatories generally constitutes a waiver of any objections thereto. FRCP 33(b)(4); Davis v. Fendler (9th Cir. 1981) 650 F2d 1154, 1160; Starlight Int'l, Inc. v. Herlihy (D KS 1998) 181 FRD 494, 497. At Defendant's request, Plaintiff has agreed to narrow this interrogatory from "MEDICAL STAFF" to "CORE PHYSICIANS". Based on this narrowing, you agreed that Defendant would supplement its response. Defendant's responses to these interrogatories are contradictory and illogical. Plaintiff further explained that the term "renew" includes the "replacement of an old contract with a new contract". See Black's Legal Dictionary. You agreed and stated Defendant will supplement its response. Defendant's response is completely non-responsive. You stated Defendant will supplement its response. Defendant failed to state the date the decision was made. You stated Defendant will supplement its response. Defendant failed to state the date the decision was made TO RECOMMEND REDUCTION of Plaintiff's base salary in 2006 (NOT approve it).

31/32

36/37

39

3

To: 213-596-0487

From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee
Document 103-2

Pg 5/ 6 02/20/08 8:37 pm

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

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 117 of 130

41

You stated Defendaut will supplement its response. The amount of reduction of Plaintiff's base salary was a precise number. Defendant's response fails to state the manner of calculation and all factual bases relied on. You stated Defendant will supplement its response. The term "IDENTIFY" when used in connection with natural PERSONS includes the name, address, phone number, the current or most recent position held with YOU ifthe PERSON is or was employed with YOU as ofthe date these interrogatories are answered, and the last day ofthe PERSON's employment with you. Defendant has not fully responded to the interrogatory. and failed to IDENTIFY "counsel". Moreover, Defendants fail to state the date the decision was made. You stated Defendant will supplement its response. Defendants fail to state the date the decision was made. You stated Defendant will supplement its response. Defendant's response is utterly non-responsive. You stated Defendant will supplement its response. Plaintiff explained that the questions are intended to determine which documents in the Rule 26 Initial Disclosures will be subject to privilege-based admissibility challenges by Defendant. You stated Defendant will supplement its response. You also acknowledged the meaning ofthe term "IDENTIFY" as used in this Interrogatory includes the name(s) ofthe author(s), name(s) ofrecipient(s), date of creation, date of modification, date of delivery, date of execution, effective date, subject matter, bates numbers, page numbers, paragraph numbers, line numbers and/or section numbers. An answer to an interrogatory should be complete in itself and should not refer to the pleadings, or to depositions or other documents, or to other interrogatories. Scaife v. Boenne (ND IN 2000) 191 FRD 590, 594. Moreover, Defendant has the burden of stating what the essential functions of Plaintiff's position were. You stated Defendant will supplement its response by stating the "essential functions" of Plaintiff's position.

42

43

44

46/47

48

4

To: 213-596-0487

From: Law Office of Eugene Lee OFFice
Document 103-2

Pg 6/ 6 02/20/08 8:37 pm

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

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 118 of 130

We look forward to our next meet and confer conference call with you at 9:30 a.ill. tomorrow a.m. (February 21, 2008).

Et
cc:

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

Iv) \J

5

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 119 of 130

Eugene D. Lee [elee@LOEL.com] Wednesday, March 05, 2008 12:13 PM 'mwasser@markwasser.com' RPD1/ROG1

Mark, It was a pleasure speaking with you this morning. We had discussed the following: You said that you had just received 2 boxes of additional documents from KMC and that you would be handing me those documents at the beginning of Dr. Jadwin’s deposition on March 11. We also agreed that we would have a call at 5 p.m. on Sunday, March 9, to discuss Plaintiff’s requests 65, 66, 67, 69, 70, 72, 76, 77 and 78. You said that, today, you would be serving supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories 10, 15, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 36, 37, 38, 39, 42, 43, 44, 48, as well as a letter explaining Defendant’s refusal to supplement responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories 1-7, 9, 31-32, 41, 46, 47 I further clarified interrogatories 46 and 47 (for a second time), explaining that Plaintiff seeks to know which documents produced in the Initial Disclosures by ANY party are subject to Defendants’ claim of privilege and challenge to admissibility. You confirmed that you had no further confusions or need for further clarification of interrogatories 46 and 47 and that you fully understood them. I explained that Plaintiff intends to immediately file a motion to compel regarding any unresolved requests for production and/or interrogatories.

-

-

Also, regarding Dr. Jadwin’s deposition, you stated it was Defendants’ intention to complete Dr. Jadwin’s deposition by March 12. If that does not occur, Plaintiff will not agree to a third deposition session in the absence of a stipulation or court order. I look forward to discussing the requests for production with you on March 9. Please contact me if you have any questions. 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

Mar 05 08 03:35p

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

p.1

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100 Sacramento, California 95814 Office: 916444-6400 Fax: 916-444-6405

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 120 of 130

The Law Offices of Mark A. Wasser

Fax
To: Eugene Lee

From: Amy Remly
Pages: 5 (including cover page)

Fax:

(213) 596-0487

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

Date: CC:

3/5/08

D Urgent • Comments:

D For Review

D Please Comment

D Please Reply

D Please Recycle

Please see attached letter.

Mar 05 08 03:35p

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

p.2

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

MARK A. WASSER
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100
Sacl'am.entQ, California 95814 mwasser@markwasser,com

Law Offices of Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 121 of 130

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

March 5, 2008

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 al.
Dear Gene: This is in response to our telephone conferences On February 20 and today regarding the Defendants' supplemental responses to Plaintiff's first set of interrogatories.

Interrogatory Numbers 1. 2. 4. 5.6 and 7.
Although we objected to this interrogatory on grounds of attorney work product and attorney-client privilege, the facts that support the third affinnative defense are set forth in the Second Supplemental Complaint and in the text of the defense itself. The third affirmative defense states that the Defendants' actions, as alleged in the Second Supplemental Complaint, were in furtherance of medical peer review, maintenance of quality of care standards, discharge of official duties and performed in the course of official proceedings authorized by law and that, as such, they are privileged under the referenced statutes. In drafting the third affirmative defense, the Defendants bad in mind only the facts alleged in the Second Supplemental Complaint. The legal analysis and reasoning why the Defendants believe their actions are privileged is protected under attorney-work product and attorney-client privilege doctrines but the facts have been disclosed. The same is true of the fourth, sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth affirmative defenses. They each reference the factual allegations set forth in the Second Supplemental Complaint. In interposing those defenses the defendants had no facts in mind other than those set forth in the Second Supplemental Complaint.

Admitted to Pracrice in California and Nevada

Mar 05 08 03:35p

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

p.3

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Eugene Lee March 5, 2008 Page 2

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 122 of 130

Thus, there are no additional facts to disclose.

Interrogatory Number 3.
The text of the fifth affirmative defense and our response to interrogatory number three fully disclosed the factual basis for that defense. In addition, the defendants have produced several tens of thousands of documents and Plaintiff has taken the depositions of several current and former members of the Kern Medical Center staff. The Defendants are under no obligation to summarize, in their response to Interrogatory Number Three, the discovery that has occurred in this case to date. For example, although you assert that the Defendants have not disclosed "what physical confrontations plaintiff allegedly had with other persons" the Defendants have produced the transcript of the investigation that was conducted after your client pulled a fellow physician out of a room by his necktie. We have disclosed letters admonishing your client for his behavior and you have listened to the deposition testimony of several employees describing your client's behavior. The Defendants' response to Interrogatory Number Three is more than adequate.

Interrogatory Numbers 9 and 10.
You continue to characterize the individuals we identified in our Initial Disclosures as "witnesses" and these two Interrogatories seek additional information about those individuals on the assumption they are witnesses. As I have told you on multiple occasions, the Defendants have not yet identified any ",itnesses. The list of v.itnesses. persons included in the Defendants' initial disclosures was compiled in compliance with Rule 26(a)(I )(A) which requires the name and address "of each individual likely to have discoverable infoffilation". It is not a witness list and Defendants have made no decision regarding who may be a witness in this action. There are no "witnesses" identified in the initial disclosures. I Plaintiff's attempt to bootstrap the persons identified in Defendants' initial disclosures into a list of trial witnesses and then demand employment history information on all of them is burdensome and oppressive and Defendants will not respond further to tillS interrogatory for that reason. At your request, Defendants will produce all those individuals for deposition and you are free to inquire as to their employment history. As soon as Defendants identify any trial witnesses, we will share that list with you.

Interrogatory Number 28.
It is a small point but the Defendants did not request that Plaintiff narrow this interrogatory from "medical staff' to "core physicians". The Defendants objected to the

Mar 05 08 03:36p

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

pA

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Eugene Lee March 5, 2008 Page 3

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 123 of 130

interrogatory and refused to respond further. You agreed to limit the interrogatory to only core physicians and I agreed, based upon that narrowing, to reconsider our response. Interrogatory Numbers 29 and 30. The Defendants' responses to these interrogatories are neither contradictory nor illogical and, contrary to what you write in your letter, we have not agreed that they are. The history of physician agreements at KMC does not lend itself to categorization based on the length of the contract. It is more complicated. Nevertheless, and despite the fact that answering this Interrogatory will yield nothing of any use in this case, Defendants will supplement their answer. Interrogatory Numbers 31 and 32. The Defendants' responses to these interrogatories are responsive. As I explained to you during our telephone conference, the job descriptions and employment agreements for medical staff employed at Kern Medical Center include a provision requiring them to comply with all hospital policies and procedures. Your client issued rules for the Pathology Department that required staff pathologists to provide onsite shift coverage during specifically stated hours and carry pagers when on call. Thus, those requirements became part of the job description and employment agreement for each and every staff pathologist employed after October 24, 2000. The Defendants have previously provided lists of staff pathologists employed since 2000 and there is no reason to do so again. Interrogatory Number 41. The Defendants recognize that the amount of the reduction in Plaintiffs base salary was a precise number. Our response to Interrogatory Number Forty-One accurately and completely responds to the interrogatory. Plaintiff's new salary was selected because it was comparable to that of a core pathologist. There is no further explanation required and defendants will not respond further to this interrogatory. Interrogatory Numbers 46 and 47. Defendants prepared a privilege log that accompanied their initial disclosures. Documents the Defendants believe are privileged are identified in the privilege log. You have asked us to review Plaintiff's Initial Disclosures and let you know if we think any documents Plaintiff disclosed are privileged. As you note, we have discussed it twice. You describe this request as a "housekeeping" issue and that you simply want to know if Defendants intend to object to the admissibility of any documents contained in your Initial Disclosures on the basis of privilege. This still strikes me as a strange request but I will review your Initial Disclosures and let you know if we believe any of the documents you disclosed are privileged.

Mar 05 08 03:36p

Mark Wasser

916-444-6405

p.5

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Eugene Lee March 5, 2008 Page 4

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 124 of 130

With regard to the other interrogatories referenc·ed in your February 20 letter, to the extent Defendants have additional information, we will serve a set of supplemental responses today. Very Truly Yours,

Mark A. Wasser

cc; Karen Baines (via facsimile)

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 125 of 130

Mark Wasser [mwasser@markwasser.com] Wednesday, March 05, 2008 3:39 PM Eugene Lee Verification to Supplemental Responses Jadwin.Signature.Supplemental Interrogatories.030508.pdf; Karen Barnes.vcf

Gene, Here is the verification to the supplemental responses to the interrogatories. Mark

1

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 126 of 130

50, section 9.7-5, Responsibilities and Duties of Dcparlment Chairs and Plaintiffsjob

2
3 4

description.

SIGNATURE OF PARTY UNDER OATH

5 6
7

I, Paul 1. Hensler, have read Plainlifrs first sel of interrogatories to Defendants and {he foregoing supplemental answers thereto and certify under penalty of perjury that the
supplemental answers are tme and correct.
Dated: March

8

s-, 2008

9
10
II

By.:~ L=---_ yj}J~_
LA W OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER

Paul J. Hensler Chief Executive Orficer, Kern Medical Center

12

13
14

SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY AS TO OBJECTIONS

Dated: M,uch __' 2008

15
16 17
18

By:_-,-.,---,------:.,,--

_

Mark A. Wasser Attorney for Defendants, County ofKem, et al.

19
20 21

22

24
7'

-,

26
27 28

29
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAfNTIFF'S fNTERROGATORJES

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 127 of 130

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 EXHIBITS TO JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT re: INTERROGATORIES 5 EXHIBIT 5: Declaration of Eugene Lee in Support of Motion

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 128 of 130

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

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 Attorneys for Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF KERN, et al., Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES Date: April 28, 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 Plaintiff submits this Declaration of Eugene D. Lee pursuant to Local Rule 37-251(d) in lieu of a

11 12 Defendants. 13 14 15 16 17 joint statement re discovery disagreement. 18 I, Eugene D. Lee, declare as follows: 19 7. 20 21

I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before the Federal and State Courts of

California and admitted to practice before the U.S.D.C. for the Eastern District of California. I am counsel of record for Plaintiff David F. Jadwin in this matter. 22 8. 23 interrogatories. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth below and I could and would 24 competently testify thereto if called as a witness in this matter. 25 9. 26 conferring with Mr. Wasser by phone, fax, letter and email, researching and drafting these moving 27 papers and attending the motion hearing in Bakersfield, CA. My regular rate for such services is $400 28 DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 1 I have spent and anticipate spending substantially in excess of 5 hours meeting and I am making this declaration in support of plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 129 of 130

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

per hour. 10. My rate is consistent with those charged in the Los Angeles area by attorneys of similar

skill and experience. I received my B.A. with honors from Harvard University in 1991 and my J.D. with honors from the University of Michigan Law School in 1995. I was admitted to the New York State Bar in 1996 and worked as an associate in the New York office of Shearman & Sterling from 1995 to 1996. I worked as an associate in the New York office of Sullivan & Cromwell from 1996 to 1997. After a brief leave of absence from practicing law from 1997 to 1999, I returned to active practice as the General Counsel of Tcom America, Inc., a technology venture in Silicon Valley from 1999 to 2002. From 2002 to 2004, I worked as a senior associate for Kim & Chang, a law firm located in Seoul, Korea. In 2005, I was admitted to the California Bar. I have been the principal of Law Office of Eugene Lee since 2005. 11. I attempted several times to secure local counsel to prosecute Plaintiff’s suit but was

ultimately unsuccessful. 12. On September 18, 2006, I sent an email to over 600 members of the California

Employment Lawyers Association seeking co-counsel. No attorneys from Fresno responded. 13. On February 28, 2007, I called Andrew Jones, Esq. in Fresno, CA, requesting his

involvement as local counsel in this action. Mr. Jones declined.

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: April 23, 2008

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 2 /s/ Eugene D. Lee EUGENE D. LEE Declarant

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

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 130 of 130

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, the undersigned, hereby declare: I am a resident of Los Angeles in the State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the action described herein. I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, California. My business address is LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE, 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100, Los Angeles, CA 90013. On the date of execution of this DOCUMENT, I served the following: JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES on the following parties in this action by and through their attorneys addressed as follows:

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Executed on April 17, 2008, at Los Angeles, California. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Eugene D. Lee FEDERAL: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the above is true and correct and that I took said actions at the direction of a licensed attorney authorized to practice before this Federal Court. BY UNITED STATES MAIL: I enclosed the DOCUMENT(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, addressed to the PERSON(s) listed above, and deposited the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service at Los Angeles, California. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. Mark A. Wasser LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100 Sacramento, CA 95814 Fax: (916) 444-6405 Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern, Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher, Jennifer Abraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smith and William Roy


				
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.