Docstoc

134 Request for Reconsideration re RPD1

Document Sample
134 Request for Reconsideration re RPD1 Powered By Docstoc
					Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 134

Filed 05/19/2008

Page 1 of 101

1 2 3 4 5 6

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 Attorneys for Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O. (“Plaintiff”) respectfully submits the following points and authorities in support of his request for reconsideration of Magistrate Judge Theresa A. Goldner’s May 9, 2008 order (“Order”) granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff’s motion to compel production and further responses by Defendant to requests for production, set one (“RPD1”). (Doc. 124). I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff David F. Jadwin, D.O., F.C.A.P., former Chair of Pathology at Kern Medical Center (“KMC”) and senior pathologist since 2000, filed a complaint on January 6, 2007. The complaint alleges, among other things, that Defendants engaged in the following illegal acts: defamation, whistleblower retaliation, disability discrimination and failure to accommodate, medical leave interference and retaliation, demotion and pay reduction without due process, and Fair Labor Standard COUNTY OF KERN; et al. Defendants. PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION BY THE DISTRICT COURT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION AND FURTHER RESPONSES [28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Local Rule 72-303] Date Action Filed: Date Set for Trial: January 6, 2007 December 3, 2008 Case No. 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION AND FURTHER RESPONSES 1

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

Document 134

Filed 05/19/2008

Page 2 of 101

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

Act violations. When Plaintiff began reporting several patient care quality issues at KMC starting in 2001, Defendants responded by singling out and targeting Plaintiff for harassment, retaliation and humiliation over the course of the next six years. In 2005, Defendants’ conduct finally caused Plaintiff to suffer clinical depression. When Plaintiff began reduced work schedule sick leave in 2006 to treat his depression, Defendants responded by demoting him and retaliating against him further, effectively ending Plaintiff’s pathology chair career. II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On October 11, 2007, Plaintiff David F. Jadwin (“Plaintiff”) served Requests for Production of Documents (“RPD1”) on Defendant County of Kern (“Defendant”). On November 20, 2007, Defendant served initial responses to Plaintiff’s RPD1 (“Response 1”). Thereafter, Plaintiff met and conferred extensively with Defendant in an attempt to resolve discovery disputes. On December 21, 2007, Plaintiff was forced to file a motion to compel production and further responses to RPD1 (Doc. 82). On January 14, 2008, Plaintiff’s motion was heard by Magistrate Judge Theresa Goldner. At the hearing, Defendant withdrew objections to Requests 32, 33 and 40, among others. (See Exhibit 1, 6:1015 and Exhibit 2, 20:16-19). On May 9, 2008, Magistrate Judge Goldner issued the Order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff’s motion to compel production and further responses to RPD1. (Doc. 124, Exhibit 2). III. AUTHORITY FOR MOTION A District Court judge may reconsider pre-trial matters where it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Local Rule 72-303. A motion to reconsider is appropriate if the court committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust. School District No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). IV. ARGUMENT Plaintiff contends that the Order with regard to Request Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 45, 51, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 65, 66, 67, 70, 71, 72, 73, and 78, is clearly

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION AND FURTHER RESPONSES 2

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

Document 134

Filed 05/19/2008

Page 3 of 101

1 2 3

erroneous and contrary to law. A. Assertion of “Confidential Personnel Privilege” under Cal. Ev. C. § 1040 Does Not Appear to Support Construing an Assertion of Federal Privacy Privilege The Court held that wherever Defendant asserted “confidential personnel privilege” under

4 California Evidence Code § 1040 (§ 1157 only pertains to peer review privilege) as an objection, the 5 Court would sua sponte construe that as an assertion of federal privacy privilege: 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Defendant’s assertion of “confidential personnel privilege” concerns the conditional 28 Here, nearly all of Defendants’ discovery responses assert a “confidential personnel privilege” without citing a specific source of law for the privilege. At the hearing on the motion, Defendants’ counsel relied on California Evidence Code §§ 1040 and 1157 as the source of this privilege. To the extent that Defendants assert a “confidential personnel privilege” as a state law privilege, it is inapplicable for the same reasons that the state law peer review privilege is inapplicable: state law privileges have no application in federal question cases. Agster, 433 F. 3d at 838-839. However, given the nature of documents requested and the reasons given for objecting to their disclosure, the Court construes the assertion of this privilege as also raising a right of privacy. (Order, 5:3-12) (emphasis added). Using this approach, the Court sua sponte asserted the objection of federal privacy privilege with regard to a large number of Plaintiff’s Requests – Request Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 45, 51, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 65, 66, 67, 70, 71, 72, 73, 78. The Court then engaged in a balancing test and concluded in every instance that a protective order was required. However, the “confidential personnel privilege” under California Evidence Code § 1040 does implicate the constitutional right of privacy recognized by federal law. Cal. Ev. C. § 1040 states in relevant part: § 1040. Privilege for official information (a) As used in this section, "official information" means information acquired in confidence by a public employee in the course of his or her duty and not open, or officially disclosed, to the public prior to the time the claim of privilege is made. (b) A public entity has a privilege to refuse to disclose official information, and to prevent another from disclosing official information, if the privilege is claimed by a person authorized by the public entity to do so and: (1) Disclosure is forbidden by an act of the Congress of the United States or a statute of this state; or (2) Disclosure of the information is against the public interest because there is a necessity for preserving the confidentiality of the information that outweighs the necessity for disclosure in the interest of justice; but no privilege may be claimed under this paragraph if any person authorized to do so has consented that the information be disclosed in the proceeding. In determining whether disclosure of the information is against the public interest, the interest of the public entity as a party in the outcome of the proceeding may not be considered.

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION AND FURTHER RESPONSES 3

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

Document 134

Filed 05/19/2008

Page 4 of 101

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

governmental privilege against disclosure of official information by public entities and public employees whenever such disclosure is against the public interest. Put another way, it is a privilege that is intended to enable the government to protect its state secrets. To the extent the Court is construing Defendant’s confidential personnel privilege as raising privacy concerns regarding County personnel records, which are at the center of several of Plaintiff’s requests, it should be noted that federal courts, including the 9th Circuit, routinely order performance and pay data regarding other employees of a defendant to be produced, over the privacy objections of employers. See Garrett v. City & County of San Francisco, 818 F.2d 1515, 44 FEP Cases 865, 868 (9th Cir. 1987)(personnel records of 16 other firefighters ordered produced despite privacy objection since documents are relevant to claim that black firefighters and white firefighters received different disciplinary sanctions for the same or similar offenses); Fritz v. Communications Test Design, 72 FEP Cases 1505, 1506 (E.D. Pa. 1997)(performance reviews of plaintiff’s co-workers ordered to be produced where co-workers expected to testify for defendant employer); Peterson v. City College, 70 FEP Cases 259, 261 (S.D. N.Y. 1994)(female professor alleging sex and age discrimination in denial of tenure entitled to discover personnel files of younger and male professors); Yee v. Multnomah County, 53 FEP Cases 623,623-64(D. Ore. 1990)(employer ordered to produce personnel files for all other employees in the plaintiff’s department). To the extent any Request requires production of personnel files of other employees of Defendant, such files are highly relevant to numerous issues in this action, including, but not limited to, what the real criteria are for punishing “arrogant” behavior, granting medical/sick leaves, investigating complaints, etc., whether those criteria were applied to Plaintiff in the same manner as his peers, and whether Plaintiff was judged unduly harshly compared to others. There exists good cause to produce the personnel file-type documents that Plaintiff has requested. B. Neither Plaintiff Nor Defendant Were Able to Provide Input into the Court’s Privacy Balancing Test Resolution of a privacy objection . . . requires a balancing of the need for the information sought against the privacy right asserted." Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 616; Johnson ex rel. Johnson, 971 F.2d at 1497. The privacy objection also "must be evaluated against the backdrop of the strong public interest in uncovering civil rights violations. . . ." Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 621. Furthermore, "a carefully drafted protective order [can] minimize the impact of this disclosure." Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 616; Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D.

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION AND FURTHER RESPONSES 4

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

Document 134

Filed 05/19/2008

Page 5 of 101

1 2

653, 662 (N.D. Cal. 1987) Keith H. v. Long Beach Unified Sch. Dist., 228 F.R.D. 652, 657 (C.D. Cal. 2005). Upon construing the assertion of federal privacy privilege in the Order, the Court applied a

3 privacy balancing test to Request Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 45, 4 51, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 65, 66, 67, 70, 71, 72, 73, and 78 and concluded that a protective order was 5 required in every case. But with the exception of Request No. 40, input was not permitted to be given by 6 Plaintiff – as to his compelling need for the documents requested by each Request – or Defendant – as to 7 the third-party privacy interests at issue in each Request. The outcome of the Court’s privacy balancing 8 test was an a priori conclusion that a protective order was necessary in every case without exception. 9 The Court then ordered Plaintiff to meet and confer with Defendant on each Request and to negotiate a 10 federal right of privacy protective order within 5 days of issuance of the Order. However, the parties 11 have no guidance as to which privacy interests should yield to which pressing discovery needs of 12 Plaintiff. The parties’ first attempt at a joint stipulation and protective order (Doc. 128, Exhibit 4) was 13 rejected by the Court and the parties were ordered to submit a revised stipulation and protective order 14 (Doc. 131, Exhibit 5). 15 Defendant did not assert the federal privacy privilege during the meet and confer process, nor in 16 their motion briefing nor at the hearing, nor was it ever discussed. The Court asserted the federal privacy 17 privilege sua sponte for the first time in the Order. Plaintiff was not afforded any opportunity to submit 18 briefing or be heard on the federal privacy privilege or the balancing test as to all of the above Requests, 19 with the exception of Request No. 40. Even with respect to Request No. 40, Plaintiff is still ignorant of 20 the privacy concerns which Defendant has been construed to raise since Defendant did not specify any 21 privacy objections beyond a boilerplate assertion of “confidential personnel privilege” in meet and 22 confers, motion briefing and at the hearing itself. 23 It should be noted that, during the four months preceding the Court’s issuance of the Order, 24 Defendant chose to produce most of the documents responsive to the above Requests. In so doing, 25 Defendant engaged in little to no redaction of personal identifying information. Nevertheless, Plaintiff 26 remains concerned about the application of the Court’s protective order to future supplemental 27 productions by Defendant. 28

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION AND FURTHER RESPONSES 5

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

Document 134

Filed 05/19/2008

Page 6 of 101

1 2

C. The Court’s Protective Order with Regard to Request Nos. 32, 33, 63 and 70 Is Overbroad Request Nos. 32, 33, 63 and 70 are reproduced below, along with Defendant’s responses:

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 70 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO peer review RELATING TO Kern Medical Center’s Pathology Department during the time period from January 1, 1995 to the present, including but not limited to computer-generated data, monthly peer review records completed by pathologists, and peer review comment sheets that are completed by pathologists upon discovery of a discrepancy. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 70 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 63 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO meeting minutes for the following Kern Medical Center committees or groups from October 24, 2000 to the present: a) Medical Executive Committee b) Joint Conference Committee c) Quality Management Committee d) Cancer Committee e) Second Level Peer Review Committee f) Transfusion Committee g) Executive Staff Meetings RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 63 Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain confidential personnel information or information that is protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA and the peer review privilege, or documents that are subject to the attorney/client privilege. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential or privileged information as appropriate. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 63 [All objections withdrawn by Defendant at hearing. (See Exhibit 1)] REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO complaints or grievances made by YOUR past or present employees against YOU for defamation, retaliation, disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and/or failure to engage in an interactive process, including but not limited to any informal or internal complaints, grievances or charges to any state or federal agency, and complaints filed in any state or federal court from October 24, 2000 to date. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 63 [All objections withdrawn by Defendant at hearing. (See Exhibit 1)] REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR discipline of any employee against whom a complaint or grievance of discrimination, harassment, defamation, retaliation, failure to accommodate, and/or failure to engage in an interactive process in their employment was made from October 24, 2000 to date.

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION AND FURTHER RESPONSES 6

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

Document 134

Filed 05/19/2008

Page 7 of 101

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

Defendants object to this request on the ground that it requests privileged peer-review information. Defendants also object on the ground that it requests information that is confidential under HIPAA and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce documents responsive to this request by January 7, 2008 if it is possible to redact the confidential and privileged information without rendering the resulting document useless. With regard to Request Nos. 32, 33, 63 and 70, the Court concluded that a protective order was necessary and took the further step of ordering Defendant to redact all personal identifying information for all employees of Defendant (other than the Plaintiff). Plaintiff respectfully submits that the protective order is overbroad and will render the documents requested effectively useless. Moreover, it is difficult to discern what federal privacy interest is implicated by Plaintiff’s knowing the identities of the persons who, with regard to Request No. 63 for instance, transcribed meeting minutes or attended certain committee meetings. D. It was Error to Construe the Assertion of Federal Privacy Privilege Where “Confidential Personnel Privilege” under Cal. Ev. C. § 1040 Was Not Being Asserted at All With regard to Request Nos. 32, 33, 40, and 70, Defendant did not assert a confidential personnel

14 privilege; hence, a federal privacy privilege should not have been construed as to these Requests. 15 Regarding Requests Nos. 32, 33 and 40, Defendant had withdrawn all objections at the January 16 14, 2007 hearing. As Defendant stated in the draft stipulation which they proposed to Plaintiff following 17 the January 14, 2008 hearing: 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff has amended Request No. 32 to limit it to complaints or grievances of the type specified against core physicians only. As amended, Defendants have withdrawn their objections to this Request. (See Exhibit 1, 2:10-12) and Plaintiff has amended Request No. 33 to limit it to complaints or grievances, including internal and informal complaints, of the type specified against past and present core physicians only. As amended, Defendants have withdrawn their objections to this Request. (See Exhibit 1, 2:13-15). Regarding Request No. 40, the Order states: “At the hearing on this motion, Defendants’ counsel withdrew the objections to this request and agreed to produce the documents, without 1) waiving the personnel privilege or privacy claims as to other persons, and 2) reserving the right to object to their admissibility at trial”. (20:16-19)(emphasis added).

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION AND FURTHER RESPONSES 7

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

Document 134

Filed 05/19/2008

Page 8 of 101

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

Thus, Defendant was not asserting confidential personnel privilege regarding Request Nos. 32, 33 or, in effect, 40. Regarding Request No. 70, Defendant asserted HIPAA, relevancy and peer review objections only. Defendant did not assert confidential personnel privilege. Given that Defendant was not asserting any applicable confidential personnel privilege, nor any privacy privilege, in Request Nos. 32, 33, 40 and 70, Plaintiff respectfully submits that the it was error to construe Defendant as having raised federal privacy privilege. V. CONCLUSION Plaintiff must respectfully object that the Court’s order is clearly erroneous and contrary to law for the foregoing reasons. Plaintiff requests that the Court reconsider Magistrate Judge Goldner’s Order.

Respectfully submitted on May 19, 2008.

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

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION AND FURTHER RESPONSES 8

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

Document 134

Filed 05/19/2008

Page 9 of 101

EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT 1. Defendant Declaration re Inability to File Stipulation (Doc. 86) EXHIBIT 2. Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 124). EXHIBIT 3. Defendants’ Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production, Set One EXHIBIT 4. Stipulation & Order re Protective Order (Doc. 128) EXHIBIT 5. Minute Order Disapproving Stipulation (Doc. 131)

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

Document 134

Filed 05/19/2008

Page 10 of 101

EXHIBIT 1. Defendant Declaration re Inability to File Stipulation (Doc. 86)

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 86

Filed 05/19/2008 Filed 01/23/2008

Page 11of 19 Page 1 of 101

2 3 4 5 6 7
8

Mark A. Wasser CA SB # 60160 LAW OFFlCES 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. Barn1ann, Sr. KERN COUNTY COUNSEL Mark Nations. Chief Deputy 1115 Truxton Avenue. Fourth Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Phone: (661) 868-3800 (661) 868-3805 E-mail: mnations@co.kern.ca.us Attorneys Defendants of Kern.. Peter Bryan, Harris, Eugene Kercher, Abraham, Scott Ragland, Smith

9 10

11
12

13
14 15 16
17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID

JADWIN, D.O. Plaintiff.

18
19

vs. et Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No.: 1:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG DECLARATION OF MARK A. WASSER RE: INABILITY TO FILE STIPULAnON FOLLOWING DISCOVERY HEARING

20 21

) Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007 ) Trial Date: December 3, 2008 )

22
23 24 25

I, Mark A. Wasser, declare as follows:
I. I am counsel of record for Defendants and am familiar with this action. The facts

stated in this Declaration are within my own personal knowledge and I can testify competently to them if called as a witness.

26 2. 27 28

I attended the January 14, 2008 hearing on Plaintiff s motion to compel. At the

hearing, the parties reached certain agreements regarding Plaintiff s first request for production

1
DECLARATION OF MARK A. WASSER RE: INABILITY TO FILE STIPULATION

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 86

Filed 05/19/2008 Filed 01/23/2008

Page 12of 19 Page 2 of 101

of documents. Among other things, the Court asked the parties to submit to the Court, no later 2 3 4 than today, Wednesday, January 23, 2008 a stipulation and proposed order regarding some of the agreements that were reached.

., .
o

I prepared a draft stipulation, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, and

5
6 7
8

forwarded it to Plaintiff s counsel for review. Plaintiff s counsel responded that the stipulation included agreements on more topics than he was willing to include in a stipulation and he asked me to revise the stipulation and narrow it so that it covered only the parties' agreements regarding !lp,,;,p<'No. Request records. the draft that draft

9

4.
stipulation to is attached to

Upon receipt of the comments from Pla.intiff counsel, I it to the two topics he specified rlp,-.bntinn as Ex:llibit responded adding sent it to him

J0

one

13

paragraphs he had asked me to delete from the first draft. He also added new language at the end of the stipulation that would require Defendants to produce all medical, peer review and personnel privileged documents previously withheld. A copy of the draft from Plaintiff s counsel is attached hereto as Exhibit
6.

14
15

16
17

I responded to Plaintiff s counsel by accepting some of the changes he proposed
language at the of stipulation have required the personnel records preVlClUSIV

18

but relect!rl\!

J9
20 21 22 23 24 25

UClerloams to produce all medical records,

withheld. I also restored to the draft language Plaintiff s counsel had deleted that preserved Defendants objections to request number 40. Defendants agreed to produce the Royce Johnson personnel file, subject to their objections. Plaintiff s insistence that those objections be withdrawn or waived goes beyond the scope of the parties' open-Court agreement and would prejudice Defendants right to contest the admissibility of the records at trial. A copy of the final draft I returned to Plaintiffs counsel is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
7.

26
27 28

Plaintiff s counsel rejected my final draft of the proposed stipulation and I

reported to Plaintiff s counsel that I would prepare and file this Declaration relating our inability to execute the stipulation.
2
DEC LARAnON OF MARK A. WASSER RE: INABILITY TO FILE STIPULATION

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 86

Filed 05/19/2008 Filed 01/23/2008

Page 13of 19 Page 3 of 101

1
2 3

8.

The Court also asked the parties to report by today, Wednesday, January 23,

whether Defendants would be able to produce the exceptional event logs for histology and pathology requested in Request No. 71 and the paper accession logs requested in Request No. 72. As set forth in the first draft of the proposed stipulation (see Exhibit A), Defendants are able to produce those documents.

4

5
6

I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this 23rd day of January, 2008, in Sacramento, California.

7
8

9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16

By:'_-l~1ill:J5~~~LMark A Wasser
AtloHlev for lJetendarlts, et

~

17
18
19

20

21
22 23 24 25

26
27 28

3
DECLARATION OF MARK A. WASSER RE: INABILITY TO FILE STIPULATION

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 86

Filed 05/19/2008 Filed 01/23/2008

Page 14of 19 Page 4 of 101

EXHIBIT A

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 86

Filed 05/19/2008 Filed 01/23/2008

Page 15of 19 Page 5 of 101

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11

Mark A. Wasser CA SB #060160 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(uJmarkwasscLcom Bernard C. Barrnann, Sr. KERN COUNTY COUNSEL Mark Nations, Chief Dcputy 1115 Truxtun Avenue, Fourth Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Phone: (661) 868-3800 (661) 868-3805 E-mail: mnations@co.kern.ca.us Defendants of Kern, Harris, Eugene . nrangnn Ragiand,

12 13 14 15 16
17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID

JADWIN, D.O.
Plaintiff,

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

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

VS.

) ) ) )
)

snpULAnON RE SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND ORDER

KERN, et
Defendants.

)

) Action Filed: January 6, 2007 ) Trial Date: December _, 2008 )

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

WHEREAS, Plaintiff served a Request for Production of Documents and Defendants responded in part and objected in part and produced certain documents and a privilege log; and WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses and the parties reached certain agreements during the hearing on Plaintiff's motion to compel; and

1

NOTICE OF DEPOSITION 0 DAVID F. JADWIN

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 86

Filed 05/19/2008 Filed 01/23/2008

Page 16of 19 Page 6 of 101

1

WHEREAS, the parties enter into this Stipulation to recite their agreements and submit the same to the Court for approval;

2 3
4

IT IS HEREB Y STIPULATED by and between the parties through their respective
counsel, as follows:
1.

5

In supplemental response to Request No. II, Defendants shall produce the

6

requested employee directory information but shall redact any horne addresses or telephone numbers. 2. discs containing SUf,plcmental reSjlon:,e to contents of
26, Defendants

7
8

9 10

harddrive from the County computer assigned to Plaintiff to it to complaints or vrl,evencr', ofthe\

amem:led Request spe'citied objectIons to
4.
"C'WL"

11

core PhVSlClrms

As amended,

,

12
13

I
Plaintiff has amended Request No. 33 to limit it to complaints or grievances,

14 15
16

including internal and informal complaints, of the type specified against past and present core physicians only. As amended, Defendants have v,ithdravm their objections to the Request. 5. file of In response to Request No. 40, Defendants have agreed to produce the personnel , Royce Johnson but are neither waiving nor withdrawing their objections to its

17
18

production or conceding
6.

19 20 2I 22 23 24 25
26

Plainti:ffhas v,1tli1dnlwn Plaintiflhas amended Request No. 55 to limit it to documents relating to the

7.

review of Plaintiff David Jadwin's placental evaluations and billing activity as conducted by outside consultants. As amended, Defendants have withdrawn their objections to the Request.
8.

In supplemental response to Request No, 57, Defendants will make the product

chart copy-related documents available to Plaintiff for inspection and copying at Kern Medical Center, in a room to be designated, between 10:00 a,m., Monday, February 4 and 5:00 p.m, Wednesday, February 6,

27 28

2

NOTICE OF DEPOSITION 0 DAVlD F. JADWIN

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 86

Filed 05/19/2008 Filed 01/23/2008

Page 17of 19 Page 7 of 101

9. 2 3

Plaintiff has amended Request No. 70 to limit it to documents relating to peer

review of Plaintiff, David Jadwin. As amended, Defendants have withdrawn their objeetions to the Request 10. In supplemental response to Request No. 71, Defendants will produce exceptional

4 5
6 7 8 9

event logs for histology and pathology but are neither waiving nor withdrawing their objections to their production or conceding their relevancy. 11. In supplemental response to Request No. 72, Defendants will produce paper nor wlthclra'wl conceding their releVJlnclv 12 supplemental
Te<nn,,<p

obl!ecltl0J1S to

or

10 11

to Request

78. Defendants

jJWUW,C

placental

nor
o bll eCi.lOflS to or cOJlcedmg Defendants will produce all documents to be produced pursuant to this StipUlation

13 14 15

13.

by delivering copies of them to Plaintiffs counsel on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 in Bakersfield, California. 14. Defendants will prepare and deliver to Plaintiff amended privilege logs for all
prh~lege

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

documents for which the Defendants are asserting

on or before Tuesday, January

of

produced

patient information that is confidential under HlPAA, peer review information that is confidential under California Evidence Code section 1157 or employee information that is confidential under California Evidence Code section 1040. Plaintiff shall not reveal this information to anyone other than his legal counsel, their assistants, and any consultants retained to assist Plaintiff in the prosecution of this case. At the conclusion of this case, Defendants may ask the Court for an order directing Plaintiff to either destroy all documents that contain confidential infonnation or return them to Defendants.

[insert signatures and dates for counsel]

3

NOTICE OF DEPOSITION 0 DAVID F. JADWI

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 86

Filed 05/19/2008 Filed 01/23/2008

Page 18of 19 Page 8 of 101

ORDER
2
3 4

The parties having stipulated as hereinabove set forth and good eause appearing, IT IS SO ORDERED,

5
6

Honorable Teresa A. Goldner Magistrate Judge

7
8

9
10 11 12

13
14
15 16

17

18
19

20
21

22
23

24
25

26
27

28

4

NOTICE OF DEPOSITION 0 DAVID F. JADWI

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 86

Filed 05/19/2008 Filed 01/23/2008

Page 19of 19 Page 9 of 101

EXHIBITB

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 86

Filed 01/23/2008 05/19/2008

Page 10 of 19 20 101

1 2 3 4

Mark A. WasserCA SB #060160 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

5 . Bernard C. Barmann, Sr. KERN COUNTY COUNSEL 6 Mark Nations, Chief Deputy 1115 Truxtun Avenue, Fourth Floor 7 Bakersfield, CA 93301 Phone (661) 868-3800 8 (661) 868-3805 E-mail: mnati.)ns.(ci;(;o .. CUJJ.ca.. u. 9 10
11

12 13 14 15 16 17 DAVIn F. JADWIN, D.O. ) ) ) ) ) )
)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No.: 1:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG snpULAnON RE SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND ORDER

18
19 20 21
22

VS,

KERN. et

23 24 25 26 27 28

) ) Action Filed: January 6, 2007 Defendants. ) Trial Date: December 3, 2008 ) ) ) ) -------------)

WHEREAS, Plaintiff served a Request for Production of Documents and Defendants responded in part and objected in part and produced certain documents and a privilege log; and WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses and the parties reached certain agreements during the hearing on Plaintiff s motion to compel; and

1
STIPULATION RE: SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSETO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND ORDER

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 86

Filed 01/23/2008 05/19/2008

Page 11 of 19 21 101

1

WHEREAS, the parties enter into this Stipulation to recite their agreements and submit the same to the Court for approval;

2

3
4

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties through their respective
counsel, as follows:

5
6

L

In response to Request No. 40, Defendants have agreed to produce the personnel

tjle of Dr. Royce Johnson but are neither waiving nor withdrawing their objections to its production or conceding its relevancy. Defendants' production ofthc personnel file shall not constitute a we" V,," confidential pe::sonn,el reganl to any Defendants the product
lVleUledl

7

8
9

2.

supplemental response to Request No.
iiVliHdUlt

10

COIPv·,relate,d documents

to Piaintifffor inspection and copying at Kern 1

I1
12

Center, in a room to be del31gl1ated, 6, Dated: January 23, 2008

h,'lwF,pn

5

13
14 15 16 17 18 19

LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER

BY:_...JI",s,-1M""",a",rk,,-£A'-o-'-,W~as,-"s~er,-Mark A. Wasser Attorney for Defendants, Counts of Kern, et aL

_

2008

OF

20
21 22

By:

lsi Eugene D. Lee (as authorized on 1/23/08)
Eugene D. Lee Attorney for Plaintiff, David F. Jadwin, D.O.

23
24

ORDER
The parties having stipulated as hereinabove set forth and good cause appearing,

25

26
27

IT IS SO ORDERED.

28
2

Honorable Teresa A. Goldner Magistrate Judge

STIPULATION RE: SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSETO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND ORDER

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 86

Filed 01/23/2008 05/19/2008

Page 12 of 19 22 101

EXHIBIT C

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 86
Mark A. Wasser CA SB #060160 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER 400 Capitol Mall, Suite I 100 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (9 I6) 444-6400 Fax: (916) 444-6405 E-mail: nnvasserra)markvvasseLcom

Filed 01/23/2008 05/19/2008

Page 13 of 19 23 101

2 3 4

5 I Bernard C Barmann. Sf.

91

KERN COUNTY COUNSEL Mark Nations, Chief Deputy 1115 Truxtun A venue, Fourth Floor 7 Bakersfield, CA 93301 : Phone: (661) 868-3800 8', Fax: (661) 868-3805 .I E-mail: mnations@co.kem.ca.u5 6

Deleted: "1

Attornevs for Defendants County of Kern. 10 I Peter Brvan. irwin ~ Jennifer"Abraham, Scott "",;"",10, 1 i I, and \Vi!liam Rov

'I

12 Ii

-

" I

14

,

is i
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
VS.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

I:

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

II
DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.
) Case No.: l:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG ) ) STIPULATION RE SUPPLEMENTAL ) RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ) PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND ) ORDER )
)

COUNTY OF KERN. at aJ.,
24 Defendants. 25 26
27

l
) ) ) ) )

Action Filed: January 6, 2007 Trial Date: December 3, 2008

28

STIPULATION RE SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSETO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND ORDER

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 86

Filed 01/23/2008 05/19/2008

Page 14 of 19 24 101

WHEREAS, Plaintiff served a Request for Production of Documents and Defendants 2 3 4
I

responded in part and objected in part and produced certain documents and a privilege log; and WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses and the parties reached certain agreements during the hearing on Plaintiffs motion to compel; and WHEREAS, the parties enter into this Stipulation to recite their agreements and submit the same to the Court for approval;

5 6
7

I

'!

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED counsel, as foilaws: 1.

and bet'ween the parties through their respective

in response to Request No. 40, Defendants have

to
Deleted: b,t are Iwither
waivin~

nor

10
11 In
,:

nn,rl,we the personnel file of Dr.
Ii
'I

Defendants' prcldliciion oftne personnel file

,vi(hdn\"iiJ~

;(' It"

PWdHC!ion

{)i

shaH not constitute a \-valver oftne confidential personnel privilege with regard to any other documents. 2. In supplenlcrltal response to Request No, 57. Defendants \viH make the product

II I
II

L)

[4

!I chart wnv.,elmp·c1 documents availab!e 10 Plaintifffof in'mpetinn and nonvnw at Kern Medica!
ii

! 5 !I CentcL in a room
16
l?

to

be

between! 0:00 a.m .. Mcrnday. Fe'"onrv 4 and 5:00 p.m.

Wednesday, February 6.

18
19 I

20
21

i
1

221
23

24
25

,I

I ,

26
27

28
2
STIPUl.ATION RE SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSETO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND ORDER

II

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 86

Filed 01/23/2008 05/19/2008

Page 15 of 19 25 101

2

3
4
5 6 7

Dated: January 23, 2008

LA W OFFICES OF MARK A, WASSER

By:

is/Mark A. Wasser Mark A. Wasser Attorney for Defendants, County of Kern. et a1.

8

Dated: January 23, 2008

LA W OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE

9 10
By:

/s/ Eugene D. Lee (as authorized on 1/23/08) LU.ge"u D. Lee Attorney for Plaintiff. David F. D.O.

ORDER
The

stillUlaLted as hereinabove set forth and

cause amleatiDc,

16

JT IS SO ORDERED.

Ih

:: II 20 II
21 I:

Honorable Teresa A. Goldner Magistrate Judge

22\1
23

2) 'I

2~ \1

11

26

27
28
3
STIPULATION RE SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSETO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND ORDER

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 86

Filed 01/23/2008 05/19/2008

Page 16 of 19 26 101

EXHIBIT D

II
2 3 4 5

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 86
Mark A. Wasser CA SB #060160 LA W OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 444-6400 Fax: (916) 444-6405 E-mail: TIlwassen@markwasser.com

Filed 01/23/2008 05/19/2008

Page 17 of 19 27 101

Bernard C. Barmann, Sf. KERN COUNTY COUNSEL 6 Mark Nations, Chief Deputy i I 1115 Truxtun Avenue, Fourth Floor 7 ' Bakersfield. CA 93301 Phone: (661) 868-3800 8 Fax: (661) 868-3805 1 E-mail: mnations@co.kern.ca.lJs

9[1
10 11 12

Deleted: ~

I

II and William Roy
I
1

I Jennifer"Abraham, Scott Peter Bryan, Invin

Attorneys

fO.f

Def:ndants County ofKem,
Kercher. Toni Sn1ith

I'

14

!

15 I.i

161
17 18 19 20 21

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNiA

DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.

) Case No.: l:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG

I
\IS.

Plaintiff.

j
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

22
23

STIPULATION RE SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND ORDER
Action filed: January 6, 2007 Trial Date: December 3, 2008

COUNTY OF KERN, et al..
24 I
Defendants. 25 26 27 28

~~~~~~~~~~-)

STIPULATION RE SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSETO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND ORDER

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 86

Filed 01/23/2008 05/19/2008

Page 18 of 19 28 101

WHEREAS, Plaintiff served a Request for Production of Documents and Defendants

2
3
4

responded in part and objected in part and produced certain documents and a privilege log; and WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses and the parties reached certain agreements during the hearing on Plaintiffs motion to compel; and WHEREAS, the parties enter into this Stipulation to recite their agreements and submit the same to the COUrt for approval;

5
6

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties through their respective
counseL as follows: 1. In response to Request No. 40, Defendants have agreed, among other things, to Johnson but are neither nor withejrawiag their

produce the personnel file ofDT.

objections to its production or conceding its relevanc)!, Defendants' production oftne Derse,nr,eil
12

me shall not constitute a ,,\-'aiver of the confidential personnel privilege \vith regard to any other documents.

In

leraent'll response to lWyU"" No.

Defendants \vilJ make the
CO,W,'M

UHJW.M

chart copy-",Ialled documents available to Plaintiff for inllp"ction and

at Kern Medical

Center, in a room to be designated, between 10:00 a,m., Monday, February 4 and 5:00 p.m,
17 18

Wednesday, February 6.
Deleted: 15

Many of the documents Defendants have produced and will produce contain

19 20 21 22
L)

II
i

patient information that is confidential under HIPAA. peer review information that is confidential under California Evidence Code section 1157 or employee information that is confidential under California Evidence Code section 1040. Plaintiff shall not reveal this

Ii information to anyone other than his legal counsel, any consultants or experts retained to assist
!

Ii

Plaintiff in the pf(lSccetion of this case. and his and their assistants. At the conclusion of this

24

I

case, Defendants may ask the Court for an order directing Plaintiff to either destro)" aU
Defendants.~

25 I documents that contain confidential information or return them to

26 27
28

Dated: January 23, 2008

LA W OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER

By:

/s/ Mark A. Wasser 2

Deleted: 1n consideration of the foregoing, Defendants agrce to produce ~""l discovery allY and all documents ·which Defendants otherwise had or would have vvithheld trom production as plltient infortnalion that is confidentialllnder HIPA!\. peer review infOllllation that is (;on fidcntial tinder Cnlifol'l.1ifl Evidence Code section] 157 or employee infonnatioll that is confidential undel Califomia Evidence Code section 1040

STIPULATION RE SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSETO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND ORDER

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 86

Filed 01/23/2008 05/19/2008

Page 19 of 19 29 101

2
3 Dated: January 23,2008

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

LA W OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE

4

5i
6
7

By:

lsi EU2:ene D. Lee (as authorized on l/23/08)
Eugene D. Lee Attorney for Plaintiff, David F. Jadwin, D.O.

8

9
10
11

ORDER

Ii
II
II
1

The parties

" •• j••••• " ••

as hereinabove set forth and good cause 8DJlearine.

lT is SO OROERED.

1211
13
1

Honorable Teresa A. Goldner

14

II

Magistrate

15

11 i6 ii

17
18,

19

20
21

23

24
25

26
27 28
3
STIPULATION RE SUPPLEMENTAL RLSPONSETO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND ORDER

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

Document 134

Filed 05/19/2008

Page 30 of 101

EXHIBIT 2. Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 124).

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 124

Filed 05/19/2008 Page 31 of 31 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 1 101

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 -1Plaintiff David F. Jadwin, D.O. moved to compel responses to his request for production of documents (set one) directed to Defendant County of Kern. (Doc. 82). Defendant opposed the motion, contending in essence that it has either produced or is prepared to produce all documents to which Plaintiff is entitled. Counsel for the parties were unable to agree upon a joint statement regarding their discovery disagreements. Both counsel filed separate declarations explaining why they were not able to reach an agreement, and attached to their declarations exhibits outlining their positions, including copies of various emails, letters, draft documents, and the like. (Docs. 83, 84). At the hearing on the motion, both counsel stipulated to several of the issues in dispute, and the Court directed them to file a written stipulation with a corresponding proposed order for the Court’s consideration. (Doc. 85). Once the hearing concluded, counsel were unable to agree upon a written stipulation. (Docs. 86, 87, 88). DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., Plaintiff, vs. COUNTY OF KERN, et al., (Doc. 82) Defendants. ___________________________________/ Case No. 1:07-cv-0026-OWW-TAG ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION AND FURTHER RESPONSES IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 124

Filed 05/19/2008 Page 32 of 31 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 2 101

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

The Court has read and considered the pleadings and the arguments and stipulations of counsel made at the hearing on the motion to compel, and makes the following ruling. A. Discovery Overview The purpose of discovery is to make trial “less a game of blind man’s bluff and more a fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest extent possible,” United States v. Proctor & Gamble, 356 U.S. 677, 683, 78 S. Ct. 983 (1958), and to narrow and clarify the issues in dispute, Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501, 67 S. Ct. 385 (1947). Fed.R. Civ. P. 26(b) establishes the scope of discovery and states in pertinent part: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter. For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Relevant information need not be admissible at trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. “The party who resists discovery has the burden to show that discovery should not be

14 allowed, and has the burden of clarifying, explaining, and supporting its objection.” Oakes v. 15 Halvorsen Marine Ltd., 179 F.R.D. 281, 283 (C.D. Cal. 1998); Nestle Foods Corp. v. Aetna 16 Casualty & Surety Co., 135 F.R.D. 101, 104 (D. N.J. 1990). 17 B. 18 Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b) requires a written response to a request for production to state, with 19 respect to each item or category, that inspection and related activities will be permitted as 20 requested, unless the request is objected to, in which event the reasons for the objection shall be 21 stated. A party is obliged to produce all specified relevant and nonprivileged documents or other 22 things which are in its “possession, custody or control” on the date specified in the request. Fed. 23 R, Civ, P. 34(a); Norman Rockwell Int’l. Corp. H, Wolfe Iron & Metal Co., 576 F. Supp. 511, 24 512 (W.D. Pa. 1983). The propounding party may seek an order for further disclosure regarding 25 “any objection to or other failure to respond to the request or any part thereof, or any failure to 26 permit inspection requested.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b). Failure to respond to a Rule 34 request 27 28 -2Request for Production of Documents Standards

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 124

Filed 05/19/2008 Page 33 of 31 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 3 101

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

within the time permitted waives all objections, including privilege and work product.” Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F. 2d 1468, 1473 (9th Cir. 1992). C. Peer Review Privilege The majority of Defendants’ objections assert a state law peer-review privilege. Defendants fail to cite to a specific statute in their written objections, but reported at the hearing on the motion that the peer review privilege is contained in California Evidence Code §§ 1047, 1157. Except as otherwise provided by federal law, privileges in federal cases are governed by federal common law. Fed. R. Evid. 501; United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 562, 109 S. Ct. 2619 (1989). The peer review privilege has been addressed and rejected by the Ninth Circuit. In Agster v. Maricopa County, 422 F. 3d 836 (9th Cir. 2005), the Ninth Circuit refused to recognize the peer review privilege. 422 F. 3d at 839-840. Here, Defendants have asserted a state law peer review privilege. However, “[w]here there are federal question claims and pendent state law claims present, the federal law of privilege applies.” Agster, 422 F.3d at 840-841(citations omitted); Jackson v. County of Sacramento, 175 F.R.D. 653, 654 (E.D. Cal. 1997); Burrows v. Redbud Community Hospital District, 187 F.R.D. 606, 610-611 (N.D. Cal. 1998). Defendants contend that state privilege law applies to Plaintiff’s state law claims and not to his federal claims. Platypus Wear, Inc. v. R.D. Company, Inc., 905 F. Supp. 808 (N.D.CAL. 1995). Platypus is distinguishable from this case, because it was a diversity case that involved various state law claims and a single federal claim where the evidence sought went only to state law theories of liability and the plaintiff advanced no theory under which the evidence could be relevant to the federal claim. Here, Plaintiff has several federal claims as well as state law claims, and the evidence sought, which spans Plaintiff’s career at the Kern Medical Center, is relevant to both his federal and state claims. “[W]here state law claims overlap with federal claims in a federal question case such that particular documents are relevant to both the state and the federal claims, federal privilege law also applies.” Boyd v. City and County of San Francisco, 2006 WL 1390423 * 3 (N.D. Cal. 2006)(citing Wm. T. Thompson Co. v. General Nutrition Corp., Inc., 671

-3-

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 124

Filed 05/19/2008 Page 34 of 31 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 4 101

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

F.2d 100, 104 (3rd Cir. 1992)(additional citation omitted)). The Court concludes that federal privilege law applies, and the state law peer review privilege has no application in this case. D. HIPAA The majority of Defendants’ objections also contend that the requested documents are protected from disclosure under HIPAA. Defendants fail to cite a specific code section in their written responses. HIPAA refers to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. Pub.L. No. 104-191, 110 Stat. 1936 (1936)(codified primarily in Titles 18, 26, and 42 of the United States Code). Under HIPAA, a health care provider such as Defendant Kern Medical Center, may disclose protected patient health information pursuant to a court order, subpoena, or discovery request when the health care provider receives satisfactory assurance from the party seeking the information that reasonable efforts have been made to obtain a qualified protective order that: 1) prohibits the parties from using or disclosing the protected health information for any purpose other than the subject litigation; and 2) requires the return to the healthcare provider or destruction of the protected health information (including all copies made) at the end of the litigation. See Allen v. Woodford, 2007 WL 309485, *5 (E.D. Cal. 2007). Here, the Court is not satisfied that Defendants received HIPAA assurances from Plaintiff prior to the hearing on the motion, and the record reflects that no stipulation for a protective order has ben filed. (See Docket generally). Accordingly, Defendants’ objections to disclosure based on HIPAA are welltaken as to documents that contain protected patient health information. E. Right of Privacy Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) excludes privileged matters from discovery. Federal courts generally recognize a constitutionally-based right of privacy that may be asserted response to discovery requests. Johnson ex rel. Johnson v. Thompson, 971 F. 2d 1487, 1497 (9th Cir. 1992); Megargee v. Wittman, 2007 WL *2 (E.D.Cal. 2007)(citations omitted). “Although the right to privacy is not a recognized privilege, many courts have considered it in discovery disputes.” Ragge v. MCA.Universal Studios, 165 F. R.D. 601, 604, n. 3 (C.D.Cal. 1995)(citation omitted).

-4-

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 124

Filed 05/19/2008 Page 35 of 31 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 5 101

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

The right of privacy is not an absolute bar to discovery. Instead, it is subject to a balancing test that requires courts to balance the need for privacy against the need for disclosure in litigation. Ragge, 165 F. R.D. at 604 (C.D.Cal. 1995). Here, nearly all of Defendants’ discovery responses assert a “confidential personnel privilege” without citing a specific source of law for the privilege. At the hearing on the motion, Defendants’ counsel relied on California Evidence Code §§ 1040 and 1157 as the source of this privilege. To the extent that Defendants assert a “confidential personnel privilege” as a state law privilege, it is inapplicable for the same reasons that the state law peer review privilege is inapplicable: state law privileges have no application in federal question cases. Agster, 433 F. 3d at 838-839. However, given the nature of documents requested and the reasons given for objecting to their disclosure, the Court construes the assertion of this privilege as also raising a right of privacy. Accordingly, the Court will apply the requisite balancing test in determining whether the need for disclosure outweighs the privacy issues, and will also consider whether additional orders are necessary to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or under expense in connection with any disclosure that may be ordered as to such documents. F. Privilege Log A concomitant requirement with a claim of privilege is an adequate privilege log. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 provides in relevant part that: When a party withholds information otherwise discoverable under these rules by claiming it is privileged or subject to protections as trial preparation material , the party shall make the claim expressly and shall describe the nature of the documents, communications or things not produced or disclosed in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable other parties to assess the applicability of the privilege or protection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5) requires parties to provide a log or its equivalent when they

24 withhold information on grounds of privilege or work product protection. Etienne v. Wolverine 25 Tube, Inc., 185 F.R.D. 653, 656 (D. Kansas 1999). The Ninth Circuit has held that an adequate 26 privilege log identifies 1) the persons involved; 2) the nature of the document; 3) all persons or 27 28 -5-

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 124

Filed 05/19/2008 Page 36 of 31 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 6 101

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

entities shown on the documents to have received or sent the documents; 4) all persons or entities known to have been furnished the document or informed of its substance; and 5) the date the document was generated, prepared, or dated. In re Grand Jury Investigation, 974 F. 2d 1068, 1071 (9th Cir. 1992). Here, Defendants produced a privilege log, which Plaintiff asserts is inadequate for two reasons. First, because it is not sufficiently specific. Second, because it pertains only to the first installment of a two-phased document production. Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s requests for production relate to approximately 30,000 pages of documents, and that due to the large number of documents, they agreed to produce them in two installments. Defendants produced the first installment, along with a privilege log that they contend is adequate. Defendants contend that they were in the process of producing the second installment of documents, with a separate privilege log as to those documents, when the instant discovery dispute arose over copying costs and other issues. At the time of the motion hearing, the second installment of documents had not been produced. The Court has considered the first privilege log, and at the motion hearing, ordered Defendants to amend the log to provide additional information. Given the nature of the documents on the log and the Court’s orders made at the hearing, the Court declines to find a waiver of privilege. The Court next addresses the timing of the privilege log. Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(b)(5) requires the party asserting privilege to adequately describe the documents withheld, but it does not specify when the required description must be provided. Jackson v. County of Sacramento, 175 F.R.D. 653, 655 (E.D. Cal. 1997). In Burlington Northern & Sante Fe Railway Co. v. United States District Court for the District of Montana, 408 F. 3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2005), the Ninth Circuit held that “boilerplate objections or blanket refusals inserted into a response to a Rule 34 request for productions of documents are insufficient to assert a privilege.” Id. at 1149. The Court also held that failure to serve a privilege log within 30 days was not a per se waiver ,

-6-

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 124

Filed 05/19/2008 Page 37 of 31 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 7 101

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

and directed courts to make waiver determinations on a case-by-case basis, taking into account: 1) the relative specificity of the objection or assertion of privilege; 2) the timeliness of the objection and accompanying information about the withheld documents; 3) the magnitude of the document production; and 4) other particular circumstances of the litigation that make responding to discovery unusually easy or unusually hard. Id. at 1149. The Ninth Circuit also cautioned that the above factors should also be applied “in the context of a holistic realistic analysis.” Id. The Court has considered the Burlington factors, and the circumstances surrounding the submission of Defendants’ privilege log. Defendants’ objections were timely, but essentially boilerplate. Defendants did not produce a privilege log when they objected to the discovery requests, but submitted one when they produced the first installment of documents. Defendants produced documents in response to Plaintiff’s request, but did not produce them all at once. Instead, as discussed, Defendants proceeded in accordance with what Defendants’ counsel believed was an agreement between him and Plaintiff’s counsel. Although the precise details of the agreement are difficult to divine from the declarations and their approximately 200 pages of attachments, a task that is made more difficult by the absence of a joint statement regarding this discovery dispute, the Court concludes there was an agreement that the document production would be accomplished in at least two installments. Considering the timing dispute in the context of a holistic realistic analysis, the Court concludes that the date of service of the first privilege log and the fact that it addressed only the first installment of documents, does not warrant a privilege waiver as to either the items on the log or as to documents to be produced in the second installment. However, with respect to the latter, Defendants will be compelled to provide an adequate log or face waiving privilege. G. Reproduction Costs A dispute has arisen over the cost to reproduce documents produced in discovery. Plaintiff contends that Defendants refused to produce documents he requested to inspect, until he

-7-

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 124

Filed 05/19/2008 Page 38 of 31 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 8 101

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

reimbursed them for reproduction costs. He contends that he is not required to pay for the cost to reproduce the documents and that Defendants cannot unilaterally condition their production upon payment of such costs. Defendants contend that the substantive and temporal scope of Plaintiff’s document requests are unnecessarily broad, and require production of at least 30,000 pages of documents, many of which have marginal or no relevance to this case. By way of example, Defendants report that Plaintiff’s Document Request No. 57 seeks approximately 11, 000 pages of blood product chart copy records that relate to blood products delivered to patients, that Plaintiff contends has no relation to any issue in this case. Plaintiff’s first production of documents consisted of approximately 12,000 pages. Defendants served their first installment of documents on Plaintiff in the form of electronic files copied on CDs. At first, Defendants demanded that Plaintiff pay $10,000 for reproduction costs, and later reduced that amount to $2, 932.00 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) defines the general scope of discovery, and provides in relevant part that “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense ... .” Rule 26(b)(2) limits the frequency and extent of discovery, providing in relevant part that: On motion or on its own, the court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed by these rules of by local rule if it determines that: . . . (iii) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C). Under the discovery rules, “the presumption is that the responding party must bear the expense of complying with discovery requests, but may involve the district court’s discretion under Rule 26(c) to grant protective orders protecting him from ‘undue burden or expense’ in doing so, including orders conditioning discovery on the requesting party’s payment of the costs of discovery.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 358, 98 S.Ct. 2380 (1978); Zubalake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 217 F.R.D. 309 (S.D. N.Y. 2003); OpenTV

-8-

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 124

Filed 05/19/2008 Page 39 of 31 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 9 101

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

v. Liberate Technologies, 219 F.R.D. 474, 476 (N.D.Cal. 2003). Cost-shifting should only be ordered when discovery imposes an “undue burden or expense” that outweighs the likely benefits of the discovery and after consideration of all relevant factors. Here, Defendants have not sought a protective order. Defendants have not provided any case authority to support its position or an analysis of the factors to be considered in determining whether cost-shifting is appropriate, other than contending that the many of the documents requested by Plaintiff have little or no relevance to this case and the cost of their production outweighs any likely benefit. At the hearing on the motion, the parties stipulated to resolve the dispute as to responsive documents that were copied onto a CD but not delivered to Plaintiff, agreeing that Plaintiff will pay Defendants’ counsel the sum of $2, 932, and that Defendants’ counsel will reimburse Plaintiff at the rate of 14 cents per page for any duplicate documents contained on the CD. The Court accepts the parties’ stipulation and makes it an order of the Court. As to the remaining documents requested by Plaintiff, the Court concludes that they do not impose a benefit on Defendants that is sufficient to warrant cost-shifting at this time. H. Defendants’ Supplemental Responses On October 11, 2007, Plaintiff served his request for production of documents on Defendants. Defendants’ written responses were due by November 12, 2007 and their production of documents was due by November 16, 2007. Plaintiff and Defendants initially agreed to extend the deadline for responses to November 20, 2007 as to some of the requests, and later dates as to others. They also agreed to extend the deadline for production of documents to December 21, 2007. On November 20, 2007, Defendants served timely written responses. On December 14, 2007, Plaintiff agreed to extend the time for responses to December 21, 2007. On December 19, 2007, Defendants served supplemental responses to the requests for production. The supplemental responses included additional objections and assertions of privilege, that were not contained in Defendants ’ initial responses. In light of the parties’ agreement to extend the time for responses to December 21, 2007, the supplemental responses

-9-

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

Document 134 Document 124

Filed 05/19/2008 Filed 05/09/2008

Page 40 of 101 Page 10 of 31

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

were timely and the objections and assertions of privileges therein will be considered by the Court. (Doc. 83, pp. 103-169). I. Requests for Production The Court summarizes Plaintiff’s document requests and Defendants’ responses, and rules on each request as follows. Request No. 11 Documents related to Kern Medical Center personnel directories or lists maintained during Plaintiff’s employment with Kern Medical Center. Defendants’ Response: Defendants will produce all nonprivileged documents, redact privileged information, and produce the documents subject to receipt of reimbursement for reproduction costs. Ruling: The motion to compel is GRANTED as to this request. Defendants’ assertion of privilege lacks specificity. At the hearing on the motion, both counsel agreed that home addresses would be redacted. If they have not already done so, Defendants shall produce the documents for Plaintiff’s inspection and copying, within 10 days from the date of this order. After inspecting the documents, Plaintiff shall decide what documents he wants copied, and pay his own reproduction costs. Request Nos. 12-14, 15 No. 12: Documents related to personnel policies, guidelines, fact sheets, posters, employee and/or employer handbooks, training materials, and employee and/or employer manuals that governed Plaintiff’s terms and conditions of employment at any time during the period from October 1, 2000 to October 4, 2007. No. 13: Documents related to personnel policies, guidelines, fact sheets, posters, employee and/or employer handbooks, training materials, and employee and/or employer manuals that were distributed or made available to employees ,whether management or non-

- 10 -

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

Document 134 Document 124

Filed 05/19/2008 Filed 05/09/2008

Page 41 of 101 Page 11 of 31

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

management, from October 2000 to the present and the date of such asserted distribution. No. 14: Documents related to peer review, quality management and quality assurance policies and procedures at Kern Medical Center, including but not limited to Kern Medical Center’s Quality Management and Performance Improvement Plan, from October 24, 2000 to the present, and the effective dates. No. 15: Documents related to any training provided to officers, directors, agents or employees on the following subjects: a) disability discrimination, b) accommodation of an employee’s disability, c) the interactive process regarding accommodation of an employee’s disability; d) medical leave rights; e) whistleblower retaliation, f) medical leave retaliation, g) due process required for demotion; h) due process required for pay cut, i) due process required for termination of employment, j) defamation, and k) Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants’ Response: Defendants agreed to produce redacted documents, subject to objections that the requests seek documents that contain confidential personnel information, are protected from disclosure by HIPAA and the peer review, personnel, and attorney-client privileges, and subject to reimbursement of reproduction costs. Ruling: The motion to compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as to these requests. The peer review and personnel privileges are not applicable. Defendants’ assertion of HIPAA protection and the attorney-client privilege is appropriate. To the extent that Defendants assert a right to privacy, the balancing test weighs in favor of limited disclosure and a protective order. Defendants shall redact all HIPAA information from the documents. Defendants shall produce the documents, excluding those that are subject to the attorney-client privilege. Defendants shall also provide a detailed privilege log as required by Fed. R.Civ.P. 26(b)(5). The documents shall be produced for Plaintiff’s inspection and copying, and the privilege log shall be provided to him, within 20 days from the date of this order. After inspecting the documents, Plaintiff shall decide

- 11 -

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

Document 134 Document 124

Filed 05/19/2008 Filed 05/09/2008

Page 42 of 101 Page 12 of 31

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

what documents he wants copied, and pay his own reproduction costs. Request No. 17 Documents relating to the search, recruitment, application, interviewing, and hiring process that resulted in Plaintiff’s employment. Defendants’ Response: Defendants agreed to produce documents, subject to redaction and objections that the request seeks documents containing confidential personnel information, documents protected from disclosure by HIPAA and the peer review, personnel, and attorney-client privileges. Defendants agreed to produce the documents without waiving their objections, upon reimbursement of reproduction costs. Ruling: The motion to compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as to this request. The peer review and personnel privileges are inapplicable. Defendants’ assertion of HIPAA protection and the attorney-client privilege is appropriate. To the extent that Defendants’ assertion of a right of privacy to personnel information of candidates is subject to a balancing test, it weighs in favor of limited disclosure and a protective order. Defendants shall redact from the documents all HIPAA information and all personal identifying information of candidates other than Plaintiff. Defendants shall produce the documents, excluding those that are subject to the attorney-client privilege, and also excluding all letters of reference for candidates other than Plaintiff and all substantive evaluations of candidates other than Plaintiff. Defendants shall also provide a detailed privilege log for those documents that are withheld for the attorney-client privilege. The documents and the privilege log shall be produced within 20 days from the date of this order. Plaintiff shall inspect the documents, decide what he wants copied, and pay his own reproduction costs. Requests Nos. 23-24 No. 23: Documents relating to Dr. Phillip Dutt’s time sheets, from April 20, 2005 to the

- 12 -

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

Document 134 Document 124

Filed 05/19/2008 Filed 05/09/2008

Page 43 of 101 Page 13 of 31

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

present. No. 24: Documents relating to Dr. Savita Shertukde’s time sheets, from January 4, 2005 to present. Defendants’ Response: Defendants agreed to produce documents redacted for privileged information, subject to reimbursement for reproduction costs. Ruling: The motion to compel is GRANTED as to these requests. The responses fails to specify the asserted privilege. Defendants shall produce the documents for Plaintiff’s inspection and copying within 10 days from the date of this order. Plaintiff shall inspect the documents, decide what he wants copied, and pay his own reproduction costs. Request No. 25 Documents relating to performance reviews, comments, complaints, warnings, reprimands, counseling, advisory notices or evaluations of Plaintiff’s performance of his job duties throughout his employment, whether formal or informal. Defendants’ Response: Defendants objected to this request on the ground that it seeks documents containing information protected by the attorney-client privilege. Without waiving the objection, Defendants agreed to produce the documents, subject to redaction and reimbursement of reproduction costs. Ruling: The motion to compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as to this request. Defendants’ assertion of the attorney-client privilege is appropriate. Defendants shall produce the documents, excluding those that are subject to the attorney-client privilege. Defendants shall also provide a detailed privilege log. The documents shall be produced for Plaintiff’s inspection and copying, and the privilege log shall be provided to him, within 20 days from the date of this

- 13 -

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

Document 134 Document 124

Filed 05/19/2008 Filed 05/09/2008

Page 44 of 101 Page 14 of 31

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

order. After inspecting the documents, Plaintiff shall decide what documents he wants copied, and pay his own reproduction costs. Request No. 26 Documents maintained by Plaintiff at Kern Medical Center during his employment there, including e-mails, Groupwise calendars, memoranda, written materials, and computer files, stored on Plaintiff’s computer at Kern Medical Center. Defendants’ Response: Defendants objected to producing documents containing confidential personnel information, documents protected from disclosure by HIPAA, and the peer review, personnel, and attorney-client privileges. Groupwise calendar information was deleted as part of a routine 90-day software cycling sweep. Defendants agreed to produce redacted material that was archived by December 21, 2007, provided that Plaintiff pay the reproduction costs. Ruling: The motion to compel is GRANTED as to this request. At the hearing on the motion, Defendants’ counsel reported that Defendants do not object to this request and will produce the documents requested. If Defendants have not already done so, they shall produce the documents for Plaintiff’s inspection and copying within 10 days from the date of this order. Plaintiff shall decide what documents he wants copied, and pay his reproduction costs. Request No. 27 Documents relating to any meetings relating to Plaintiff or his employment at Kern Medical Center. Defendants’ Response: Defendants objected to this request on the ground that it seeks documents protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege. Without waiving their objection, Defendants agreed to produce nonprivileged documents, subject to redaction and reimbursement of reproduction costs

- 14 -

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

Document 134 Document 124

Filed 05/19/2008 Filed 05/09/2008

Page 45 of 101 Page 15 of 31

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

Ruling: The motion to compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as to these requests. Defendants’ assertion of the attorney-client privilege is appropriate. Defendants shall redact all HIPAA information from the documents. Defendants shall produce the documents, excluding those that are subject to the attorney-client privilege. Defendants shall also provide a detailed privilege log. The documents shall be produced for Plaintiff’s inspection and copying, and the privilege log shall be provided to him, within 20 days from the date of this order. After inspecting the documents, Plaintiff shall decide what documents he wants copied, and pay his own reproduction costs. Request No. 28: Documents relating to performance reviews, comments, complaints, warnings, reprimands, counseling, advisory notices or evaluations of the Kern Medical Center Pathology Department, whether formal or informal, from October 24, 1995 to the present. Defendants’ Response: Defendants objected to this request , contending that it seeks documents that contain confidential personnel information, and that are protected from disclosure by HIPAA and the peer review, personnel, and attorney-client privileges. Without waiving their objections, Defendants agreed to produce redacted documents subject to reimbursement of reproduction costs. Ruling: The motion to compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as to this request. The peer review and personnel privileges are inapplicable. Defendant’s assertion of HIPAA protection and the attorney-client privilege is appropriate. To the extent that Defendants’ assertion of a right of privacy is subject to a balancing test, it weighs in favor of a protective order. Defendants shall redact from the documents all HIPAA information. Defendants shall produce the documents, excluding those that are subject to the attorney-client privilege.

- 15 -

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

Document 134 Document 124

Filed 05/19/2008 Filed 05/09/2008

Page 46 of 101 Page 16 of 31

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 shall also produce a detailed privilege log for the documents that are withheld for the attorney-client privilege. The documents shall be produced for Plaintiff’s inspection and copying, and the privilege log provided to him, within 20 days from the date of this order. Plaintiff shall inspect the documents, decide what he wants copied, and pay his own reproduction costs. Request Nos. 29-30 No. 29: Documents relating to Plaintiff’s complaints of a) disability discrimination, b) failure to accommodate, c) failure to engage in an interactive process, d) violation of medical leave rights; e) whistleblower retaliation, f) medical leave retaliation, g) deprivation of property without due process , h) defamations, and i) Fair Labor Standards Act. No. 30: Documents relating to investigation of Plaintiff ’s complaints of disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in an interactive process, violation of medical leave rights; whistleblower retaliation, medical leave retaliation, defamation, and/or deprivation of property without due process Defendants’ Response: Defendants objected to Request Nos. 29 on the ground that it requests documents containing information protected by the attorney-client privilege, and agreed to produce the documents, subject to redaction of “confidential peer review and personnel information” and reimbursement for reproduction costs. Ruling: The motion to compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as to these requests. Defendants’ assertion of the attorney-client privilege is appropriate. The peer review privilege is inapplicable. The Court construes Defendants’ “confidential personnel information” objection to assert the personnel privilege, and finds the privilege inapplicable. To the extent that Defendants’ assertion of a right of privacy to personnel information is subject to a balancing test, it weighs in favor of a protective order. Defendants shall produce the documents, excluding

- 16 -

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

Document 134 Document 124

Filed 05/19/2008 Filed 05/09/2008

Page 47 of 101 Page 17 of 31

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

those that are subject to the attorney-client privilege. Defendants shall also provide a detailed privilege log for the documents that are withheld for the attorney-client privilege. Defendants shall produce the documents for Plaintiff’s inspection and copying, and provide the privilege log, within 20 days from the date of this order. Plaintiff shall inspect the documents, decide what he wants copied, and pay for his reproduction costs. Request Nos. 32-33 No. 32: Documents relating to your discipline of any employee against whom a complaint or grievance of discrimination, harassment, defamation, retaliation, failure to accommodate, and/or failure to engage in an interactive process in their employment was made from October 24, 2000 to date. No. 33: Documents relating to complaints or grievances made by Defendants’ past or present employees against Defendants for defamation, retaliation, disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and/or failure to engage in an interactive process, including, but not limited to information or internal complaints, grievances or charges to any state or federal agency, and complaints filed in any state or federal court from October 24, 2004 to date. Defendants’ Response: Defendants objected on the grounds that these requests seek documents containing confidential personnel information and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also contend that Request No. 33 is vague as to the phrase “informal or internal”, and overbroad and burdensome because Defendant County of Kern employees thousand employees. Ruling: At the hearing on the motion, Plaintiff’s counsel proposed to limit this Request No. 33 to “complaints or grievances made by past or present core physicians at Kern Medical Center for defamation, retaliation, disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and/or failure to engage in an interactive process, including but not limited to any informal or internal complaints,

- 17 -

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

Document 134 Document 124

Filed 05/19/2008 Filed 05/09/2008

Page 48 of 101 Page 18 of 31

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

grievances or charges to any state or federal agency, and complaints filed in any state or federal court from October 24, 2000 to date.” The term “core physicians” means physicians at Kern Medical Center who are under contract. Based on that limitation, Defendants’ counsel agreed to produce the documents as to “core physicians” in response to Requests Nos. 32 and 33. The motion to compel is GRANTED as to the limitation to “core physicians” at Kern Medical Center for Requests Nos. 32 and 33, and is DENIED as to employees other than core physicians at Kern Medical Center. To the extent that Defendants’ assertion of a right of privacy is subject to a balancing test, it weighs in favor of limited disclosure and a protective order. Defendants shall redact from the documents all HIPAA information and all personal identifying information as to core physicians at Kern Medical Center other than Plaintiff. Defendants shall produce the documents, excluding those that are subject to the attorney-client privilege. Defendants shall also produce a detailed privilege log for those documents that are withheld for the attorney-client privilege. The documents shall be produced for Plaintiff’s inspection and copying, and the privilege log provided to him, within 20 days from the date of this order. Plaintiff shall decide what documents he wants copied, and pay for his own reproduction costs. Request No. 34: Documents related to complaints or grievances made by Plaintiff. Defendants’ Response: Defendants produced documents in response to this request, and indicated they will confirm this or produce any additional documents subject to receipt of reproduction costs. Ruling: The motion to compel is DENIED as to this request. Request Nos. 36-39, 41 No. 36: Documents relating to Defendants’ search for, recruitment of, and evaluation of candidates for the position of staff pathologist at Kern Medical Center from January 1, 2006 to the present.

- 18 -

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

Document 134 Document 124

Filed 05/19/2008 Filed 05/09/2008

Page 49 of 101 Page 19 of 31

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

No. 37: Documents relating to Defendants’ search for, recruitment of, and evaluation of candidates for the position of Chair or Chief of Pathology at Kern Medical Center from January 1, 2006 to the present. No. 38: Documents relating to Defendants’ search for, recruitment of, and evaluation of candidates for the position of locum tenens pathologist at Kern Medical Center from January 1, 2006 to the present. No. 39: Documents relating to Defendants’ search for, recruitment of, and evaluation of candidates for the position of Chair of Chief of OB-GYN at Kern Medical Center during the period from January 1, 2006 to present. No. 41: Documents relating to Defendants’ search for, recruitment, of and evaluation of candidates for the position of Chair or Chief of Medicine at Kern Medical Center during the period from October 24, 2000 to present. Defendants’ Responses: Defendants objected to these requests on the ground that they seek documents containing confidential personnel information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also objected based on HIPAA, and asserted the peer review, personnel, and attorney-client privileges. Ruling: The motion to compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as to these requests. The peer review and personnel privileges are inapplicable, and the relevancy objection is overruled. Defendants’ assertion of the attorney-client privilege is appropriate. To the extent that Defendants’ assertion of a right of privacy to personnel information of candidates other than Plaintiff is subject to a balancing test, it weighs in favor of limited disclosure and a protective order. Defendants shall redact from the documents all HIPAA information and all personal identifying information of candidates other than Plaintiff. Defendants shall produce the documents, excluding those that are subject to the attorney-client privilege, and also excluding

- 19 -

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

Document 134 Document 124

Filed 05/19/2008 Filed 05/09/2008

Page 50 of 101 Page 20 of 31

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

letters of reference for candidates other than Plaintiff and substantive evaluations of candidates other than Plaintiff. Defendants shall also produce a detailed privilege log for those documents that are withheld for the attorney-client privilege. The documents shall be produced for Plaintiff’s inspection and copying, and the privilege log provided to him. within 20 days from the date of this order. Plaintiff shall inspect the documents, decide what he wants copied, and pay for his own reproduction costs. Request No. 40 Documents relating to the removal of Dr. Royce Johnson from the position of Chair or Chief of Medicine at Kern Medical Center. Defendants’ Response: Defendants objected on the ground that the requests seeks documents containing confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in the case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also object to disclosure based on HIPAA, and the peer review and attorney-client privileges. Ruling: At the hearing on this motion, Defendants’ counsel withdrew the objections to this request and agreed to produce the documents, without 1) waiving the personnel privilege or privacy claims as to other persons, and 2) reserving the right to object to their admissibility at trial. Accordingly, the motion to compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: Defendants shall produce the documents pertaining to the removal of Dr. Royce Johnson as the Chair or Chief of Medicine at Kern Medical Center for Plaintiff’s inspection, but it shall be subject to a protective order. Defendants shall not produce documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege and provide a detailed privilege log. The documents shall be produced for Plaintiff’s inspection and copying, and the privilege log provided to him, within 20 days from the date of this order. Plaintiff shall inspect the documents, decide what he wants copied, and pay for his own reproduction costs.

- 20 -

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

Document 134 Document 124

Filed 05/19/2008 Filed 05/09/2008

Page 51 of 101 Page 21 of 31

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

Request Nos. 42-43 No. 42: Documents relating to Plaintiff’s presentations made at the Kern Medical Center oncology conference in May 2005, including but not limited to participant evaluation forms,. No. 43: Documents relating to Plaintiff’s presentations made at the Kern Medical Center oncology conference on or about October 12, 2005. Defendants’ Response: Defendants objected to these requests on the grounds that they seek documents that contain certain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also object to this request to the extent that it requests information protected by HIPAA , and the peer review and attorney-client privileges. Defendants agreed to produce non-privileged documents and to redact any privileged information. Ruling: The motion to compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as to these requests. The peer review and personnel privileges are inapplicable. The assertion of the attorney-client privilege is appropriate. Defendants shall redact and produce the nonprivileged documents and provide a detailed privilege log, within 20 days from the date of this order. Plaintiff shall inspect the documents, decide what he wants copied, and pay the reproduction costs. Request No. 45 Documents relating to packets containing information about Plaintiff which Peter Bryan collected at the end of Kern Medical Center’s Joint Conference Committee discussion and vote on removal of Plaintiff from Chair of Pathology on July 10, 2006. Defendants’ Response: Defendants asserted the peer review, attorney-client, and confidential personnel privilege. Without waiving these objections, Defendants agreed to produce the documents subject to reimbursement of reproduction costs.

- 21 -

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

Document 134 Document 124

Filed 05/19/2008 Filed 05/09/2008

Page 52 of 101 Page 22 of 31

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

Ruling: The motion to compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as to this request. The peer review and personnel privileges are inapplicable. Defendants’ assertion of the attorneyclient privilege is appropriate. To the extent that Defendants’ assertion of the right of privacy to personnel information is subject to a balancing test, it weighs in favor of a protective order. If they have not already done so, Defendants are required to redact and produce the nonprivileged documents and a detailed privilege log, within ten days from the date of this order. Plaintiff shall inspect the documents, decide what he wants copied, and pay his own reproduction costs. Request Nos. 51 and 54 No. 51: Documents relating to Kern Medical Center’s Disruptive Physician Policy, including but not limited to Bylaw Committee meeting minutes. No. 54: Documents relating to statistics relating to patient fatalities at Kern Medical Center from October 24, 2000 to the present. Defendant’s Response: Defendants objected to Request No. 51 on the ground that it is vague, seeks documents that contain confidential personnel information and documents protected from disclosure by HIPAA and the peer review, personnel, and attorney-client privileges. Except for the vagueness objection, Defendants made the same objections as to Request No. 54. Additionally, Defendants objected to No. 54 on the ground that it is not relevant to any issues in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving these objections, Defendants agreed to produce documents in response to these requests, subject to redaction of peer review and personnel information, and reimbursement for copy costs. Ruling: At the hearing on the motion, Defendants withdrew Request No. 54. The motion to compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as to Request No. 51. The peer review and personnel privileges are inapplicable. Defendants’ assertion of the attorney-client privilege is

- 22 -

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

Document 134 Document 124

Filed 05/19/2008 Filed 05/09/2008

Page 53 of 101 Page 23 of 31

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

appropriate. To the extent that Defendants’ assertion of a right of privacy of personnel information is subject to a balancing test, it weighs in favor of a protective order. As to Request No. 51, Defendants shall redact from the documents all HIPAA information. Defendants shall produce the documents, excluding those that are subject to the attorney-client privilege. Defendant shall produce a detailed privilege log for the documents that are withheld for the attorney-client privilege. The documents and the privilege log shall be produced within 20 days from the date of this order. Plaintiff shall inspect the documents, decide what he wants copied, and pay his own reproduction costs. Request No. 55 Documents relating to the review of Kern Medical Center’s placental evaluations and billing activity as conducted by outside consultants, including but not limited to ProPay Physican Services, L.L.C. from October 24, 2000 to the present. Defendants’ Response: Defendants objected to this request on the ground that it seeks documents that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issue in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also contend that it requests information protected from disclosure by HIPAA and the peer-review, personnel, and attorney-client privileges. Ruling: At the hearing on this motion, Plaintiff narrowed his request to “documents relating to Kern Medical Center’s review of Plaintiff’s placental evaluations and billing activity as conducted by outside consultants, including, but not limited to, ProPay Physician Services, L.L.C. from October 24, 200 to the present.” In response to that modification, Defendants withdrew their objections, and agreed to produce the documents. There being no objections, Defendants are to produce the documents for Plaintiff’s inspection within 10 days after the date of this order. Plaintiff shall inspect the documents, decide what he wants copied, and pay his own copy costs.

- 23 -

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

Document 134 Document 124

Filed 05/19/2008 Filed 05/09/2008

Page 54 of 101 Page 24 of 31

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

Request No. 56 Documents relating to blood bank monthly reports, including but not limited to reports generated by Michelle Burris, from January 2006 to present. Defendants’ Response: Defendants contend that this request seeks documents that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also contend that it requests information protected from disclosure by HIPAA and the peer review, personnel, and attorney-client privileges. Ruling: The motion to compel is DENIED as to this request. The request seeks information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence. Request No. 57 Documents relating to product chart copy-related quality assurance reports from October 24, 2000 to the present. Defendants’ Response: Defendants contend that this request seeks documents that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also contend that the requests seek information protected from disclosure by HIPAA and the peer review, personnel, and attorney-client privileges. Ruling: At the hearing on this motion, Plaintiff’s counsel represented that “it appears that we have worked out a procedure whereby we will review it.” Accordingly, the motion is deemed withdrawn as to this request. ///

- 24 -

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

Document 134 Document 124

Filed 05/19/2008 Filed 05/09/2008

Page 55 of 101 Page 25 of 31

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

Request Nos. 58-60, 61 No. 58: Documents relating to prostate needle biopsy reports produced by Dr. Elsa Ang for which Plaintiff had requested a look back study in October 2005. No. 60: Documents relating to Workplace Violence or Threat Incident Reports for all Kern Medical Center personnel from October 24, 2000 to the present. No. 61: Documents relating to Fine Needle Aspiration policies at Kern Medical Center from October 24, 2000 to the present. Defendants’ Responses: Defendants contend that these requests seek documents that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also contend that these requests seek information protected from disclosure by HIPAA and the peer review, personnel, and attorneyclient privileges. Without waiving these objections, Defendants agreed to produce documents in response to Request Nos. 60 and 61, subject to redaction of confidential or privileged information and reimbursement for copy costs. Ruling: The motion to compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as to these requests. The peer review and personnel privileges are inapplicable, and the relevancy objection is overruled. Defendants’ objection to disclosure based on HIPAA is appropriate, as is its assertion of the attorney-client privilege. To the extent that Defendants’ assertion of a right of privacy to personnel information is subject to a balancing test, it weighs in favor of a protective order. Defendants shall redact from the documents all HIPAA information. Defendants shall produce the documents, excluding those that are subject to the attorney-client privilege. Defendants shall also provide a detailed privilege log for the documents that are withheld for the attorney-client privilege. Defendants shall produce the documents and the privilege log within 20 days from the date of this order. Plaintiff shall inspect the documents, decide what he wants copied, and pay his

- 25 -

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

Document 134 Document 124

Filed 05/19/2008 Filed 05/09/2008

Page 56 of 101 Page 26 of 31

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

own reproduction costs. Request No. 63 Documents relating to meeting minutes for the following Kern Medical Center committees or groups from October 24, 2000 to the present: a) Medical Executive Committee, b) Joint Conference Committee, c) Quality Management Committee, d) Cancer Committee, e) Second Level Peer Review Committee, f) Transfusion Committee, and g) Executive Staff Meetings. Defendants’ Response: Defendants contend that this request seeks documents that contain confidential personnel information, and information protected by HIPAA and the peer review and attorney-client privileges. Without waiving these objections, Defendants agreed to produce responsive documents subject to redaction of confidential or privileged information and reimbursement for copy costs. Ruling: The motion to compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as to this request. The peer review and personnel privileges are inapplicable. However, to the extent that Defendants’ assertion of a right of privacy to personnel information is subject to a balancing test, it weighs in favor of limited disclosure and a protective order. Defendant shall redact from the documents all HIPAA information and all personal identifying information of employees other than Plaintiff with respect to personnel matters. Defendants shall produce the documents, excluding those that are subject to the attorney-client privilege and those that are excluded by other provisions of this order. Defendants shall also produce a detailed privilege log for the documents that are withheld for the attorney-client privilege. The documents and the privilege log shall be produced within 20 days from the date of this order. Plaintiff shall inspect the documents, decide what he wants copied, and pay his own reproduction costs. Request Nos. 65-67 No. 65: Documents relating to case send-out logs for Kern Medical Center’s Pathology Department from January 1, 1999 to the present, including but not limited to corresponding Kern

- 26 -

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

Document 134 Document 124

Filed 05/19/2008 Filed 05/09/2008

Page 57 of 101 Page 27 of 31

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

Medical Center pathology reports and reports from outside consultants. No. 66: Documents relating to case monthly turn-around time reports and logs by pathologist - for pathology reports processed at Kern Medical Center, including but not limited to Pathology Department semi-annual reports to the Medical Staff, for the time period from January 1, 1999 to the present No. 67: Documents relating to case monthly turn-around time reports and logs - for Kern Medical Center’s Pathology Department as a whole - for pathology reports processed at Kern Medical Center including but not limited to surgical pathology, cytology and bone marrow reports, for the time period from January 1, 1999 to the present. Defendants’ Responses: Defendants contend that these requests seek documents that contain confidential personnel information, and seek information protected by HIPAA and the peer review, personnel, and attorney-client privileges. Without waiving these objections, Defendants agreed to produce responsive documents subject to redaction of peer review and personnel information and reimbursement for copy costs. Ruling: The motion to compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as to these requests. The peer review and personnel privileges are inapplicable. Defendants’ assertion of the attorney-client privilege is appropriate. To the extent that Defendants’ assertion of a right of privacy to personnel information is subject to a balancing test, it weighs in favor of a protective order. Defendants shall redact all HIPAA information from the documents. Defendants shall produce the documents and a detailed privilege log, excluding those that are subject to the attorney-client privilege, within 20 days from the date of this order. Plaintiff shall inspect the documents, decide what he wants copied, and pay his own reproduction costs. Request No. 68 Documents relating to pathology reports authored, reviewed or approved by Plaintiff sent

- 27 -

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

Document 134 Document 124

Filed 05/19/2008 Filed 05/09/2008

Page 58 of 101 Page 28 of 31

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

to any outside pathologist for outside review from June 14, 2006 to the present. Defendants’ Response: Defendants objected to this request on the ground that it seeks documents containing privileged peer review information. Without waiving this objection, Defendants agreed to produce responsive documents subject to redaction of privileged information. Ruling: The motion to compel is GRANTED as to this request. The peer review privilege is inapplicable. Defendants shall redact any HIPAA information from the documents, and produce the documents for Plaintiff’s inspection within 10 days from the date of this order. Plaintiff shall inspect the documents, decide what he wants copied, and pay his own reproduction costs. Request No. 69 Documents relating to pathology reports for case numbers S06-4131, S06-4619, S06 5229, and S06-73276. Defendants’ Response: Defendants contend that this request seeks documents that contain information protected by HIPAA and the peer review privilege. Without waiving these objections, Defendants agreed to produce responsive documents subject to redaction. Ruling: The motion to compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as to this request. The peer review privilege is not applicable. Defendants’ assertion of HIPAA protection is appropriate. Defendants shall redact all HIPAA information from the documents and produce them for Plaintiff’s inspection and copying, within 10 days from the date of this order. Plaintiff shall inspect the documents, decide what he wants copied, and pay his own reproduction costs. Request No. 70 Documents relating to peer review of Kern Medical Center’s Pathology Department during the time period from January 1, 1995 to the present.

- 28 -

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

Document 134 Document 124

Filed 05/19/2008 Filed 05/09/2008

Page 59 of 101 Page 29 of 31

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’ Response: Defendants contend that this request seeks documents that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also object to disclosure of information protected by HIPAA and the peer review, personnel, and attorney-client privileges. Ruling: The motion to compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as to this request. The peer review and personnel privileges are inapplicable, and the relevancy objection is overruled. Defendants’ objection based on HIPAA is appropriate, as is its assertion of the attorney-client privilege. To the extent that Defendants’ assertion of a right of privacy to personnel information is subject to a balancing test, it weighs in favor of limited disclosure and a protective order. Defendants shall redact from the documents all HIPAA information and all personal identifying information for employees other than Plaintiff. Defendants shall produce a detailed privilege log for all documents that are withheld for the attorney-client privilege. The documents and the privilege log shall be produced within 20 days from the date of this order. Plaintiff shall inspect the documents, decide what he wants copied, and pay his own reproduction costs. Request Nos. 71-73, 78 No: 71: Documents relating to exceptional event logs for histology and pathology on Kern Medical Center’s Pathology Department from January 1, 2006 to the present. No. 72: Documents related to paper accession logs at Kern Medical Center’s Pathology Department from January 1, 2006 to the present. No. 73: Documents relating to tissue disposal records for skull-flaps from January 1, 2006 to the present. No. 78: Documents relating to placental evaluations conducted by Plaintiff from June 14, 2006 to the present. ///

- 29 -

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

Document 134 Document 124

Filed 05/19/2008 Filed 05/09/2008

Page 60 of 101 Page 30 of 31

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’ Response: Defendants objected to these requests on the grounds that they calls for the production of documents that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also objected on the grounds that the requests seek information protected from disclosure by HIPAA, and the peer review, personnel, and attorney-client privileges. Ruling: The motion to compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as to this request. The peer review privilege and personnel privilege are inapplicable. Defendants’ objection based on HIPAA is appropriate, as is their assertion of the attorney-client privilege. To the extent that Defendants’ assertion of a right of privacy to personnel information is subject to a balancing test, it weighs in favor of a protective order. Defendants shall exclude all HIPAA information from the documents. Defendants shall produce the documents, excluding those that are subject to the attorney-client privilege. Defendants shall also produce a detailed privilege log for the documents that are withheld for the attorney-client privilege. The documents and the privilege log shall be produced for Plaintiff’s inspection and copying within 20 days from the date of this order. Plaintiff shall inspect the documents, decide what he wants copied, and pay his own reproduction costs. Request No. 74 Documents relating to audits of Kern Medical Center’s Pathology Department by outside consultants, including but not limited to Dr. Stacy Garry, from October 24, 2000 to the present. Defendants’ Response: Defendants objected to this request on the ground that it seeks documents that contain information that is protected by HIPAA and the peer review privilege. Without waiving these objections, Defendants agreed to produce responsive documents, subject to reimbursement for reproduction costs.

- 30 -

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

Document 134 Document 124

Filed 05/19/2008 Filed 05/09/2008

Page 61 of 101 Page 31 of 31

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

Ruling: The motion to compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as to this request. The peer review privilege is inapplicable. Defendants’ objection based on HIPAA is appropriate. Defendants shall redact all HIPAA information from the documents and produce them for Plaintiff’s inspection and copying within 20 days from the date of this order. Plaintiff shall inspect the documents, decide what he wants copied, and pay for his own reproduction costs. ORDER Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's motion for an order to compel the production of documents is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 2. No later than five days from the date of this order, Plaintiff’s counsel and Defendants’ counsel shall meet, confer, and stipulate to a mutually acceptable form of protective order. If either party is concerned about the misuse of the documents or the information by either party, they may propose a “counsel only ” protective order. In the event the parties are unable to stipulate to a form of protective order within five days from the date of this order, then each party shall file a proposed form of protective order for the Court’s consideration, to be filed no later than six days from the date of this order. Counsel shall also send digital copies of the proposed protective orders to the Court’s chambers at tagorders@caed.uscourts.gov.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 8, 2008 j6eb3d /s/ Theresa A. Goldner UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

- 31 -

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

Document 134

Filed 05/19/2008

Page 62 of 101

EXHIBIT 3. Defendants’ Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production, Set One

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

Document 134

Filed 05/19/2008

Page 63 of 101

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

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

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

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

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

PROPOUNDING PARTY: RESPONDING PARTY: SET NUMBER:

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

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

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

Document 134

Filed 05/19/2008

Page 64 of 101

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

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

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

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

Document 134

Filed 05/19/2008

Page 65 of 101

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

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

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

Document 134

Filed 05/19/2008

Page 66 of 101

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

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

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

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

Document 134

Filed 05/19/2008

Page 67 of 101

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

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

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

Document 134

Filed 05/19/2008

Page 68 of 101

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

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

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

Document 134

Filed 05/19/2008

Page 69 of 101

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

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

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

Document 134

Filed 05/19/2008

Page 70 of 101

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

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

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

Document 134

Filed 05/19/2008

Page 71 of 101

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

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

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

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

Document 134

Filed 05/19/2008

Page 72 of 101

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

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

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

Document 134

Filed 05/19/2008

Page 73 of 101

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

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

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

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

Document 134

Filed 05/19/2008

Page 74 of 101

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

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

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

Document 134

Filed 05/19/2008

Page 75 of 101

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

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

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

Document 134

Filed 05/19/2008

Page 76 of 101

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

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

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

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

Document 134

Filed 05/19/2008

Page 77 of 101

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

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

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

Document 134

Filed 05/19/2008

Page 78 of 101

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

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

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

Document 134

Filed 05/19/2008

Page 79 of 101

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

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

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

Document 134

Filed 05/19/2008

Page 80 of 101

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

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

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

Document 134

Filed 05/19/2008

Page 81 of 101

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

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

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

Document 134

Filed 05/19/2008

Page 82 of 101

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

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

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

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

Document 134

Filed 05/19/2008

Page 83 of 101

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

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

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

Document 134

Filed 05/19/2008

Page 84 of 101

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

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

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

Document 134

Filed 05/19/2008

Page 85 of 101

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

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

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

Document 134

Filed 05/19/2008

Page 86 of 101

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

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

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

Document 134

Filed 05/19/2008

Page 87 of 101

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

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

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

Document 134

Filed 05/19/2008

Page 88 of 101

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

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

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

Document 134

Filed 05/19/2008

Page 89 of 101

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

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

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

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

Document 134

Filed 05/19/2008

Page 90 of 101

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

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

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

Document 134

Filed 05/19/2008

Page 91 of 101

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

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

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

Document 134

Filed 05/19/2008

Page 92 of 101

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

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

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

Document 134

Filed 05/19/2008

Page 93 of 101

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

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

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

Document 134

Filed 05/19/2008

Page 94 of 101

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

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

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

Document 134

Filed 05/19/2008

Page 95 of 101

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

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

Dated: November 20, 2007

LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER

By:

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

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

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

Document 134

Filed 05/19/2008

Page 96 of 101

EXHIBIT 4. Stipulation & Order re Protective Order (Doc. 128)

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 128 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 97 of 101 Filed 05/14/2008 Page 1 of 2

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

Mark A. Wasser CA SB #060160 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. Barman, Sr. CA SB #060508 KERN COUNTY COUNSEL Mark Nations, Chief Deputy CA SB #101838 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 Eugene D. Lee SB# 236812 LAW OFFICES OF EUGENE LEE 555West Fifth Street, Suite 3100 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Phone: (213) 992-3299 Fax: (213) 596-0487 E-mail: elee@LOEL.com Attorneys for Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O. 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-26 STIPULATION RE: PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: BALANCING OF PRIVACY INTERESTS; ORDER THEREON

Complaint Filed: January 5, 2007 Trial Date: December 3, 2008

Pursuant to the Order of the Court issued by Magistrate Judge Goldner on May 9, 2008 26 (Doc. 124), IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto through their 27 respective counsel that, with regard to balancing the privacy interests of the Defendants against 28 the Plaintiff’s need for disclosure, the Plaintiff’s need for disclosure prevails as to documents 1
STIPULATION RE: PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: BALANCING OF PRIVACY INTERESTS; ORDER THEREON

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 128 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 98 of 101 Filed 05/14/2008 Page 2 of 2

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

that reveal the nature of interpersonal work relationships at KMC between core physicians and others, on-the-job behavior towards other members of KMC staff by core physicians, complaints against core physicians regarding their behavior at KMC and the County’s actions in response. The foregoing notwithstanding, the parties acknowledge that Plaintiff intends to file a motion for reconsideration of the above-referenced Order which may challenge Judge Goldner’s directive to the parties to enter into this privacy-based protective order. Plaintiff’s agreement to this stipulation is therefore conditioned on this challenge. The parties agree that this stipulation does not constitute a waiver of objections at trial to admissibility of any documents to be produced.

Dated: May 14, 2008

LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER

By:

/s/ Mark A. Wasser Mark A. Wasser (as authorized on 5/14/08) Attorney for Defendants, County of Kern, et al.

Dated: May 14, 2008

LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE

By:

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

ORDER The parties having stipulated as hereinabove set forth and good cause appearing therefore; IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May , 2008 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

25 26 27 28 By: The Honorable Teresa A. Goldner United States Magistrate Judge

2
STIPULATION RE: PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: BALANCING OF PRIVACY INTERESTS; ORDER THEREON

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

Document 134

Filed 05/19/2008

Page 99 of 101

EXHIBIT 5. Minute Order Disapproving Stipulation (Doc. 131)

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

Document 134

Filed 05/19/2008

Page 100 of 101

caed_cmecf_helpdesk@caed.uscourts.gov Friday, May 16, 2008 1:19 PM caed_cmecf_nef@caed.uscourts.gov Activity in Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Jadwin v. County of Kern, et al. Minute Order

This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy each document during this first viewing. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply. U.S. District Court Eastern District of California - Live System Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 5/16/2008 at 1:18 PM PDT and filed on 5/16/2008 Jadwin v. County of Kern, et al. Case Name: 1:07-cv-26 Case Number: Filer: Document Number: 131(No document attached) Docket Text: MINUTE ORDER (TEXT ONLY) by Magistrate Judge Goldner: re [128] Stipulation and Proposed Order. In its order dated 5/8/08 (Doc 124), the Court directed counsel to submit a stipulated form of protective order. A protective order prevents the disclosure of sensitive information except to certain individuals under certain circumstances. The purpose of the Court's order directing counsel to submit a stipulated form of protective order is for counsel to agree upon the terms necessary to protect the information to be produced by Defendant in response to Plaintiff's Request for Production Nos. 12-15, 17, 28-30, 32, 33, 36-41, 45, 51-54, 58-61, 63, 6567, 70-73, and 78. The stipulation [128] is not approved as a protective order because it does not address who will be given access to the information or under what circumstances. Counsel are to submit a stipulated proposed form of protective order containing those terms within 5 days from the date of this minute order. If they cannot agree, then each counsel shall submit their own proposed form of protective order within six days from the date of this order. (Leon Guerrero, A)

1:07-cv-26 Electronically filed documents will be served electronically to: Joan Elizabeth Herrington Eugene David Lee Mark A Wasser jh@baelo.com

elee@LOEL.com, attorneylee@gmail.com mwasser@markwasser.com
1

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

Document 134

Filed 05/19/2008

Page 101 of 101

1:07-cv-26 Electronically filed documents must be served conventionally by the filer to: David F. Jadwin 1635 Heather Ridge Dr. Glendale, CA 91207

2


				
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.