Upload
eugene-d-lee
View
223
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 1/146
DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE re: INABILITY TO SECURE COOPERATION OFDEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL TO PREPARE AND EXECUTE JOINT STATEMENT re: MOTION TOCOMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Eugene D. Lee SB#: 236812LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100Los Angeles, CA 90013Phone: (213) 992-3299
Fax: (213) 596-0487email: [email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.,
Plaintiff,v.
COUNTY OF KERN, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG
DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE re:INABILITY TO SECURE COOPERATIONOF DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL TOPREPARE AND EXECUTE JOINTSTATEMENT re: MOTION TO COMPELRESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES
Date: April 28, 2008Time: 9:30 a.m.Place: U.S. District Court, Bankruptcy Courtroom
1300 18th St., Bakersfield, CA
Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007Date Set for Trial: December 3, 2008
Plaintiff submits this Declaration of Eugene D. Lee pursuant to Local Rule 37-251(d) in lieu of a
joint statement re discovery disagreement.
I, Eugene D. Lee, declare as follows:
1. I am counsel of record for Plaintiff. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth
below and I could and would competently testify thereto if called as a witness in this matter.
2. On January 2, 2008, plaintiff served Interrogatories, Set One on defendant County of
Kern. Defendant served responses on February 1 which were deficient in numerous respects. The parties
met and conferred several times by phone and in writing on the interrogatories which are at issue in this
motion. Defendant initially agreed to supplement its responses to the interrogatories accordingly.
Defendant later changed its mind. Plaintiff was left no choice but to bring a motion to compel on the
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 1 of 16
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 2/146
DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE re: INABILITY TO SECURE COOPERATION OFDEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL TO PREPARE AND EXECUTE JOINT STATEMENT re: MOTION TOCOMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 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
26
27
28
remaining issues.
3. Briefing regarding Plaintiff’s above-referenced contentions is contained in the draft Joint
Statement, attached hereto as Attachment A.
4. Pursuant to Local Rule 37-251, I attempted to secure the cooperation of Defendants’
counsel, Mark Wasser, to prepare and execute a joint statement re discovery disagreement. On
Thursday, April 17, 2008, I both mailed (via certified mail with return receipt requested) and faxed Mr.
Wasser a draft version of the Joint Statement re: Discovery Disagreement (with all exhibits attached),
requesting his input. I explained in the cover letter that the draft was a work in progress and remained
subject to change. Attached hereto as Attachment A is a true and correct copy of the draft Joint
Statement which I had prepared.
5. In my rush, I unintentionally included the draft Declaration of Inability to Secure
Cooperation of Defendants’ Counsel which I had prepared ahead of time and was future-dated to April
23 (today’s date) in the fax to defense counsel. By accusing me of making representations about defense
counsel’s refusal to cooperate that were “both misleading and false”, defense counsel makes much ado
over nothing. (Doc. 101, 2:5-14). A simple email exchange would have cleared up this confusion over
the accidentally included document.
6. I sent the draft joint statement to Mr. Wasser by both mail and fax a full week prior to
today in the expectation that he would review it and provide comments to me via email. Most of
counsels’ communications have taken the form of writing rather than phone calls, and this meet and
confer over the joint statement was no exception. To date, I did not receive any response from Mr.
Wasser regarding the draft Joint Statement I had sent him a week ago, other than to receive electronic
notification that he had filed the Declaration of Mark A. Wasser re Inability to Prepare Joint Statement
on Discovery Dispute (Doc. 101), accusing me of failing to “attempt to discuss his proposed joint
statement with me”. (Doc. 101, 2:21-22).
7. Despite Mr. Wasser’s accusations to the contrary (Doc. 101, 2:15-20), I did not know that
defense counsel was unavailable to accept service of filings and documents on April 17 and 18 and
never received a Notice of Unavailability to that effect. Defense counsel had told me in emails that for
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 2 of 16
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 3/146
DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE re: INABILITY TO SECURE COOPERATION OFDEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL TO PREPARE AND EXECUTE JOINT STATEMENT re: MOTION TOCOMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
deposition scheduling purposes only he would not be able to attend full days on April 17 and 18. He
never once notified me that his office, which includes his assistant Ms. Amy Remly, was not receiving
faxes, emails and mail during those days. I also had no knowledge of Mr. Wasser’s speech and, frankly,
fail to see its relevance. Presumably, Mr. Wasser was aware that the deadline to file the joint statement
for the instant motion to compel was today and planned his time accordingly as any responsible attorney
would have.
8. Mr. Wasser accuses me of not referencing his letter of March 5 in my moving papers.
(Doc. 101, 2:26-28). I had attached Mr. Wasser’s March 5 letter as Exhibit 4 in the draft I sent to Mr.
Wasser a week ago. In any case, despite what Mr. Wasser insinuates, the March 5 Letter can not and
does not constitute binding responses by defendant to plaintiff’s interrogatories; it is not evidence upon
which plaintiff can rely. It is nothing more than part of the extensive meet and confer effort between
counsel leading up to the motion. As plaintiff has repeatedly told defendants, what plaintiff wants are
defendants’ responses to his interrogatories on the record, nothing more.
9. It is hard to believe that defendants are “bewildered” by this latest motion to compel.
(Doc. 101, 3:6-7). Plaintiff repeatedly told defendants verbally and in written meet and confer that
plaintiff would be filing a motion to compel. In my email to Mr. Wasser of March 5, 2008, I wrote: “I
explained [to you] that Plaintiff intends to immediately file a motion to compel regarding any
unresolved requests for production and/or interrogatories.” (See Exhibit 4 attached hereto). To date,
defendants have failed to fully respond to plaintiff’s interrogatories. Hence, more than a month later,
plaintiff is bringing this motion.
10. Mr. Wasser claims plaintiff has served 91 interrogatories on defendants. (Doc. 101, 3:9-
13). As I have explained at great length to Mr. Wasser already, subparts do NOT count as separate
interrogatories under Rule 33 unless they are so logically discrete from the main inquiry as to constitute
a separate interrogatory. Still Mr. Wasser, true to form, continues to count the subparts to plaintiff’s
interrogatories so as to insinuate plaintiff has been abusive with its “91 interrogatories”.
11. Plaintiff agrees that the parties are presently negotiating a stipulation and order to limit
plaintiff’s interrogatories, deem documents business records and authenticated, etc. Assuming the
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 3 of 16
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 4/146
DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE re: INABILITY TO SECURE COOPERATION OFDEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL TO PREPARE AND EXECUTE JOINT STATEMENT re: MOTION TOCOMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
negotiations are successful and the parties reach an agreement, the parties will be filing the stipulation
and order with the Court shortly. Defendants have also agreed to stipulate to leave for plaintiff to file a
supplemented complaint. Assuming defendants remain true to their word, the parties will be filing this
shortly as well.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the United States
that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on: April 23, 2008
/s/ Eugene D. Lee
EUGENE D. LEEDeclarant
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 4 of 16
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 5/146
DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE re: INABILITY TO SECURE COOPERATION OFDEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL TO PREPARE AND EXECUTE JOINT STATEMENT re: MOTION TOCOMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ATTACHMENT A
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 5 of 16
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 6/146
JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TOINTERROGATORIES 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Eugene D. Lee SB#: 236812LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100Los Angeles, CA 90013Phone: (213) 992-3299
Fax: (213) 596-0487email: [email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.
Mark A. Wasser CA SB #06160LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100Sacramento, CA 95814Phone: (916) 444-6400Fax: (916) 444-6405Email: [email protected]
Bernard C. Barmann, Sr.KERN COUNTY COUNSELMark Nations, Chief Deputy1115 Truxton Avenue, Fourth FloorBakersfield, CA 93301Phone: (661) 868-3800Fax: (661) 868-3805Email: [email protected]
Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern, Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher, JenniferAbraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smith, and William Roy.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.,
Plaintiff,v.
COUNTY OF KERN, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG
JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERYDISAGREEMENT re: MOTION TOCOMPEL RESPONSES TOINTERROGATORIES
Date: April 28, 2008Time: 9:30 a.m.Place: U.S. District Court, Bankruptcy Courtroom
1300 18th St., Bakersfield, CA
Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007Date Set for Trial: December 3 2008
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 6 of 16
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 7/146
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 8/146
JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TOINTERROGATORIES 3
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 contend that the dispute arose out of Plaintiff’s tenure as a pathologist at Kern
Medical Center. Plaintiff’s relationship with other members of the medical staff deteriorated to the point
of intimidation, hostility and antagonism. Defendants contend, to the extent that any hostile work
environment existed, it was caused by Plaintiff.
III. THE CONTENTION OF EACH PARTY AS TO EACH CONTESTED ISSUE
A. INTERROGATORY NO. 1
State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Third Affirmative Defense.
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1
The Third Affirmative Defense is a legal defense. Defendants object to it to the extent it seeks
information protected under the attorney/client privilege and attorney work product privilege.
PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
The U.S. Supreme Court has stated in United States v. Procter , 356 U.S. 677 (U.S. 1958):
Modern instruments of discovery serve a useful purpose, as we noted in Hickman v.Taylor , 329 U.S. 495. They together with pretrial procedures make a trial less a game of blindman's buff and more a fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed tothe fullest practicable extent. Only strong public policies weigh against disclosure. Id . at 682 [citations omitted][emphasis added].
Discovery in this action has been ongoing for eight months. Defendant has already completed its
(four-day long) deposition of plaintiff. Tens of thousands of documents have been produced.
Presumably defendant has had ample time to develop facts supporting its affirmative defenses.
Defendant’s refusal to state a single fact responsive to this interrogatory despite numerous meet and
confer efforts is a violation of discovery rules.
Moreover, as plaintiff has already communicated to defendant several times, contention
interrogatories are not objectionable on the ground that they encroach on attorney work product. See
Security Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Trustmark Ins. Co. (D CT 2003) 218 FRD 29, 34; United States v.
Boyce, 148 F. Supp. 2d 1069, 1086 (S.D. Cal. 2001) (“Under Rule 33(c), a party can serve an
interrogatory the answer to which involves ‘an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the
application of law to fact.’. The Government's contention interrogatories are not directed to issues of
‘pure law’ that would infringe on the attorney-work product doctrine as codified in Rule 26(b)(3).
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 8 of 16
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 9/146
JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TOINTERROGATORIES 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Rather, they seek the facts upon which the Boyces' relied for their defense to the Forms 4340. As such,
the contention interrogatories were permissible and the Boyces were required to respond to them.”
[citations omitted]).
Defendant refuses to state a single fact. Defendant further asserts privilege objections. These
objections are improper as is defendant’s refusal to respond.
Rule 37 states:
a party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an answer, designation,production, or inspection. This motion may be made if … (iii) a party fails to answer aninterrogatory submitted under Rule 33…. For purposes of this subdivision (a), anevasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a failure todisclose, answer, or respond. [emphasis added].
By failing to state a single fact in response to this interrogatory, defendant has engaged in
behavior which this court is required to sanction pursuant to Rule 37.
Defendant’s conduct is particularly hypocritical considering defendant showed no hesitance in
asking plaintiff countless contention interrogatories at defendant’s 4-day long deposition of plaintiff.
Despite the fact plaintiff has no legal training and was being placed on the spot in a videotaped
deposition, plaintiff responded fully.
DEFENDANT’S POSITION
[INSERT HERE]
B. INTERROGATORY NO. 2
State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Fourth Affirmative Defense.
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2
The Fourth Affirmative Defense is a legal defense. Defendants object to it to the extent it seeks
information protected under the attorney/client privilege and attorney work product privilege.
PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
See “Plaintiff’s Position” regarding Interrogatory No. 1 above.
DEFENDANT’S POSITION
[INSERT HERE]
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 9 of 16
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 10/146
JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TOINTERROGATORIES 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C. INTERROGATORY NO. 3
State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Fifth Affirmative Defense.
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3
Defendants will rely on the testimony of persons who worked with Plaintiff regarding the nature
of his interpersonal communications and relationships with co-workers; his overbearing and dismissive
attitude towards other members of the hospital staff; his intimidating style; his disrespectful and
disagreeable interpersonal dealings, and his physical confrontations with other persons in the hospital.
The Defendants will offer testimony about the efforts members of the medical staff and management
made to counsel Plaintiff and his angry and dismissive responses to those efforts. Defendants will show
how Plaintiff’s working relationships in the hospital steadily eroded and unraveled as a result of
Plaintiff’s behavior. The testimony will be supported by letters, e-mails and other writings, all of which
have been previously produced.
PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
The U.S. Supreme Court has stated in United States v. Procter , 356 U.S. 677 (U.S. 1958):
Modern instruments of discovery serve a useful purpose, as we noted in Hickman v.Taylor , 329 U.S. 495. They together with pretrial procedures make a trial less a game of blindman's buff and more a fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed tothe fullest practicable extent. Only strong public policies weigh against disclosure.
Id . at 682 [citations omitted][emphasis added].
Defendant’s response is incomplete and evasive. It is devoid of any facts and consists only of
general themes. It fails to specify, among other things (i) what efforts were made to “counsel Plaintiff”,
by whom, at whose direction, etc., (ii) what physical confrontations Plaintiff allegedly had with other
persons and with whom, (iv) to whom plaintiff was “overbearing and dismissive”, (v) which of
plaintiff’s “interpersonal dealings” were “disrespectful and disagreeable”, (vi) which of plaintiff’s
“working relationships” “steadily eroded and unraveled”, with whom, and what behavior by plaintiff
allegedly caused that.
Discovery in this action has been ongoing for eight months. Defendant has already completed a
(4-day long) deposition of plaintiff. Presumably defendant has had ample time to develop facts
supporting its affirmative defenses. Defendant’s one paragraph response, devoid of any facts, is an effort
to hide the ball from plaintiff and surprise plaintiff at trial.
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 10 of 16
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 11/146
JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TOINTERROGATORIES 6
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
Defendant initially agreed in meet and confer to supplement its response accordingly. As has
often been the case in this action, defendant changed its mind.
Rule 37 states:
a party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an answer, designation,production, or inspection. This motion may be made if … (iii) a party fails to answer aninterrogatory submitted under Rule 33…. For purposes of this subdivision (a), anevasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a failure todisclose, answer, or respond. [emphasis added].
By giving an evasive and incomplete response to this interrogatory which fails to state any facts,
defendant has engaged in behavior which this court is required to sanction pursuant to Rule 37.
DEFENDANT’S POSITION
[INSERT HERE]
D. INTERROGATORY NO. 4
State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Sixth Affirmative Defense.
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4
The Sixth Affirmative Defense is a legal defense. Defendants object to it to the extent it seeks
information protected under the attorney/client privilege and attorney work product privilege.
PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
See “Plaintiff’s Position” regarding Interrogatory No. 1 above.
DEFENDANT’S POSITION
[INSERT HERE]
E. INTERROGATORY NO. 5
State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Seventh Affirmative Defense.
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5
The Seventh Affirmative Defense is a legal defense. Defendants object to it to the extent it seeks
information protected under the attorney/client privilege and attorney work product privilege.
PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
See “Plaintiff’s Position” regarding Interrogatory No. 1 above.
DEFENDANT’S POSITION
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 11 of 16
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 12/146
JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TOINTERROGATORIES 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[INSERT HERE]
F. INTERROGATORY NO. 6
State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Eighth Affirmative Defense.DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6
The Eighth Third Affirmative Defense is a legal defense. Defendants object to it to the extent it
seeks information protected under the attorney/client privilege and attorney work product privilege.
PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
See “Plaintiff’s Position” regarding Interrogatory No. 1 above.
DEFENDANT’S POSITION
[INSERT HERE]
G. INTERROGATORY NO. 7
State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Ninth Affirmative Defense.
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7
The Ninth Affirmative Defense is a legal defense. Defendants object to it to the extent it seeks
information protected under the attorney/client privilege and attorney work product privilege.
PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
See “Plaintiff’s Position” regarding Interrogatory No. 1 above.
DEFENDANT’S POSITION
[INSERT HERE]
H. INTERROGATORY NO. 46
IDENTIFY each DOCUMENT or portion thereof contained in PLAINTIFF's FRCP Rule 26
Initial Disclosures that YOU contend is privileged; state the nature of each privilege asserted; and statein detail the factual bases for each such asserted privilege.
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 46
We do not understand this Interrogatory and are, consequently, unable to answer it. What is
privileged about the documents Plaintiff produced?
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 12 of 16
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 13/146
JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TOINTERROGATORIES 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
Rule 37 states:
a party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an answer, designation,
production, or inspection. This motion may be made if … (iii) a party fails to answer aninterrogatory submitted under Rule 33…. For purposes of this subdivision (a), anevasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a failure todisclose, answer, or respond. [emphasis added].
After meet and confers which addressed defendant’s “confusion”, defendant still has not
supplemented this evasive and incomplete response which fails to state even any objection. Plaintiff had
explained to defendant several times during meet and confers that this interrogatory is intended to
determine which documents in the Rule 26 Initial Disclosures will be subject to privilege-based
admissibility challenges by defendant. Defendant had subsequently agreed to supplement its response.
Defendant had further acknowledged at the time that the meaning of the term “IDENTIFY” as used in
plaintiff’s interrogatory includes the name(s) of the author(s), name(s) of recipient(s), date of creation,
date of modification, date of delivery, date of execution, effective date, subject matter, bates numbers,
page numbers, paragraph numbers, line numbers and/or section numbers.
To date, defendants have not carried through on their promises. This has been characteristic
throughout this action. By effectively failing to respond to the interrogatory, defendant has engaged in
behavior which this court is required to sanction pursuant to Rule 37.
DEFENDANT’S POSITION
[INSERT HERE]
I. INTERROGATORY NO. 47
IDENTIFY each DOCUMENT or portion thereof contained in YOUR FRCP Rule 26 Initial
Disclosures that YOU contend is privileged; state the nature of each privilege asserted; and state in
detail the factual bases for each such asserted privilege.DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 47
We do not understand this Interrogatory and are, consequently, unable to answer it. What is
privileged about the documents Plaintiff produced?
PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 13 of 16
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 14/146
JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TOINTERROGATORIES 9
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
See “Plaintiff’s Position” regarding Interrogatory No. 46 above.
DEFENDANT’S POSITION
[INSERT HERE]
J. INTERROGATORY NO. 48
State each and every job function which YOU contend were the essential functions of
PLAINTIFF'S position as Chair of Pathology at KMC.
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 48
The essential functions of Plaintiffs position are set forth in the KMC Medical Staff Bylaws at
page 46, section 9.7, Department Chairs; section 9.7-1, Qualifications and pages 48- 50, section 9.7-5,
Responsibilities and Duties of Department Chairs and Plaintiffs job description.
PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
As plaintiff repeatedly explained to defendant during meet and confer, an answer to an
interrogatory should be complete in itself and should not refer to the pleadings, or to depositions or other
documents, or to other interrogatories. See Scaife v. Boenne (N.D. Ind. 2000) 191 FRD 590, 594.
Moreover, it is the employer’s burden to state what the essential functions of an employee’s
position are.
Defendant initially agreed in meet and confer to supplement its response accordingly. As has
often been the case in this action, defendant changed its mind, necessitating this motion.
Rule 37 states:
a party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an answer, designation,production, or inspection. This motion may be made if … (iii) a party fails to answer aninterrogatory submitted under Rule 33…. For purposes of this subdivision (a), anevasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a failure todisclose, answer, or respond. [emphasis added].
By giving an evasive and incomplete response to this interrogatory which fails to state any facts,defendant has engaged in behavior which this court is required to sanction pursuant to Rule 37.
DEFENDANT’S POSITION
[INSERT HERE]
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 14 of 16
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 15/146
JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TOINTERROGATORIES 10
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
IV. CONCLUSION
The party who prevails on a motion to compel is entitled to his or her expenses, including
reasonable attorney fees, unless the losing party was substantially justified in making or opposing themotion (or other circumstances make such an award unjust). FRCP 37(a)(5); H. K. Porter Co., Inc. v.
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (6th Cir. 1976) 536 F2d 1115, 1124–1125.
Plaintiff has met and conferred several times with defendant by phone and in writing, clearing up
any “confusion” and responding to any concerns. Despite this, defendant has insisted on maintaining
incomplete and evasive responses which violate discovery rules. Plaintiff requests this court compel
defendant to fully and properly respond to the above disputed interrogatories without further delay.
Due to motion practice which has thus far required upwards of 5 months and counting to resolve,
defendant has had the benefit of lengthy delays in providing responses to plaintiff’s discovery responses
With less than 3 months remaining before the discovery cutoff, time is of the essence to ensure plaintiff
is not further prejudiced than he already has been in this action.
Pursuant to Rule 37, plaintiff further seeks attorney fees in the amount of $2,000 in consideration
of 5 of the hours which plaintiff has spent meeting and conferring, preparing this motion and anticipates
spending attending the hearing on this motion. Finally, plaintiff requests whatever other sanctions this
court deems proper and just.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: April __, 2008 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER
By:__________________________________________Mark A. Wasser,Attorney for DefendantsCOUNTY OF KERN, PETER BRYAN, IRWINHARRIS, EUGENE KERCHER, JENNIFERABRAHAM, SCOTT RAGLAND,TONI SMITH,AND WILLIAM ROY
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 15 of 16
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 16/146
JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TOINTERROGATORIES 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Dated: April___, 2008 LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE
By:__________________________________________
Eugene D. LeeAttorney for Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 16 of 16
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 17/146
EXHIBITS TO JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENTre: INTERROGATORIES 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Eugene D. Lee SB#: 236812LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100Los Angeles, CA 90013Phone: (213) 992-3299
Fax: (213) 596-0487email: [email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.
Mark A. Wasser CA SB #06160LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100Sacramento, CA 95814Phone: (916) 444-6400Fax: (916) 444-6405Email: [email protected]
Bernard C. Barmann, Sr.KERN COUNTY COUNSELMark Nations, Chief Deputy1115 Truxton Avenue, Fourth FloorBakersfield, CA 93301Phone: (661) 868-3800Fax: (661) 868-3805Email: [email protected]
Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern, Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher, JenniferAbraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smith, and William Roy.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.,
Plaintiff,v.
COUNTY OF KERN, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG
EXHIBITS TO JOINT STATEMENT re:DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT re:INTERROGATORIES
Date: April 28, 2008Time: 9:30 a.m.Place: U.S. District Court, Bankruptcy Courtroom
1300 18th St., Bakersfield, CA
Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007Date Set for Trial: December 3, 2008
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 1 of 130
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 18/146
EXHIBITS TO JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENTre: INTERROGATORIES 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
26
27
28
EXHIBIT 1: Plaintiff’s Interrogatories, Set One – served 1/2/08
EXHIBIT 2: Defendant’s Responses to Interrogatories – served 2/1/08
EXHIBIT 3: Defendant’s Supplemental Responses to Interrogatories – served 3/5/08
EXHIBIT 4: Meet and confer correspondence between the parties
EXHIBIT 5: Declaration of Eugene Lee in Support of Motion
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 2 of 130
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 19/146
EXHIBITS TO JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENTre: INTERROGATORIES 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT 1:
Plaintiff’s Interrogatories, Set One – served 1/2/08
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 3 of 130
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 20/146
- - rom: aw ce o ugene ee g : pm
(213) 992 -3299
TELEPHONELAW
E U G
OFFICE
ENE L
OF
E E
(213) 596 -0487
FACSIMILE
FAX
5 5 5 WEST F IFTH STREET SUITE 3 1 0 0
Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9001 3-1 01 0
WWW.LOEL.COM
WEBSITE
To:
Fax Number: 2135960487
Pages: 26 (including cover page)
Re: Jadwin/KC: Interrogatories 1
Comments:
Mark:
Please see th e a tta ch ed .
From: Law Office of Eugene Lee
Date: 01/02/2008
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 4 of 130
- - rom: aw ce o ugene ee g : pm
(213) 992 -3299
TELEPHONELAW
E U G
OFFICE
ENE L
OF
E E
(213) 596 -0487
FACSIMILE
FAX
5 5 5 WEST FIFTH STREET SUITE 3 1 0 0
Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9001 3-1 01 0
WWW.LOEL.COM
WEBSITE
To:
Fax Number: 2135960487
Pages: 26 (including cover page)
Re: Jadwin/KC: Interrogatories 1
Comments:
Mark:
P le ase see th e a tta ch ed .
From: Law Office of Eugene Lee
Date: 01/02/2008
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 21/146
- - rom: aw ce o ugene ee g : pm
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1112
13
Eugene D. Lee SB# 236812LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE
555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100
Los Angeles, California 90013Telephone: (213) 992-3299Facsimile: (213) 596-0487Email: [email protected]
Joan Herrington, SB# 178988BAY AREA EMPLOYMENT LAW OFFICE
5032 Woodminster LaneOakland, CA 94602-2614Telephone: (510) 530-4078Facsimile: (510) 530-4725Email: [email protected] to LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE
Attorneys for PlaintiffDAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
14 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG
15
16 v.
Plaintiff, INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT
COUNTY OF KERN (SET ONE).
17 COUNTY OF KERN; et aI.Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007Date Set for Trial: December 3 , 2008
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Defendants.
PROPOUNDING PARTY:
RESPONDING PARTY:
SET NO.:
PlaintiffDAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., F.C.A.P.
Defendant COUNTY OF KERN
One
25
26
27
28
Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure, PlaintiffDavid F. Jadwin requests
that you serve written answers to the following interrogatories under oath within thirty (30) days of
service hereof
III
INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT KERN COUNTY (SET ONE)
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 5 of 130
- - rom: aw ce o ugene ee g : pm
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1112
13
Eugene D. Lee SB# 236812LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE
555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100
Los Angeles, California 90013Telephone: (213) 992-3299Facsimile: (213) 596-0487Email: [email protected]
Joan Herrington, SB# 178988BAY AREA EMPLOYMENT LAW OFFICE
5032 Woodminster LaneOakland, CA 94602-2614Telephone: (510) 530-4078Facsimile: (510) 530-4725Email: [email protected] to LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE
Attorneys for PlaintiffDAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
14 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG
15
16 v.
Plaintiff, INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT
COUNTY OF KERN (SET ONE).
17 COUNTY OF KERN; et aI.Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007Date Set for Trial: December 3 , 2008
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Defendants.
PROPOUNDING PARTY:
RESPONDING PARTY:
SET NO.:
PlaintiffDAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., F.C.A.P.
Defendant COUNTY OF KERN
One
25
26
27
28
Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure, PlaintiffDavid F. Jadwin requests
that you serve written answers to the following interrogatories under oath within thirty (30) days of
service hereof
III
INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT KERN COUNTY (SET ONE)
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 22/146
- - rom: aw ce o ugene ee
DEFINITIONS
g : pm
1
2 A. The term "PERSON" as used herein includes, without limitation, any natural person,
3 firm, entity, corporation, partnership, association, cooperative, governmental entity or agency, or any
4 other entity.
5 B. The term "PLAINTIFF" means plaintiffDavid F. Jadwin, D.O., F.C.A.P.
6 C. The term "DEFENDANT"means defendant County ofKern.
7 D. The term "KMC" means Kern Medical Center, a hospital owned and operated by
8 DEFENDANT.
9 E. The terms "YOU" and "YOUR" as used herein include DEFENDANT and include
10 without limitation each predecessor and successor-in-interest, as well as any officer, agent, employee,
11 attorney, representative ofDEFENDANT and/or any other PERSONS acting under the control of
12 DEFENDANT or on behalfofDEFENDANT.
13 F. The term "DOCUMENT" or "DOCUMENTS" as used herein is broadly defined to
14 include all media on which information is recorded or stored, as well as all non-identical copies thereof
15 including copies which bear any notes, notations or markings not found on the originals and all
16 preliminary, intermediate, final and revised drafts of such document. This includes but is not limited to
17 any writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, video or audio recordings, microfilm, data
18 compilations, and electronically-stored information stored in any medium from which information can
19 be obtained such as e-mails, internet browser bookmarks and history, voicemail messages, websites,
20 electronic messages or bulletin boards. As used herein, the term "writings" shall include but is not
21 limited to letters, memoranda, reports, and notes whether handwritten or otherwise recorded, whether
22 internal or external to you. Electronically-stored information should be printed for production.
23 G. The phrase "RELATING TO" as used herein includes referring to, relating to, relates to,
24 responding to, concerning, connected with, commenting on, in respect of, about, regarding, discussing,
25 showing, describing, depicting, mentioning, reflecting, analyzing, comprising, constituting, evidencing,
26 and pertaining to, whether in whole or in part.
27 H. The term "PERSONNEL FILE" as used herein is broadly defined to include all
28 DOCUMENTS RELATING TO an process improvement file; employee's credentials; medical staff file,
INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT KERN COUNTY (SET ONE) 2
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 6 of 130
- - rom: aw ce o ugene ee
DEFINITIONS
g : pm
1
2 A. The term "PERSON" as used herein includes, without limitation, any natural person,
3 firm, entity, corporation, partnership, association, cooperative, governmental entity or agency, or any
4 other entity.
5 B. The term "PLAINTIFF" means plaintiffDavid F. Jadwin, D.O., F.C.A.P.
6 C. The term "DEFENDANT"means defendant County ofKern.
7 D. The term "KMC" means Kern Medical Center, a hospital owned and operated by
8 DEFENDANT.
9 E. The terms "YOU" and "YOUR" as used herein include DEFENDANT and include
10 without limitation each predecessor and successor-in-interest, as well as any officer, agent, employee,
11 attorney, representative ofDEFENDANT and/or any other PERSONS acting under the control of
12 DEFENDANT or on behalfofDEFENDANT.
13 F. The term "DOCUMENT" or "DOCUMENTS" as used herein is broadly defined to
14 include all media on which information is recorded or stored, as well as all non-identical copies thereof
15 including copies which bear any notes, notations or markings not found on the originals and all
16 preliminary, intermediate, final and revised drafts of such document. This includes but is not limited to
17 any writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, video or audio recordings, microfilm, data
18 compilations, and electronically-stored information stored in any medium from which information can
19 be obtained such as e-mails, internet browser bookmarks and history, voicemail messages, websites,
20 electronic messages or bulletin boards. As used herein, the term "writings" shall include but is not
21 limited to letters, memoranda, reports, and notes whether handwritten or otherwise recorded, whether
22 internal or external to you. Electronically-stored information should be printed for production.
23 G. The phrase "RELATING TO" as used herein includes referring to, relating to, relates to,
24 responding to, concerning, connected with, commenting on, in respect of, about, regarding, discussing,
25 showing, describing, depicting, mentioning, reflecting, analyzing, comprising, constituting, evidencing,
26 and pertaining to, whether in whole or in part.
27 H. The term "PERSONNEL FILE" as used herein is broadly defined to include all
28 DOCUMENTS RELATING TO an process improvement file; employee's credentials; medical staff file,
INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT KERN COUNTY (SET ONE) 2
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 23/146
- - rom: aw ce o ugene ee g : pm
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1112
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
qualifications for employment, promotions, transfers, salary, raises, pension eligibility, discipline,
separation or other employment action; as well as the "folder", "jacket" or other container of each such
file and any attachments thereto and all files maintained by PERSONS employed by you.
r. The term "PATHOLOGY REPORT" as used herein is broadly defined to include all
DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the description of cells and tissues made by a pathologist based on
microscopic evidence and lab testing and used to render a diagnosis of a disease, including but not
limited to the DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the following associated items: original requisitions and
attached DOCUMENTS, HBO electronic documentation logs, peer reviewer comment sheets and
attached DOCUMENTS, pathology specimens listed in the clinical history, subsequent pathology
specimens, operative reports for pathology specimens, progress notes made by pathology, outside
pathologist reports, correspondence and contracts with outside reviewing pathologists, dictation logs
from transcription, laboratory reports, surgical pathology reports, cytology reports, and bone marrow
reports.
1. The term "IDENTIFY" when used in connection with natural PERSONS includes the
name, address, phone number, the current or most recent position held with YOU ifthe PERSON is or
was employed with YOU as ofthe date these interrogatories are answered, and the last day of the
PERSON's employment with you. When used in connection with DOCUMENTS, the term
"IDENTIFY" includes the name(s) of the author(s), name(s) ofrecipient(s), date of creation, date of
modification, date of delivery, date of execution, effective date, subject matter, bates numbers, page
numbers, paragraph numbers, line numbers and/or section numbers.
K. The terms "and" and "or" when used herein each mean "and/or".
L. All references to the singular include the plural, and all references to the plural include
the singular. All references to the masculine gender include the feminine and neuter genders and vice-
versa.
INSTRUCTIONS
A. YOU are required to answer each interrogatory separately and fully in writing under oath.
IfYOU cannot answer an interrogatory in full, YOU must answer as fully as possible, specify the reason
for YOUR inability to fully answer, and state any information YOU have concerning the unanswered
INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT KERN COUNTY (SET ONE) 3
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 7 of 130
- - rom: aw ce o ugene ee g : pm
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1112
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
qualifications for employment, promotions, transfers, salary, raises, pension eligibility, discipline,
separation or other employment action; as well as the "folder", "jacket" or other container of each such
file and any attachments thereto and all files maintained by PERSONS employed by you.
r. The term "PATHOLOGY REPORT" as used herein is broadly defined to include all
DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the description of cells and tissues made by a pathologist based on
microscopic evidence and lab testing and used to render a diagnosis of a disease, including but not
limited to the DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the following associated items: original requisitions and
attached DOCUMENTS, HBO electronic documentation logs, peer reviewer comment sheets and
attached DOCUMENTS, pathology specimens listed in the clinical history, subsequent pathology
specimens, operative reports for pathology specimens, progress notes made by pathology, outside
pathologist reports, correspondence and contracts with outside reviewing pathologists, dictation logs
from transcription, laboratory reports, surgical pathology reports, cytology reports, and bone marrow
reports.
1. The term "IDENTIFY" when used in connection with natural PERSONS includes the
name, address, phone number, the current or most recent position held with YOU ifthe PERSON is or
was employed with YOU as ofthe date these interrogatories are answered, and the last day of the
PERSON's employment with you. When used in connection with DOCUMENTS, the term
"IDENTIFY" includes the name(s) of the author(s), name(s) ofrecipient(s), date of creation, date of
modification, date of delivery, date of execution, effective date, subject matter, bates numbers, page
numbers, paragraph numbers, line numbers and/or section numbers.
K. The terms "and" and "or" when used herein each mean "and/or".
L. All references to the singular include the plural, and all references to the plural include
the singular. All references to the masculine gender include the feminine and neuter genders and vice-
versa.
INSTRUCTIONS
A. YOU are required to answer each interrogatory separately and fully in writing under oath.
IfYOU cannot answer an interrogatory in full, YOU must answer as fully as possible, specify the reason
for YOUR inability to fully answer, and state any information YOU have concerning the unanswered
INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT KERN COUNTY (SET ONE) 3
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 24/146
- - rom: aw ce o ugene ee g : pm
1 portion.
2 B. In answering an interrogatory, YOU are required to furnish not only such information as
3 is within YOUR own personal knowledge, but also any and all information which is in the possession of
4 YOUR officers, agents, employees, attorneys, representatives and/or any other PERSONS acting under
5 YOUR or their control or on YOUR or their behalf, or which is otherwise available to you.
6 C. Whenever YOU refuse to answer any interrogatory based upon an objection, YOU are
7 required to (l) fully answer the interrogatory to the extent it is not objectionable, (2) meaningfully state
8 the nature of YOUR objection, (b) meaningfully set forth each and every ground for YOUR objection,
9 and (c) meaningfully describe the factual basis, if any, upon which YOU rely in making such objection.
10 D. An answer to an interrogatory should be complete in and of itself and should not refer to
11 the pleadings, or to depositions or other documents, or to other interrogatories.
12 E. YOU are under a duty to supplement and/or correct these responses upon learning that
13 the earlier answers were in some material respect incomplete or incorrect when made or are no longer
14 true, pursuant to Rule 26(e) ofthe Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure.
15 INTERROGATORIES
16 INTERROGATORY NO. 1:17 State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Third Affirmative Defense.
18 INTERROGATORY NO.2:
19 State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Fourth Affirmative Defense.
20 INTERROGATORY NO.3:
21 State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Fifth Affirmative Defense.
22 INTERROGATORY NO.4:
23 State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Sixth Affirmative Defense.
24 INTERROGATORY NO.5:
25 State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Seventh Affirmative Defense.
26 INTERROGATORY NO.6:
27 State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Eighth Affirmative Defense.
28 INTERROGATORY NO.7:
INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT KERN COUNTY (SET ONE) 4
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 8 of 130
- - rom: aw ce o ugene ee g : pm
1 portion.
2 B. In answering an interrogatory, YOU are required to furnish not only such information as
3 is within YOUR own personal knowledge, but also any and all information which is in the possession of
4 YOUR officers, agents, employees, attorneys, representatives and/or any other PERSONS acting under
5 YOUR or their control or on YOUR or their behalf, or which is otherwise available to you.
6 C. Whenever YOU refuse to answer any interrogatory based upon an objection, YOU are
7 required to (l) fully answer the interrogatory to the extent it is not objectionable, (2) meaningfully state
8 the nature ofYOUR objection, (b) meaningfully set forth each and every ground for YOUR objection,
9 and (c) meaningfully describe the factual basis, if any, upon which YOU rely in making such objection.
10 D. An answer to an interrogatory should be complete in and of itself and should not refer to
11 the pleadings, or to depositions or other documents, or to other interrogatories.
12 E. YOU are under a duty to supplement and/or correct these responses upon learning that
13 the earlier answers were in some material respect incomplete or incorrect when made or are no longer
14 true, pursuant to Rule 26(e) ofthe Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure.
15 INTERROGATORIES
16 INTERROGATORY NO. 1:17 State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Third Affirmative Defense.
18 INTERROGATORY NO.2:
19 State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Fourth Affirmative Defense.
20 INTERROGATORY NO.3:
21 State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Fifth Affirmative Defense.
22 INTERROGATORY NO.4:
23 State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Sixth Affirmative Defense.
24 INTERROGATORY NO.5:
25 State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Seventh Affirmative Defense.
26 INTERROGATORY NO.6:
27 State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Eighth Affirmative Defense.
28 INTERROGATORY NO.7:
INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT KERN COUNTY (SET ONE) 4
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 25/146
- - rom: aw ce o ugene ee g : pm
a) Peter Bryan;
b) Irwin Harris;
c) Eugene Kercher;
d) Jennifer Abraham;
e) Scott Ragland;
f) Toni Smith;
g) William Roy;
h) Philip Dutt.
INTERROGATORY NO.9:
1 State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Ninth Affirmative Defense.
2 INTERROGATORY NO.8:
3 IDENTIFY any and all ofthe following PERSONS whom YOU contend were not employees
4 while they worked at KMC at any time from October 24,2000 to the present; for each such PERSON,
5 state all facts on which you base YOUR contention:
6
7
8
9
10
1112
13
14
15 IDENTIFY any and all of YOUR current and former employees listed in the "WITNESSES"
16 section (Section 1 and Appendix 1) of PLAINTIFF's FRCP Rule 26 Initial Disclosures, dated August 6,
17 2007.
18 INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
19 For each ofthe PERSONS YOU listed in the "WITNESSES" section (Section 1 and Appendix
20 1) ofYOUR FRCP Rule 26 "Supplement to Defendants' Rule 26(a)(l) Initial Disclosures", dated
21 September 13, 2007, state the following:
22 a) Whether each PERSON is YOUR current employees or former employees, and ifso, their dates
23 of employment and job titles;
24 b) For each PERSON who is YOUR former employees, the date and reason for their separation
25 from employment.
26 c) For each PERSON who is YOUR former employees, whether the employee resigned, abandoned
27 his job, was fired, was laid off, or was otherwise terminated.
28 INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT KERN COUNTY (SET ONE) 5
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 9 of 130
- - rom: aw ce o ugene ee g : pm
a) Peter Bryan;
b) Irwin Harris;
c) Eugene Kercher;
d) Jennifer Abraham;
e) Scott Ragland;
f) Toni Smith;
g) William Roy;
h) Philip Dutt.
INTERROGATORY NO.9:
1 State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Ninth Affirmative Defense.
2 INTERROGATORY NO.8:
3 IDENTIFY any and all ofthe following PERSONS whom YOU contend were not employees
4 while they worked at KMC at any time from October 24,2000 to the present; for each such PERSON,
5 state all facts on which you base YOUR contention:
6
7
8
9
10
1112
13
14
15 IDENTIFY any and all of YOUR current and former employees listed in the "WITNESSES"
16 section (Section 1 and Appendix 1) of PLAINTIFF's FRCP Rule 26 Initial Disclosures, dated August 6,
17 2007.
18 INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
19 For each ofthe PERSONS YOU listed in the "WITNESSES" section (Section 1 and Appendix
20 1) ofYOUR FRCP Rule 26 "Supplement to Defendants' Rule 26(a)(l) Initial Disclosures", dated
21 September 13, 2007, state the following:
22 a) Whether each PERSON is YOUR current employees or former employees, and ifso, their dates
23 of employment and job titles;
24 b) For each PERSON who is YOUR former employees, the date and reason for their separation
25 from employment.
26 c) For each PERSON who is YOUR former employees, whether the employee resigned, abandoned
27 his job, was fired, was laid off, or was otherwise terminated.
28 INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT KERN COUNTY (SET ONE) 5
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 26/146
- - rom: aw ce o ugene ee g : pm
1 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who are or were members of each ofthe following
2 committees at KMC from October 4, 2001 to the present, their roles on each such committee, and the
3 dates oftheir membership:
4 a) Medical Executive Committee
5 b) Joint Conference Committee
6 c) Quality Management Committee
7 d) Cancer Committee
8 e) Second Level Peer Review Committee
9 f) Transfusion Committee
109) Executive StaffMeetings
11 INTERROGATORY NO. 12:
12 State the dates, times and locations of each meeting held by the following committees from
13 October 4, 2001 to the present:
14 a) Medical Executive Committee
15 b) Joint Conference Committee
16 c) Quality Management Committee
17 d) Cancer Committee
18 e) Second Level Peer Review Committee
19 f) Transfusion Committee
20 g) Executive StaffMeetings
21 INTERROGATORY NO. 13:
22 IDENTIFY all PERSONS to whom the Cancer Committee at KMC sent a DOCUMENT
23 requesting such PERSONS refrain from exceeding presentation time limits at the "ONCOLOGY
24 CONFERENCE" (as that term is used in the memo from Dr. Albert McBride to Dr. David Jadwin, dated
25 May 9,2005 [DFJ381]) from October 4, 2001 to the present.
26 INTERROGATORY NO. 14:
27 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who conducted any investigations for or on YOUR behalf
28 into any aspect of PLAINTIFF's claims against YOU that are alleged in the Second Supplemental
INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT KERN COUNTY (SET ONE) 6
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 10 of 130
- - rom: aw ce o ugene ee g : pm
1 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who are or were members of each ofthe following
2 committees at KMC from October 4, 2001 to the present, their roles on each such committee, and the
3 dates oftheir membership:
4 a) Medical Executive Committee
5 b) Joint Conference Committee
6 c) Quality Management Committee
7 d) Cancer Committee
8 e) Second Level Peer Review Committee
9 f) Transfusion Committee
109) Executive StaffMeetings
11 INTERROGATORY NO. 12:
12 State the dates, times and locations of each meeting held by the following committees from
13 October 4, 2001 to the present:
14 a) Medical Executive Committee
15 b) Joint Conference Committee
16 c) Quality Management Committee
17 d) Cancer Committee
18 e) Second Level Peer Review Committee
19 f) Transfusion Committee
20 g) Executive StaffMeetings
21 INTERROGATORY NO. 13:
22 IDENTIFY all PERSONS to whom the Cancer Committee at KMC sent a DOCUMENT
23 requesting such PERSONS refrain from exceeding presentation time limits at the "ONCOLOGY
24 CONFERENCE" (as that term is used in the memo from Dr. Albert McBride to Dr. David Jadwin, dated
25 May 9,2005 [DFJ381]) from October 4, 2001 to the present.
26 INTERROGATORY NO. 14:
27 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who conducted any investigations for or on YOUR behalf
28 into any aspect of PLAINTIFF's claims against YOU that are alleged in the Second Supplemental
INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT KERN COUNTY (SET ONE) 6
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 27/146
- - rom: aw ce o ugene ee g : pm
1 Complaint; state the claims each such PERSON investigated; and IDENTIFY any written reports
2 RELATING TO said investigations that each such PERSON produced, authored or otherwise
3 contributed to.
4 INTERROGATORY NO. 15:
5 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS whom YOU contend participated in any "PEER REVIEW"
6 (as that term is defined in the KMC Bylaws) of PLAINTIFF's work from April 15,2005 to the present,
7 describe each such PERSON's role in the PEER REVIEW, and IDENTIFY the work and/or
8 PATHOLOGY REPORTS each such PERSON peer reviewed.
9 INTERROGATORY NO. 16:
10 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC other than
11 PLAINTIFF whom YOU removed or suspended from the position ofChair ofa Department at KMC
12 since October 4, 1996; state the date and any and all reasons for each and every such removal or
13 suspension; and describe the opportunities provided to such former or current employees to defend
14 themselves, present evidence and/or cross-examine witnesses RELATING TO their removal or
15 suspensIOn.
16 INTERROGATORY NO. 17:
17 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who held the position ofActing Chair of a Department at
18 KMC since October 24, 1995; state the dates of their tenure in said position; and state any and all
19 reasons for the end oftheir tenure in said position.
20 INTERROGATORY NO. 18:
21 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS other than PLAINTIFF who took or were placed on
22 "PERSONAL NECESSITY LEAVE" (as that term is used in Rule 1202.20 ofthe Civil Service
23 Commission Rules for the County ofKern) in excess of one month while holding the position of Chair
24 of a Department at KMC since October 24, 1995; state any and all reasons for each such period of
25 PERSONAL NECESSITY LEAVE; and state the dates of each and every such period of PERSONAL
26 NECESSITY LEAVE.
27 INTERROGATORY NO. 19:
28 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC other than
INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT KERN COUNTY (SET ONE) 7
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 11 of 130
- - rom: aw ce o ugene ee g : pm
1 Complaint; state the claims each such PERSON investigated; and IDENTIFY any written reports
2 RELATING TO said investigations that each such PERSON produced, authored or otherwise
3 contributed to.
4 INTERROGATORY NO. 15:
5 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS whom YOU contend participated in any "PEER REVIEW"
6 (as that term is defined in the KMC Bylaws) of PLAINTIFF's work from April 15,2005 to the present,
7 describe each such PERSON's role in the PEER REVIEW, and IDENTIFY the work and/or
8 PATHOLOGY REPORTS each such PERSON peer reviewed.
9 INTERROGATORY NO. 16:
10 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC other than
11 PLAINTIFF whom YOU removed or suspended from the position ofChair ofa Department at KMC
12 since October 4, 1996; state the date and any and all reasons for each and every such removal or
13 suspension; and describe the opportunities provided to such former or current employees to defend
14 themselves, present evidence and/or cross-examine witnesses RELATING TO their removal or
15 suspensIOn.
16 INTERROGATORY NO. 17:
17 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who held the position ofActing Chair of a Department at
18 KMC since October 24, 1995; state the dates of their tenure in said position; and state any and all
19 reasons for the end oftheir tenure in said position.
20 INTERROGATORY NO. 18:
21 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS other than PLAINTIFF who took or were placed on
22 "PERSONAL NECESSITY LEAVE" (as that term is used in Rule 1202.20 ofthe Civil Service
23 Commission Rules for the County ofKern) in excess of one month while holding the position of Chair
24 of a Department at KMC since October 24, 1995; state any and all reasons for each such period of
25 PERSONAL NECESSITY LEAVE; and state the dates of each and every such period of PERSONAL
26 NECESSITY LEAVE.
27 INTERROGATORY NO. 19:
28 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC other than
INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT KERN COUNTY (SET ONE) 7
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 28/146
- - rom: aw ce o ugene ee g : pm
1 PLAINTIFF who were not reinstated to their same position following a period of PERSONAL
2 NECESSITY LEAVE taken since October 24, 1995; state any and all reasons for each such non-
3 reinstatement.
4 INTERROGATORY NO. 20:
5 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC who were
6 demoted during the pendency of, or within one month after their return to work from, a period of
7 PERSONAL NECESSITY LEAVE taken since October 24,2005.
8 INTERROGATORY NO. 21:
9 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC other than
10 PLAINTIFF who took "SICK LEAVE" (as that term is used in the Civil Service Commission Rules for
11 the County of Kern) in excess of one month while holding the position of Chair of a Department at
12 KMC since October 24, 1995; and for each such PERSON state the dates of each and every such period
13 of SICK LEAVE.
14 INTERROGATORY NO. 22:
15 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC other than
16 PLAINTIFF who were not reinstated to their same position following a period of SICK LEAVE since
17 October 24, 1995.
18 INTERROGATORY NO. 23:
19 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC who were
20 demoted during the pendency of, or within one month after their return to work from, a period of SICK
21 LEAVE since October 24, 1995.
22 INTERROGATORY NO. 24:
23 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC other than
24 PLAINTIFF who took leave pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act or California Family Rights
25 Act since October 24, 1995; and state the dates of each and every such period of leave.
26 INTERROGATORY NO. 25:
27 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC other than
28 PLAINTIFF who were not reinstated to their same position following a period of leave taken pursuant to
INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT KERN COUNTY (SET ONE) 8
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 12 of 130
- - rom: aw ce o ugene ee g : pm
1 PLAINTIFF who were not reinstated to their same position following a period of PERSONAL
2 NECESSITY LEAVE taken since October 24, 1995; state any and all reasons for each such non-
3 reinstatement.
4 INTERROGATORY NO. 20:
5 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC who were
6 demoted during the pendency of, or within one month after their return to work from, a period of
7 PERSONAL NECESSITY LEAVE taken since October 24,2005.
8 INTERROGATORY NO. 21:
9 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC other than
10 PLAINTIFF who took "SICK LEAVE" (as that term is used in the Civil Service Commission Rules for
11 the County of Kern) in excess of one month while holding the position of Chair of a Department at
12 KMC since October 24, 1995; and for each such PERSON state the dates of each and every such period
13 of SICK LEAVE.
14 INTERROGATORY NO. 22:
15 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC other than
16 PLAINTIFF who were not reinstated to their same position following a period of SICK LEAVE since
17 October 24, 1995.
18 INTERROGATORY NO. 23:
19 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC who were
20 demoted during the pendency of, or within one month after their return to work from, a period of SICK
21 LEAVE since October 24, 1995.
22 INTERROGATORY NO. 24:
23 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC other than
24 PLAINTIFF who took leave pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act or California Family Rights
25 Act since October 24, 1995; and state the dates of each and every such period of leave.
26 INTERROGATORY NO. 25:
27 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC other than
28 PLAINTIFF who were not reinstated to their same position following a period of leave taken pursuant to
INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT KERN COUNTY (SET ONE) 8
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 29/146
- - rom: aw ce o ugene ee g : pm
1 the Family and Medical Leave Act or California Family Rights Act since October 24, 1995.
2 INTERROGATORY NO. 26:
3 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC who were
4 demoted during the pendency of or within one month after their return to work from a period of leave
5 taken pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act or California Family Rights Act since October 24,
6 1995.
7 INTERROGATORY NO. 27:
8 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC other than
9 PLAINTIFF who took or were placed on "ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE" (as that term is used in David
10 Culberson's letter to PLAINTIFF, dated December 7, 2006 [DFJO 1482]) in excess of one month while
11 holding the position ofChair ofa Department at KMC since October 24,1995; for each such PERSON
12 state the dates of each and every such period ofADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE; state whether each such
13 period ofADMINSTRATIVE LEAVE was paid or unpaid; and state any and all reasons for each such
14 period ofADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE.
15 INTERROGATORY NO. 28:
16 During the period from October 24,2000 to the present, IDENTIFY any and all former members
17 ofthe "MEDICAL STAFF" at KMC (as that term is defined in the Bylaws ofKMC) other than
18 PLAINTIFF whose employment contract with YOU was not renewed or extended; state whether the
19 contract expired or was terminated; state the date each such contract expired or was terminated; and state
20 any and all reasons for non-renewal or non-extension of each such contract.
21 INTERROGATORY NO. 29:
22 IDENTIFY any and all ofYOUR former or current members of the MEDICAL STAFF other
23 than PLAINTIFF whose employment contract was extended or renewed for a contract term ofless than
24 five years during the period from October 24,2000 to November 16,2006.
25 INTERROGATORY NO. 30:
26 IDENTIFY any and all ofYOUR former or current members ofthe MEDICAL STAFF whose
27 employment contract was extended or renewed for a contract term offive or more years during the
28 period from October 24,2000 to November 16,2006.
INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT KERN COUNTY (SET ONE) 9
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 13 of 130
- - rom: aw ce o ugene ee g : pm
1 the Family and Medical Leave Act or California Family Rights Act since October 24, 1995.
2 INTERROGATORY NO. 26:
3 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC who were
4 demoted during the pendency of or within one month after their return to work from a period of leave
5 taken pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act or California Family Rights Act since October 24,
6 1995.
7 INTERROGATORY NO. 27:
8 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC other than
9 PLAINTIFF who took or were placed on "ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE" (as that term is used in David
10 Culberson's letter to PLAINTIFF, dated December 7, 2006 [DFJO 1482]) in excess of one month while
11 holding the position ofChair ofa Department at KMC since October 24,1995; for each such PERSON
12 state the dates of each and every such period ofADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE; state whether each such
13 period ofADMINSTRATIVE LEAVE was paid or unpaid; and state any and all reasons for each such
14 period ofADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE.
15 INTERROGATORY NO. 28:
16 During the period from October 24,2000 to the present, IDENTIFY any and all former members
17 ofthe "MEDICAL STAFF" at KMC (as that term is defined in the Bylaws ofKMC) other than
18 PLAINTIFF whose employment contract with YOU was not renewed or extended; state whether the
19 contract expired or was terminated; state the date each such contract expired or was terminated; and state
20 any and all reasons for non-renewal or non-extension of each such contract.
21 INTERROGATORY NO. 29:
22 IDENTIFY any and all ofYOUR former or current members of the MEDICAL STAFF other
23 than PLAINTIFF whose employment contract was extended or renewed for a contract term ofless than
24 five years during the period from October 24,2000 to November 16,2006.
25 INTERROGATORY NO. 30:
26 IDENTIFY any and all ofYOUR former or current members ofthe MEDICAL STAFF whose
27 employment contract was extended or renewed for a contract term offive or more years during the
28 period from October 24,2000 to November 16,2006.
INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT KERN COUNTY (SET ONE) 9
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 30/146
- - rom: aw ce o ugene ee g : pm
1 INTERROGATORY NO. 31:
2 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked as a staffpathologist
3 at KMC after October 24, 2000 other than PLAINTIFF whose job description or employment contract
4 contained a provision requiring him or her to be responsible for providing onsite shift coverage during
5 specifically stated hours, unless otherwise assigned or excused by the department chairman.
6 INTERROGATORY NO. 32:
7 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked as a staffpathologist
8 at KMC after October 24, 2000 other than PLAINTIFF whose job description or employment contract
9 contained a provision requiring him or her to carry a pager when on call and respond to KMC within a
10 specific number minutes ofbeing called.
11 INTERROGATORY NO. 33:
12 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who worked as a staffpathologist at KMC after October 24,
13 2000 other than PLAINTIFF whose job description or employment contract contained a provision
14 requiring him or her to perform according to productivity standards set by the department chairman, but
15 at no time read out and report less than an average ofa specified number cases per day, for "County
16 Responsible" (which means medically indigent adults pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section
17 17000 et seq., and adult inmates and juvenile detainees in custody in County-owned or operated
18 detention facilities) undercompensated and uninsured patients.
19 INTERROGATORY NO. 34:
20 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to solicit and/or collect
21 "LETTERS OF DISSATISFACTION" (as that term is used in the letter from Drs. Eugene Kercher,
22 Scott Ragland, Jennifer Abraham and Irwin Harris to PLAINTIFF, dated October 17,2005 [DFJ588]) in
23 on or about October 12,2005; and state the date that such decision was made.
24 INTERROGATORY NO. 35:
25 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the initial decision to place LETTERS
26 OF DISSATISFACTION in PLAINTIFF'S PERSONNEL FILE on or about October 17, 2005; and state
27 the date that decision was made.
28 INTERROGATORY NO. 36:
INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT KERN COUNTY (SET ONE) 10
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 14 of 130
- - rom: aw ce o ugene ee g : pm
1 INTERROGATORY NO. 31:
2 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked as a staffpathologist
3 at KMC after October 24, 2000 other than PLAINTIFF whose job description or employment contract
4 contained a provision requiring him or her to be responsible for providing onsite shift coverage during
5 specifically stated hours, unless otherwise assigned or excused by the department chairman.
6 INTERROGATORY NO. 32:
7 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked as a staffpathologist
8 at KMC after October 24, 2000 other than PLAINTIFF whose job description or employment contract
9 contained a provision requiring him or her to carry a pager when on call and respond to KMC within a
10 specific number minutes ofbeing called.
11 INTERROGATORY NO. 33:
12 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who worked as a staffpathologist at KMC after October 24,
13 2000 other than PLAINTIFF whose job description or employment contract contained a provision
14 requiring him or her to perform according to productivity standards set by the department chairman, but
15 at no time read out and report less than an average ofa specified number cases per day, for "County
16 Responsible" (which means medically indigent adults pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section
17 17000 et seq., and adult inmates and juvenile detainees in custody in County-owned or operated
18 detention facilities) undercompensated and uninsured patients.
19 INTERROGATORY NO. 34:
20 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to solicit and/or collect
21 "LETTERS OF DISSATISFACTION" (as that term is used in the letter from Drs. Eugene Kercher,
22 Scott Ragland, Jennifer Abraham and Irwin Harris to PLAINTIFF, dated October 17,2005 [DFJ588]) in
23 on or about October 12,2005; and state the date that such decision was made.
24 INTERROGATORY NO. 35:
25 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the initial decision to place LETTERS
26 OF DISSATISFACTION in PLAINTIFF'S PERSONNEL FILE on or about October 17, 2005; and state
27 the date that decision was made.
28 INTERROGATORY NO. 36:
INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT KERN COUNTY (SET ONE) 10
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 31/146
- - rom: aw ce o ugene ee g : pm
1 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to convert PLAINTIFF's
2 reduced work schedule leave to full-time leave on or about April 28, 2006; and state the date that
3 decision was made.
4 INTERROGATORY NO. 37:
5 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to recommend removal of
6 PLAINTIFF from his position as Chair of Pathology at KMC in 2006; and state the date that decision
7 was made.
8 INTERROGATORY NO. 38:
9 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decisions RELATING TO each and
10 every provision contained in the DOCUMENT entitled "Amendment NO.1 to Agreement for
11 Professional Services" [DFJl416]; and state the date each such decision was made.
12 INTERROGATORY NO. 39:
13 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to recommend reduction
14 of PLAINTIFF's base salary in 2006; and state the date that decision was made.
15 INTERROGATORY NO. 40:
16 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in calculating the amount of the reduction
17 of PLAINTIFF's base salary in 2006.
18 INTERROGATORY NO. 41:
19 State the manner in which YOU calculated the amount of the reduction of PLAINTIFF's base
20 salary in 2006; and state all factual bases on which YOU relied in support thereof.
21 INTERROGATORY NO. 42:
22 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to place PLAINTIFF on
23 administrative leave with pay on or about December 7, 2006; and state the date that decision was made.
24 INTERROGATORY NO. 43:
25 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to lift the restrictions on
26 PLAINTIFF's administrative leave (as that term is used in the letter of April 30, 2007 from Mark
27 Wasser, DEFENDANT'S counsel [DFJ7101]); and state the date that decision was made.
28 INTERROGATORY NO. 44:
INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT KERN COUNTY (SET ONE) 11
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 15 of 130
- - rom: aw ce o ugene ee g : pm
1 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to convert PLAINTIFF's
2 reduced work schedule leave to full-time leave on or about April 28, 2006; and state the date that
3 decision was made.
4 INTERROGATORY NO. 37:
5 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to recommend removal of
6 PLAINTIFF from his position as Chair of Pathology at KMC in 2006; and state the date that decision
7 was made.
8 INTERROGATORY NO. 38:
9 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decisions RELATING TO each and
10 every provision contained in the DOCUMENT entitled "Amendment NO.1 to Agreement for
11 Professional Services" [DFJl416]; and state the date each such decision was made.
12 INTERROGATORY NO. 39:
13 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to recommend reduction
14 of PLAINTIFF's base salary in 2006; and state the date that decision was made.
15 INTERROGATORY NO. 40:
16 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in calculating the amount of the reduction
17 of PLAINTIFF's base salary in 2006.
18 INTERROGATORY NO. 41:
19 State the manner in which YOU calculated the amount of the reduction of PLAINTIFF's base
20 salary in 2006; and state all factual bases on which YOU relied in support thereof.
21 INTERROGATORY NO. 42:
22 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to place PLAINTIFF on
23 administrative leave with pay on or about December 7, 2006; and state the date that decision was made.
24 INTERROGATORY NO. 43:
25 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to lift the restrictions on
26 PLAINTIFF's administrative leave (as that term is used in the letter of April 30, 2007 from Mark
27 Wasser, DEFENDANT'S counsel [DFJ7101]); and state the date that decision was made.
28 INTERROGATORY NO. 44:
INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT KERN COUNTY (SET ONE) 11
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 32/146
- - rom: aw ce o ugene ee g : pm
1 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to propose to PLAINTIFF
2 a "BUYOUT" (as that tenn is used in the email ofMay 1, 2007 from Mark Wasser, DEFENDANT'S
3 counsel [DFJOI482]); and state the date that decision was made.
4 INTERROGATORY NO. 45:
5 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision not to renew
6 PLAINTIFF's employment contract with YOU; and state the date that decision was made.
7 INTERROGATORY NO. 46:
8 IDENTIFY each DOCUMENT or portion thereofcontained in PLAINTIFF's FRCP Rule 26
9 Initial Disclosures that YOU contend is privileged; state the nature of each privilege asserted; and state
lO i n detail the factual bases for each such asserted privilege.
11 INTERROGATORY NO. 47:
12 IDENTIFY each DOCUMENT or portion thereof contained in YOUR FRCP Rule 26 Initial
13 Disclosures that YOU contend is privileged; state the nature of each privilege asserted; and state in
14 detail the factual bases for each such asserted privilege.
15 INTERROGATORY NO. 48:
16 State each and every job function which YOU contend were the essential functions of
17 PLAINTIFF'S position as Chair of Pathology at KMC.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Date: January 2, 2008
QgeneD. LeeLAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE
555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100Los Angeles, California 90013
Telephone: (213) 992-3299Facsimile: (213) 596-0487Email: [email protected] for PlaintiffDAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.
INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT KERN COUNTY (SET ONE) 12
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 16 of 130
- - rom: aw ce o ugene ee g : pm
1 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to propose to PLAINTIFF
2 a "BUYOUT" (as that tenn is used in the email ofMay 1,2007 from Mark Wasser, DEFENDANT'S
3 counsel [DFJ01482]); and state the date that decision was made.
4 INTERROGATORY NO. 45:
5 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision not to renew
6 PLAINTIFF's employment contract with YOU; and state the date that decision was made.
7 INTERROGATORY NO. 46:
8 IDENTIFY each DOCUMENT or portion thereof contained in PLAINTIFF's FRCP Rule 26
9 Initial Disclosures that YOU contend is privileged; state the nature of each privilege asserted; and state
lO i n detail the factual bases for each such asserted privilege.
11 INTERROGATORY NO. 47:
12 IDENTIFY each DOCUMENT or portion thereof contained in YOUR FRCP Rule 26 Initial
13 Disclosures that YOU contend is privileged; state the nature of each privilege asserted; and state in
14 detail the factual bases for each such asserted privilege.
15 INTERROGATORY NO. 48:
16 State each and every job function which YOU contend were the essential functions of
17 PLAINTIFF'S position as Chair of Pathology at KMC.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Date: January 2, 2008
LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE
555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100Los Angeles, California 90013
Telephone: (213) 992-3299Facsimile: (213) 596-0487Email: [email protected] for Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.
INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT KERN COUNTY (SET ONE) 12
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 33/146
- - rom: aw ce o ugene ee g : pm
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
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I,the undersigned, hereby declare:
I am a resident of Los Angeles in the State ofCalifornia. I am over the age of 18 and not a partyto the action described herein. I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, California. My businessaddress is LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE, 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100, Los Angeles, CA90013. On the date of execution ofthis DOCUMENT, I served the following:
INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT COUNTY OF KERN (SET ONE).
on the following parties in this action by and through their attorneys addressed as follows:
Mark A. WasserLAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100Sacramento, CA 95814Fax: (916) 444-6405
Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern, PeterBryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher, JenniferAbraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smith andWilliam Roy
BY UNITED STATES MAIL: I enclosed the DOCUMENT(s) listed above in a sealed envelopewith postage thereon fully prepaid, addressed to the PERSON(s) listed above, and deposited the sealedenvelope with the United States Postal Service at Los Angeles, California. I am aware that on motion ofthe party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is morethan one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
BY FACSIMILE: I transmitted via facsimile the DOCUMENT(s) listed above to the faxnumber(s) set forth above on this date before 5:00 p.rn. The outgoing facsimile machine telephonenumber in this office is (213) 596-0487. The facsimile service used in this office creates a transmissionreport for each outgoing facsimile transmitted. A copy ofthe transmission report(s) for the service ofthis DOCUMENT, properly issued by the facsimile service that transmitted this DOCUMENT andshowing that such transmission was (transmissions were) completed without error, is attached hereto.
FEDERAL: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe United States ofAmericathat the above is true and correct and that I took said actions at the direction of a licensed attorneyauthorized to practice before this Federal Court.
Executed on January 2, 2008, at Los Angeles, California.
- A V0}':U
\ Eugene D. Lee
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 17 of 130
- - rom: aw ce o ugene ee g : pm
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1112
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I,the undersigned, hereby declare:
I am a resident ofLos Angeles in the State ofCalifornia. I am over the age of 18 and not a partyto the action described herein. I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, California. My businessaddress is LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE, 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100, Los Angeles, CA90013. On the date of execution ofthis DOCUMENT, I served the following:
INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT COUNTY OF KERN (SET ONE).
on the following parties in this action by and through their attorneys addressed as follows:
Mark A. WasserLAW OFFICES OFMARK A. WASSER400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100Sacramento, CA 95814Fax: (916) 444-6405
Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern, PeterBryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher, JenniferAbraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smith andWilliam Roy
[2J BY UNITED STATES MAIL: I enclosed the DOCUMENT(s) listed above in a sealed envelopewith postage thereon fully prepaid, addressed to the PERSON(s) listed above, and deposited the sealedenvelope with the United States Postal Service at Los Angeles, California. I am aware that on motion ofthe party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is morethan one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
[2J BY FACSIMILE: I transmitted via facsimile the DOCUMENT(s) listed above to the faxnumber(s) set forth above on this date before 5:00 p.m. The outgoing facsimile machine telephonenumber in this office is (213) 596-0487. The facsimile service used in this office creates a transmissionreport for each outgoing facsimile transmitted. A copy of the transmission report(s) for the service ofthis DOCUMENT, properly issued by the facsimile service that transmitted this DOCUMENT andshowing that such transmission was (transmissions were) completed without error, is attached hereto.
[2J FEDERAL: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe United States ofAmericathat the above is true and correct and that I took said actions at the direction of a licensed attorneyauthorized to practice before this Federal Court.
Executed on January 2, 2008, at Los Angeles, California.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 34/146
EXHIBITS TO JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENTre: INTERROGATORIES 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
26
27
28
EXHIBIT 2:
Defendant’s Responses to Interrogatories – served 2/1/08
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 18 of 130
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 35/146
1
Eugene D. Lee
From: Mark Wasser [[email protected]]Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 5:28 PMTo: Eugene LeeSubject: Response to Plaintiffs Interrogatories 1.16.08Attachments: Response to Plaintiffs Interrogatories 1.16.08.doc
Gene, Here are Defendants' responses to Plaintiff's first set of interrogatories. A hard copy is in the mail. Mark
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 19 of 130
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 36/146
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES
1
1
2
3
45
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 #60160LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100Sacramento, CA 95814Phone: (916) 444-6400Fax: (916) 444-6405
E-mail: [email protected] Bernard C. Barmann, Sr.KERN COUNTY COUNSELMark Nations, Chief Deputy1115 Truxtun Avenue, Fourth FloorBakersfield, CA 93301Phone: (661) 868-3800Fax: (661) 868-3805E-mail: [email protected]
Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern,Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher,
Jennifer Abraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smithand William Roy
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.
Plaintiff,
vs.
COUNTY OF KERN, et al.,
Defendants.
)))
))))))))))
Case No.: 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO
PLAINTIFF’S INTEROGATORIES (SETONE)
Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007Trial Date: August 26, 2008
)
PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., F.C.A.P.
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant COUNTY OF KERN
SET NUMBER: ONE (1)
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 20 of 130
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 37/146
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES
2
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendants hereby submit these responses, consisting of answers and objections, to
Plaintiff David F. Jadwin’s Interrogatories, Set One.
INTERROGATORY NO. 1
State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Third Affirmative Defense.RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1
The Third Affirmative Defense is a legal defense. Defendants object to it to the extent it
seeks information protected under the attorney/client privilege and attorney work product
privilege.
INTERROGATORY NO. 2
State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Fourth Affirmative Defense.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2
The Fourth Affirmative Defense is a legal defense. Defendants object to it to the extent it
seeks information protected under the attorney/client privilege and attorney work product
privilege.
INTERROGATORY NO. 3
State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Fifth Affirmative Defense.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3
Defendants will rely on the testimony of persons who worked with Plaintiff regarding the
nature of his interpersonal communications and relationships with co-workers; his overbearing
and dismissive attitude towards other members of the hospital staff; his intimidating style; his
disrespectful and disagreeable interpersonal dealings, and his physical confrontations with other
persons in the hospital. The Defendants will offer testimony about the efforts members of the
medical staff and management made to counsel Plaintiff and his angry and dismissive responses
to those efforts. Defendants will show how Plaintiff’s working relationships in the hospital
steadily eroded and unraveled as a result of Plaintiff’s behavior. The testimony will be supported
by letters, e-mails and other writings, all of which have been previously produced.
INTERROGATORY NO. 4
State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Sixth Affirmative Defense.
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 21 of 130
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 38/146
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES
3
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4
The Sixth Affirmative Defense is a legal defense. Defendants object to it to the extent it
seeks information protected under the attorney/client privilege and attorney work product
privilege.INTERROGATORY NO. 5
State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Seventh Affirmative
Defense.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5
The Seventh Affirmative Defense is a legal defense. Defendants object to it to the extent
it seeks information protected under the attorney/client privilege and attorney work product
privilege.
INTERROGATORY NO. 6
State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Eighth Affirmative Defense.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6
The Eighth Third Affirmative Defense is a legal defense. Defendants object to it to the
extent it seeks information protected under the attorney/client privilege and attorney work
product privilege.
INTERROGATORY NO. 7
State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Ninth Affirmative Defense.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7
The Ninth Affirmative Defense is a legal defense. Defendants object to it to the extent it
seeks information protected under the attorney/client privilege and attorney work product
privilege.
INTERROGATORY NO. 8
IDENTIFY any and all of the following PERSONS whom YOU contend were not
employees while they worked at KMC at any time from October 24, 2000 to present; for each
such PERSON, state all facts on which you base YOUR contention:
a) Peter Bryan;
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 22 of 130
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 39/146
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES
4
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
b) Irwin Harris;
c) Eugene Kercher;
d) Jennifer Abraham;
e)
Scott Ragland;f) Toni Smith;
g) William Roy;
h) Philip Dutt.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8
William Roy was an independent contractor who served under contract from about
September 1, 2005 to about March 30, 2007.
INTERROGATORY NO. 9
IDENTIFY any and all of YOUR current and former employees listed in the
“WITNESSES” section (Section 1 and Appendix 1) of PLAINTIFF’s FRCP Rule 26 Initial
Disclosures, dated August 6, 2007.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9
Leonard Perez, Adam Lang, Elsa Ang, Fangluo Liu, Savita Shertukde, Gilbert Martinez,
Royce Johnson, Irwin Harris, Antoinette Smith, Susie Price, Evangeline Gallegos, Yolanda
Figueroa, Tracy Lindsey, Catrina Manuel, Denise Rhynes, Tracy Subriar, Carol Wedding, Rae
McDonald, Arlene Ramos-Aninion, Jane Thornton, Kathy Griffith, David Hill, Bernard
Barmann, Marvin Kolb, Nitin Athavale, Margo Raison, Jennifer Abraham, Eugene Kercher,
Scott Ragland, Jose Perez, Peter Bryan, Edward Taylor, Michelle Burris, Javad Naderi, Maureen
Martin, Navin Amin, Chester Lau, Steve O’Connor, Renita Nunn, Albert McBride, Alice Hevle,
Dianne McConnehey, Philip Dutt, Mary Cortez, Karen Barnes, Ronald Errera, Jordan Kaufman,
Tai Yoo, Aaron Baldwin, Linda Nipper, Bonnie Quinonez, Patricia Parada, Serena Sepulveda-
Rini, Carol Gates and Denise Long.
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 23 of 130
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 40/146
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES
5
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
INTERROGATORY NO. 10
For each of the PERSONS YOU listed in the “WITNESSES” section (Section 1 and
Appendix 1) of YOUR FRCP Rule 26 “Supplement to Defendants’ Rule 26(a)(1) Initial
Disclosures”, dated September 13, 2007, state the following: a) Whether each PERSON is YOUR current employees or former employees, and if
so, their dates of employment and job titles;
b) For each PERSON who is YOUR former employees, the date and reason for their
separation from employment;
c) For each PERSON who is YOUR former employees, whether the employee
resigned, abandoned his job, was laid off, or was otherwise terminated.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10
Defendants object to this Interrogatory, to the extent it requests the dates of employment
of current and former employees, on the grounds it is burdensome and oppressive and is not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving that
objection, Defendants answer as follows: Leonard Perez (former), Adam Lang (former), Elsa
Ang (former), Fangluo Liu (former), Savita Shertukde (current), Gilbert Martinez (current),
Royce Johnson (current), Irwin Harris (former), Antoinette Smith (current), Susie Price (former),
Evangeline Gallegos (current), Yolanda Figueroa (current), Tracy Lindsey (current), Catrina
Manuel (former), Denise Rhynes (former), Tracy Subriar (current), Carol Wedding (current),
Rae McDonald (current), Arlene Ramos-Aninion (current), Jane Thornton (current), Kathy
Griffith (current), David Hill (former), Bernard Barmann (current), Marvin Kolb (former), Nitin
Athavale (former), Margo Raison (current), Jennifer Abraham (current), Eugene Kercher
(current), Scott Ragland (current), Jose Perez (former), Peter Bryan (former), Edward Taylor
(current), Michelle Burris (current), Javad Naderi (current), Maureen Martin (current), Navin
Amin (current), Chester Lau (former), Steve O’Connor (current), Renita Nunn (current), Albert
McBride (current), Alice Hevle (current), Dianne McConnehey (current), Philip Dutt (current),
Mary Cortez (current), Karen Barnes (current), Ronald Errera (current), Jordan Kaufman
(current), Tai Yoo (current), Aaron Baldwin (former), Linda Nipper (former), Bonnie Quinonez
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 24 of 130
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 41/146
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES
6
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(former), Patricia Parada (current), Serena Sepulveda-Rini (former), Carol Gates (current) and
Denise Long (former).
Defendants object to the balance of this Interrogatory on the grounds it requests
confidential personnel information about employees or former employees that is protected underCalifornia Evidence Code section 1040 and case authority. In some cases, it also requests
personal medical information that is protected from disclosure under HIPAA and Defendants
object on that ground, as well.
INTERROGATORY NO. 11
IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who are or were members of each of the following
committees at KMC from October 4, 2001 to the present, their roles on each such committee,
and the dates of their membership:
a) Medical Executive Committee;
b) Joint Conference Committee
c) Quality Management Committee
d) Cancer Committee
e) Second Level Peer Review Committee
f) Transfusion Committee
g) Executive Staff Meetings
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11
a) Medical Executive Committee:
October 2001 – June 2002
Jose A. Perez, Jr., MD President
Navin Amin, MD President-Elect, Chair, Department of Family Practice
Royce Johnson, MD Past President, Chair, Department of Medicine
James Sproul, MD Member At Large
Augustine Munoz, MD Member At Large
Soheil Etesham, MD Chair, Department of Anesthesiology
Eugene Kercher, MD Chair, Department of Emergency Medicine
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 25 of 130
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 42/146
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES
7
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Parameswaran Aiylam, MD Division Chief, Pediatrics
Leonard Perez, MD Chair, Department of OB/GYN
David Jadwin, DO Chair, Department of Pathology
Tai Yoo, MD Chair, Department of PsychiatryJavad Naderi, MD Chair, Department of Radiology
Jack Bloch, MD Chair, Department of Surgery
NON-VOTING MEMBERS
Peter Bryan Chief Executive Officer
Marvin Kolb, MD Chief Medical Officer
Toni Smith, RN Nursing Administrator
Holly Gallagher County Counsel
Vipul Dev, MD President, Resident Staff
A. Scott Ragland, DO Chair, Quality Management Committee
July 2002 – June 2003
Navin Amin, MD President, Chair, Department of Family Practice
Jennifer Abraham, MD President-Elect
Jose A. Perez, Jr., MD Past President
William Meyer, MD Member At Large
Augustine Munoz, MD Member At Large
Royce Johnson, MD Chair, Department of Medicine
Soheil Etesham, MD Chair, Department of Anesthesiology
Eugene Kercher, MD Chair, Department of Emergency Medicine
Parameswaran Aiylam, MD Division Chief, Pediatrics
Leonard Perez, MD Chair, Department of OB/GYN
David Jadwin, DO Chair, Department of Pathology
Tai Yoo, MD Chair, Department of Psychiatry
Javad Naderi, MD Chair, Department of Radiology
Maureen Martin, MD Chair, Department of Surgery
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 26 of 130
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 43/146
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 44/146
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES
9
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
John Ngoi Associate Director, Medical Education
Brian Penton, MD President, Resident Staff
A. Scott Ragland, DO Chair, Quality Management Committee
July 2004 – June 2006Eugene Kercher, MD President, Chair, Deparmtent of Emergency Medicine
A. Scott Ragland, DO President-Elect
Jennifer Abraham, MD Past President
Navin Amin, MD Chair, Department of Family Practice
David Moore, MD Member At Large
James Sverchek, MD Member At Large
Royce Johnson, MD Chair, Department of Medicine
Soheil Etesham, MD Chair, Department of Anesthesiology
Parameswaran Aiylam, MD Division Chief, Pediatrics
Leonard Perez, MD Chair, Department of OB/GYN
David Jadwin, DO Chair, Department of Pathology
Tai Yoo, MD Chair, Department of Psychiatry
Javad Naderi, MD Chair, Department of Radiology
Maureen Martin, MD Chair, Department of Surgery
NON-VOTING MEMBERS
Peter Bryan Chief Executive Officer
Marvin Kolb, MD Chief Medical Officer (until 9/2004)
Irwin Harris, MD Chief Medical Officer (As of 7/2005)
Toni Smith, RN Nursing Administrator
David Hill Director of Ambulatory Care (As of 9/2004)
Karen Barnes County Counsel
Jose A. Perez, Jr., MD Director, Medical Education
John Ngoi Associate Director, Medical Education
Murali Naidu, MD President, Resident Staff
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 28 of 130
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 45/146
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES
10
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A. Scott Ragland, DO Chair, Quality Management Committee
July 2006 – December 2007
A. Scott Ragland, DO President
Eugene Kercher, MD Past President, Chair, Deparmtent of Emergency MedicineJose A. Perez, Jr., MD President-Elect (until 6/2007)
Jennifer Abraham, MD President-Elect (As of 8/2007)
Navin Amin, MD Chair, Department of Family Practice
Vasanthi Srinivas, MD Member At Large
E. William Taylor, MD Member At Large
Royce Johnson, MD Chair, Department of Medicine
Soheil Etesham, MD Chair, Department of Anesthesiology (until 6/2007)
Thomas Schares, MD Chair, Department of Anesthesiology (until 7/2007)
Parameswaran Aiylam, MD Division Chief, Pediatrics
Leonard Perez, MD Chair, Department of OB/GYN (until 8/2007)
Robert Wallace, MD Chair, Department of OB/GYN (As of 8/2007)
Philip Dutt, MD Chair, Department of Pathology (As of 8/2006)
Tai Yoo, MD Chair, Department of Psychiatry
Javad Naderi, MD Chair, Department of Radiology
Maureen Martin, MD Chair, Department of Surgery
NON-VOTING MEMBERS
Peter Bryan Chief Executive Officer (until 9/2006)
David Culberson Interim, Chief Executive Officer (9/2006-5/2007)
Paul Hensler Chief Executive Officer (As of 5/2007)
Irwin Harris, MD Chief Medical Officer (7/2005-9/2007)
Toni Smith, RN Nursing Administrator
David Hill Director of Ambulatory Care (9/2004-12/2006)
Karen Barnes County Counsel
John Ngoi Associate Director, Medical Education
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 29 of 130
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 46/146
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES
11
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Tony Hoang, MD Co-President, Resident Staff
Anthony Maldonado, MD Co-President, Resident Staff
A. Scott Ragland, DO Chair, Quality Management Committee
b)
Joint Conference Committee:October 2001-November 2007
Supervisor Barbara Patrick
Supervisor Ken Peterson
Peter Bryan, CEO
Marvin Kolb, MD, CMO
Toni Smith, RN
Jose A. Perez, Jr., MD
Navin Amin, MD
Royce Johnson, MD
Scotte E. Jones, CAO
Alberto Diaz, CFO
January 2002-October 2002
Supervisor Steve Perez
Supervisor Barbara Patrick
Peter Bryan, CEO
Marvin Kolb, MD, CMO
Toni Smith, RN
Jose A. Perez, Jr., MD
Navin Amin, MD
Jennifer Abraham, MD
Scott E. Jones, CAO
Alberto Diaz, CFO
January 2003-December 2003
Supervisor Pete Para
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 30 of 130
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 47/146
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES
12
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Supervisor Barbara Patrick
Peter Bryan, CEO
Marvin Kolb, MD, CMO
Toni Smith, RNJennifer Abraham, MD
Navin Amin, MD
Eugene Kercher, MD
Scott E. Jones, CAO
Albert Diaz, CFO
Michael Ewald, Dir. HR
January 2004-December 2004
Supervisor Jon McQuiston
Supervisor Ray Watson
Peter Bryan, CEO
Marvin Kolb, MD, CMO
Toni Smith, RN
Jennifer Abraham, MD
Navin Amin, MD
Eugene Kercher, MD
A. Scott Ragland, DO
Scott E. Jones, CAO
Alberto Diaz, CFO
Michael Ewald, Dir. Of HR
David Hill, Dir. Of Ambulatory Care
January 2005-December 2005
Supervisor Jon McQuiston
Supervisor Ray Watson
Peter Bryan, CEO
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 31 of 130
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 48/146
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES
13
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
Toni Smith, RN
Jennifer Abraham, MD
Eugene Kercher, MDA. Scott Ragland, DO
Ron Errea, CAO
Tom Willman, CFO
Sandi Chester, Dir. Of HR
David Hill, Dir. Of Ambulatory Care
January 2006-December 2006
Supervisor Barbara Patrick
Supervisor Ray Watson
David Culberson, Internim CEO
Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
Toni Smith, RN
Jose A. Perez, Jr., MD
Eugene Kercher, MD
A. Scott Ragland, DO
Ron Errea, CAO
Kent Johnson, CFO
David Hill, Dir. Of Ambulatory Care
January 2007-December 2007
Supervisor Don Maben
Supervisor Ray Watson
Paul Hensler CEO
Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
Toni Smith, RN
Jose A. Perez, Jr., MD
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 32 of 130
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 49/146
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES
14
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Eugene Kercher, MD
A. Scott Ragland, DO
Ron Errea, CAO
Fred Plane, CFOc) Quality Management Committee:
October 2001-November 2001
A. Scott Ragland, DO Chair, Medicine
Antonio Garcia, MD OB/GYN
David Jadwin, DO Pathology
Charles Brown, MD Surgery
Chester Lau, MD Radiology
Dianne McConnehey, RN Quality Management
Elaine Castroverde, MD Pediatrics
Marvin Kolb, MD Chief Medical Officer
J. Paul Miller, MD Family Practice
Sarojini Rajguru, MD Psychiatry
Thomas Purcell, MD Emergency Medicine
Toni Smith, RN Nursing Admintration
Ted Uchio, MD Anesthesiology
January 2002-November 2002
A. Scott Ragland, DO Chair, Medicine
Vasanthi Ramaswami, MD OB/GYN
David Jadwin, DO Pathology
Jack Bloch, MD Surgery
Charles Brown, MD Surgery
Chester Lau, MD Radiology
Dianne McConnehey, RN Quality Management
Elaine Castroverde, MD Pediatrics
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 33 of 130
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 50/146
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES
15
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Marvin Kolb, MD Chief Medical Officer
J. Paul Miller, MD Family Practice
Stephen Williams, MD Psychiatry
Thomas Purcell, MD Emergency MedicineToni Smith, RN Nursing Admintration
Ted Uchio, MD Anesthesiology
Richard Busch, MD Surgery
January 2003-November 2003
A. Scott Ragland, DO Chair, Medicine
Vasanthi Ramaswami, MD OB/GYN
David Jadwin, DO Pathology
Jack Bloch, MD Surgery
Chester Lau, MD Radiology
Dianne McConnehey, RN Quality Management
Elaine Castroverde, MD Pediatrics
Marvin Kolb, MD Chief Medical Officer
J. Paul Miller, MD Family Practice
David Lai, MD Psychiatry
Thomas Purcell, MD Emergency Medicine
Toni Smith, RN Nursing Admintration
Ted Uchio, MD Anesthesiology
January 2004-November 2004
A. Scott Ragland, DO Chair, Medicine
Vasanthi Srinivas (Ramaswami, MD)OB/GYN
David Jadwin, DO Pathology
Jack Bloch, MD Surgery
Chester Lau, MD Radiology
Dianne McConnehey, RN Quality Management
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 34 of 130
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 51/146
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES
16
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Elaine Castroverde, MD Pediatrics
Marvin Kolb, MD Chief Medical Officer
J. Paul Miller, MD Family Practice
David Lai, MD PsychiatryThomas Purcell, MD Emergency Medicine
Toni Smith, RN Nursing Admintration
Ted Uchio, MD Anesthesiology
January 2005-November 2005
J. Paul Miller, MD Chair, Family Practice
A. Scott Ragland, DO Medicine
Vasanthi Srinivas, MD OB/GYN
David Jadwin, DO Pathology
Jack Bloch, MD Surgery
Chester Lau, MD Radiology
Irwin Harris, MD Chief Medical Officer
Dianne McConnehey, RN Quality Management
Elaine Castroverde, MD Pediatrics
Marvin Kolb, MD Chief Medical Officer
David Lai, MD Psychiatry
Thomas Purcell, MD Emergency Medicine
Toni Smith, RN Nursing Admintration
Ted Uchio, MD Anesthesiology
January 2006-November 2006
J. Paul Miller, MD Chair, Family Practice
A. Scott Ragland, DO Medicine
Vasanthi Srinivas, MD OB/GYN
Philip Dutt, MD Pathology
Jack Bloch, MD Surgery
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 35 of 130
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 52/146
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES
17
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Bahram Raofi, MD Radiology
Irwin Harris, MD Chief Medical Officer
Dianne McConnehey, RN Quality Management
Elaine Castroverde, MD PediatricsMarvin Kolb, MD Chief Medical Officer
David Lai, MD Psychiatry
Thomas Purcell, MD Emergency Medicine
Toni Smith, RN Nursing Admintration
Ted Uchio, MD Anesthesiology
David Culberson Chief Executive Officer
David Hill Director, Ambulatory Care
Evelyn Elliott, Director, Pharmacy
Shirley Strickler, RN Manager, Med Surg/Telemetry
January 2007-November 2007
J. Paul Miller, MD Chair, Family Practice
A. Scott Ragland, DO Medicine
Vasanthi Srinivas, MD OB/GYN
Philip Dutt, MD Pathology
Jack Bloch, MD Surgery
Bahram Raofi, MD Radiology
Irwin Harris, MD Chief Medical Officer
Dianne McConnehey, RN Quality Management
Elaine Castroverde, MD Pediatrics
Marvin Kolb, MD Chief Medical Officer
David Lai, MD Psychiatry
Thomas Purcell, MD Emergency Medicine
Toni Smith, RN Nursing Admintration
Ted Uchio, MD Anesthesiology
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 36 of 130
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 53/146
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES
18
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Paul Hensler Chief Executive Officer
Evelyn Elliott, Director, Pharmacy
Shirley Strickler, RN Manager, Med Surg/Telemetry
d)
Cancer Committee:October 2001-December 2001
Ravi Patel, MD Chair, Oncology
David Kanamori, MD Co-Chair, Oncology
Ali Bazmi Oncology Pharmacy
Peter Bryan Chief Executive Officer
John Byfield, MD Radiation Oncology
Laura Heredia Cancer Registry
Annie Hollingsead, RN Quality Management
David Jadwin, DO Pathology
Bonnie Klein, MFCC Department of Medicine
Marvin Kolb, MD Chief Medical Director
Chester Lau, MD Radiology
Joseph Mansour, MD OB/GYN
Linda Marham, MSW Social Services
Albert McBride, MD Physician Liason/Surgery
Dianne McConnehey, RN Quality Management
Linda McMillan Medical Records
Ray Purcell, NP Medicine
Sergio Perticucci, MD Gynecology Oncology
Bonnie Quinonez, CTR Cancer Registrar
Angelina Reyes Medical Records
Toni Smith, RN Nursing Adminstration
Michael Wells, DO Radiology
March 2002-November 2002
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 37 of 130
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 54/146
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES
19
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Ravi Patel, MD Chair, Oncology
David Kanamori, MD Co-Chair, Oncology
Ali Bazmi Oncology Pharmacy
Peter Bryan Chief Executive OfficerJohn Byfield, MD Radiation Oncology
Laura Heredia Cancer Registry
David Jadwin, DO Pathology
Marvin Kolb, MD Chief Medical Director
Chester Lau, MD Radiology
Linda Marham, MSW Social Services
Albert McBride, MD Physician Liason/Surgery
Hope Donovan, RN Quality Management
Ray Purcell, NP Medicine
Sergio Perticucci, MD Gynecology Oncology
Bonnie Quinonez, CTR Cancer Registrar
Angelina Reyes Medical Records
Toni Smith, RN Nursing Adminstration
February 2003-December 2003
Ravi Patel, MD Chair, Oncology
David Kanamori, MD Co-Chair, Oncology
Shawn Abrishamy, MD Family Practice
Ali Bazmi Oncology Pharmacy
John Byfield, MD Radiation Oncology
Laura Heredia Cancer Registry
David Jadwin, DO Pathology
Marvin Kolb, MD Chief Medical Director
Chester Lau, MD Radiology
Linda Marham, MSW Social Services
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 38 of 130
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 55/146
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES
20
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Albert McBride, MD Physician Liason/Surgery
Maureen Martin, MD Surgery
Hope Donovan, RN Quality Management
Ray Purcell, NP MedicineSergio Perticucci, MD Gynecology Oncology
Bonnie Quinonez, CTR Cancer Registrar
Angelina Reyes Medical Records
Toni Smith, RN Nursing Adminstration
Abu Taher, MD Pediatric Oncology
Micheal Wells, MD Radiology
Kathryn VanMeter, NP Medicine
January 2004-November 2004
Ravi Patel, MD Chair, Oncology
David Kanamori, MD Co-Chair, Oncology
Ali Bazmi Oncology Pharmacy
John Byfield, MD Radiation Oncology
Chris Gambrioloi, MD Family Practice
Sandra Gordon, MD Medicine/Palliative Care
Mary Guerrero, RN Chemo/Oncology
Laura Heredia Cancer Registry
David Jadwin, DO Pathology
Marvin Kolb, MD Chief Medical Director
Chester Lau, MD Radiology
Linda Marham, MSW Social Services
Albert McBride, MD Physician Liason/Surgery
Maureen Martin, MD Surgery
Hope Donovan, RN Quality Management
Ray Purcell, NP Medicine
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 39 of 130
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 56/146
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES
21
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Sergio Perticucci, MD Gynecology Oncology
Bonnie Quinonez, CTR Cancer Registrar
Angelina Reyes Medical Records
Toni Smith, RN Nursing AdminstrationAbu Taher, MD Pediatric Oncology
Kara Shaw, RN Chemo Nurse
Kathryn VanMeter, NP Medicine
January 2005-December 2005
Ravi Patel, MD Chair, Oncology
Ali Bazmi Oncology Pharmacy
Philip Dutt, MD Pathology
Chris Gambrioloi, MD Family Practice
Mary Guerrero, RN Chemo/Oncology
Laura Heredia Cancer Registry
David Jadwin, DO Pathology
Irwin Harris, MD Chief Medical Director
Chester Lau, MD Radiology
Linda Marham, MSW Social Services
Albert McBride, MD Physician Liason/Surgery
Maureen Martin, MD Surgery
Hope Donovan, RN Quality Management
Ray Purcell, NP Medicine
Sergio Perticucci, MD Gynecology Oncology
Bonnie Quinonez, CTR Cancer Registrar
Angelina Reyes Medical Records
Bahram Raofi, MD Radiology
William Roy, MD Gynecology/Oncology
Toni Smith, RN Nursing Adminstration
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 40 of 130
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 57/146
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES
22
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Abu Taher, MD Pediatric Oncology
Kevin Taubman, MD Surgery
Kathryn VanMeter, NP Medicine
January 2006-December 2006Ravi Patel, MD Chair, Oncology
Ali Bazmi Oncology Pharmacy
Patsy Bradshaw, CTR Cancer Registrar
David Culberson Chief Executive Officer
Ajay Desai, MD Radiation Oncology
Hope Donovan, RN Quality Management
Philip Dutt, MD Pathology
Irwin Harris, MD Chief Medical Officer
Royce Johnson, MD Medicine
Linda Markham, MSW Social Services
Maureen Martin, MD Surgery
Albert McBride, MD Physician Liason/Surgery
Javad Naderi, MD Radiology
Jemi Olak, MD Surgery
Laura Quinonez, CTR Cancer Registrar
William Roy, MD Gynecology/Oncology
Toni Smith, RN Nursing Adminstration
Abu Taher, MD Pediatric Oncology
Kathryn VanMeter, RN Medicine
January 2007-November 2007
Ravi Patel, MD Chair, Oncology
Ali Bazmi Oncology Pharmacy
Patsy Bradshaw, CTR Cancer Registrar
Socorro Carrillo ACS Program Coordinator
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 41 of 130
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 58/146
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES
23
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Paul Hensler Chief Executive Officer
Ajay Desai, MD Radiation Oncology
Michelle Langston, RN Quality Management
Philip Dutt, MD PathologyIrwin Harris, MD Chief Medical Officer
Royce Johnson, MD Medicine
Linda Markham, MSW Social Services
Maureen Martin, MD Surgery
Albert McBride, MD Physician Liason/Surgery
Javad Naderi, MD Radiology
Jemi Olak, MD Surgery
Laura Quinonez, CTR Cancer Registrar
William Roy, MD Gynecology/Oncology
Kara Shaw, RN Chemo/Onc
Toni Smith, RN Nursing Adminstration
Abu Taher, MD Pediatric Oncology
Kathryn VanMeter, RN Medicine
e) Second Level Peer Review Committee:
October 2001 – Present
Thomas Purcell, MD, Chair
Navin Amin, MD
Jack Bloch, MD
Dianne McConnehey, RN, Manager, Quality Management
Marvin Kolb, MD (Until 9/2004)
Irwin Harris, MD (7/2005-9/2007)
f) Transfusion Committee:
October 2001
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 42 of 130
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 59/146
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES
24
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Adam Lang, MD Chair, Pathology
David Jadwin, DO Pathology
Gilbert Martinez Lab Designee
Michelle Burris Lab Manager/Blood Bank AD-HOC COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Rick McPheeters, DO Emergency Medicine
Charles Brown, MD Surgery
Vasanthi Ramaswami, MD OB/GYN
David Kanamori, MD Medicine
Marvin Kolb, MD CMO
Steve Watson Respiratory Therapy Manager
Lon Lancaster Respiratory Therapy
January 2002-August 2002
Adam Lang, MD Chair, Pathology
David Jadwin, DO Pathology
Gilbert Martinez Lab Designee
Michelle Burris Lab Manager/Blood Bank
Alice Hevle Quality Management
Dianne McConnehey Manager, Quality Management
Steve Watson Respiratory Therapy Manager
February 2003-December 2003
February 21, 2003
Dr. Jadwin, Chair
Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor
March 19, 2003
Dr. Jadwin, Chair
Dr. Lang, Pathologist
Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 43 of 130
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 60/146
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES
25
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager
April 23, 2003
Dr. Lang, Pathologist
Michele Burris, Blood Bank SupervisorGilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager.
Don Bull, Pulmonary Services (provides cell saver data)
Dr. Jadwin, Chair (absent)
May 29, 2003
Dr. Jadwin, Chair
Dr. Lang, Pathologist
Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager
Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor
Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC
June 17, 2003
Dr. Jadwin, Chair
Dr. Lang, Pathologist
Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager
Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor
Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC
Lonnie Lancaster, Pulmonary Services (provides cell saver data)
October 21, 2003
Dr. Jadwin, Chair
Dr. Lang, Pathologist
Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor
Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager
Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC
Toni Smith, RN
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 44 of 130
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 61/146
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES
26
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
December 16, 2003
Dr. Jadwin, Chair
Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor
Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory ManagerAlice Hevle, Analyst, QRC
February 2003-December 2003
February 21, 2003
Dr. Jadwin, Chair
Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor
March 19, 2003
Dr. Jadwin, Chair
Dr. Lang, Pathologist
Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor
Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager
April 23, 2003
Dr. Lang, Pathologist
Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor
Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager.
Don Bull, Pulmonary Services (provides cell saver data)
Dr. Jadwin, Chair (absent)
May 29, 2003
Dr. Jadwin, Chair
Dr. Lang, Pathologist
Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager
Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor
Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC
June 17, 2003
Dr. Jadwin, Chair
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 45 of 130
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 62/146
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES
27
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Dr. Lang, Pathologist
Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager
Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor
Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRCLonnie Lancaster, Pulmonary Services (provides cell saver data)
October 21, 2003
Dr. Jadwin, Chair
Dr. Lang, Pathologist
Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor
Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager
Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC
Toni Smith, RN
December 16, 2003
Dr. Jadwin, Chair
Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor
Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager
Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC
January 2006-December 2006
January 31, 2006
Dr. Dutt, Pathologist
Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor
Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager
February 21, 2006
Dr. Jadwin, Chair
Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor
Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager
March 28, 2006
Dr. Dutt, Pathologist
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 46 of 130
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 63/146
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES
28
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor
Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC
April 18, 2006
Dr. Dutt, PathologistMichele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor
Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC
May 9, 2006
Dr. Dutt, Pathologist
Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor
Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager
Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC
June 20, 2006
Dr. Dutt, Pathologist
Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor
Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager
Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC
September 13, 2006
Dr. Dutt, Chair
Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor
Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager
September 27, 2006
Dr. Dutt, Chair
Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor
Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC
October 18, 2006
Dr. Dutt, Chair
Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor
Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 47 of 130
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 64/146
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES
29
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
November 1, 2006
Dr. Dutt, Chair
Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor
Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory ManagerAlice Hevle, Analyst, QRC
December 12, 2006
Dr. Dutt, Chair
Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor
Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC
Diane McConnehey, QRC
January 2007-April 2007
February 2, 2007
Dr. Ragland, Chair (absent)
Dr. Dutt, Pathology
Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor
Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC (absent)
Diane McConnehey, QRC (absent)
Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager (absent)
March 15, 2007
Dr. Ragland, Chair (absent)
Dr. Dutt, Pathology
Dr. Sorensen, Surgery
Dr. Dong, Emergency Medicine
Diane McConnehey, QRC
Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager
Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor
Dr. Taher, Pediatrics (absent)
Dr. Lascano, OB-GYN (absent)
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 48 of 130
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 65/146
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES
30
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC (absent)
g) Executive Staff Meetings:
February 9, 2005
Peter Bryan, CEOToni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
Tom Willman, Special Projects Manager
Michael Ewald, Dir., HR
March 2, 2005
Peter Bryan, CEO
Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
Tom Willman, Special Projects Manager
Michael Ewald, Dir., HR
March 9, 2005
Peter Bryan, CEO
Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
Tom Willman, Special Projects Manager
Michael Ewald, Dir., HR
March 30, 2005
Peter Bryan, CEO
Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
Tom Willman, Special Projects Manager
Michael Ewald, Dir., HR
April 6, 2005
Peter Bryan, CEO
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 49 of 130
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 66/146
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES
31
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
Tom Willman, Special Projects Manager
Michael Ewald, Dir., HRApril 13, 2005
Peter Bryan, CEO
Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
Tom Willman, Special Projects Manager
Michael Ewald, Dir., HR
April 20, 2005
Peter Bryan, CEO
Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
Tom Willman, Special Projects Manager
Michael Ewald, Dir., HR
April 27, 2005
Peter Bryan, CEO
Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
Tom Willman, Special Projects Manager
Michael Ewald, Dir., HR
May 4, 2005
Peter Bryan, CEO
David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
Tom Willman, CFO
Michael Ewald, Dir., HR
May 11, 2005
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 50 of 130
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 67/146
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 68/146
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES
33
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
Tom Willman, CFO
Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR July 25, 2005
Peter Bryan, CEO
Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
Tom Willman, CFO
Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR
August 3, 2005
Peter Bryan, CEO
Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
Tom Willman, CFO
Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR
August 10, 2005
Peter Bryan, CEO
Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
Tom Willman, CFO
Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR
August 17, 2005
Peter Bryan, CEO
Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 52 of 130
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 69/146
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES
34
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
Tom Willman, CFO
Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HRAugust 24, 2005
Peter Bryan, CEO
Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
Tom Willman, CFO
Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR
September 7, 2005
Peter Bryan, CEO
Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
Tom Willman, CFO
Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR
September 14, 2005
Peter Bryan, CEO
Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
Tom Willman, CFO
Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR
September 21, 2005
Peter Bryan, CEO
Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 53 of 130
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 70/146
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES
35
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
Tom Willman, CFO
Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HRSeptember 28, 2005
Peter Bryan, CEO
Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
Tom Willman, CFO
Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR
October 5, 2005
Peter Bryan, CEO
Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
Tom Willman, CFO
Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR
October 19, 2005
Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
Tom Willman, CFO
Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR
October 26, 2005
Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
Tom Willman, CFO
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 54 of 130
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 71/146
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES
36
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR
November 2, 2005
Peter Bryan, CEO
Irwin Harris, MD, CMOToni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
Tom Willman, CFO
Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR
November 9, 2005
Peter Bryan, CEO
Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
Tom Willman, CFO
Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR
November 16, 2005
Peter Bryan, CEO
Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
Tom Willman, CFO
Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR
November 23, 2005
Peter Bryan, CEO
Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
Tom Willman, CFO
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 55 of 130
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 72/146
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES
37
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR
November 30, 2005
Peter Bryan, CEO
Irwin Harris, MD, CMOToni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
Tom Willman, CFO
Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR
December 14, 2005
Peter Bryan, CEO
Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
Tom Willman, CFO
Sandra Chester, Dir., HR
December 21, 2005
Peter Bryan, CEO
Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
Tom Willman, CFO
December 29, 2005
Peter Bryan, CEO
Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
January 4, 2006
Peter Bryan, CEO
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 56 of 130
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 73/146
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES
38
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
Tom Willman, CFOSandra Chester, Dir. HR
January 11, 2006
Peter Bryan, CEO
Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
Tom Willman, CFO
February 1, 2006
Peter Bryan, CEO
Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
Tom Willman, CFO
Sandra Chester, Dir., HR
February 8, 2006
Peter Bryan, CEO
Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
Tom Willman, CFO
Sandra Chester, Dir., HR
February 15, 2006
Peter Bryan, CEO
Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 57 of 130
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 74/146
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES
39
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
Tom Willman, CFO
Sandra Chester, Dir., HR
February 22, 2006Peter Bryan, CEO
Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
Tom Willman, CFO
Sandra Chester, Dir,. HR
March 1, 2006
Peter Bryan, CEO
Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
Tom Willman, CFO
Sandra Chester, Dir., HR
March 8, 2006
Peter Bryan, CEO
Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
Tom Willman, CFO
Sandra Chester, Dir., HR
March 15, 2006
Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
Tom Willman, CFO
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 58 of 130
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 75/146
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES
40
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Sandra Chester, Dir., HR
March 22, 2006
Peter Bryan, CEO
Irwin Harris, MD, CMOToni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
Sandra Chester, Dir., HR
April 5, 2006
Peter Bryan, CEO
Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
Sandra Chester, Dir., HR
April 6, 2006
Peter Bryan, CEO
Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
Sandra Chester, Dir., HR
April 12, 2006
Peter Bryan, CEO
Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
Sandra Chester, Dir., HR
April 19, 2006
Peter Bryan, CEO
Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 59 of 130
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 76/146
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES
41
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
Sandra Chester, Dir., HR
April 26, 2006Peter Bryan, CEO
Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
Sandra Chester, Dir., HR
May 3, 2006
Peter Bryan, CEO
Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
Sandra Chester, Dir., HR
August 9, 2006
Peter Bryan, CEO
Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
Kent Johnson, CFO
Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
Sandra Chester, Dir., HR
INTERROGATORY NO. 12
State the dates, times and locations of each meeting held by the following committees
from October 4, 2001 to the present:
a) Medical Executive Committee
b) Joint Conference Committee
c) Quality Management Committee
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 60 of 130
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 77/146
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES
42
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
d) Cancer Committee
e) Second Level Peer Review Committee
f) Transfusion Committee
g)
Executive Staff MeetingsRESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12
MEDICAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
1ST
Tuesday, monthly at 7:30 a.m. in room 3321
SECOND LEVEL PEER REVIEW
2ND Friday, monthly at 11:30 a.m. in the administrative conference room
CANCER COMMITTEE
1st Wednesday, quarterly at 7:30 a.m. in room 1437
QUALITY MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
4th
Wednesday, monthly at 7:30 a.m. in room 1437
JOINT CONFERENCE COMMITTEE
2nd Monday, monthly at 10:00 a.m. in the administrative conference room
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF MEETINGS
Every Wednesday at 9:00 a.m. in the administrative conference room
TRANSFUSION COMMITTEE
Meet monthly, different days. In 2003 met at 11:00 a.m. in room 1437
In 2004, met at 10:00 a.m or 11:00 a.m. in room 1437
In 2005, no record of any meetings
In 2006, met at 2:00 p.m. , once at 3:00 p.m. and once at 12:00 p.m. in room 1437
In 2007, met at 12:00 p.m. and 12:30 p.m. in room 1437
INTERROGATORY NO. 13
IDENTIFY all PERSONS to whom the Cancer Committee at KMC sent a DOCUMENT
requesting such PERSONS refrain from exceeding presentation time limits at the “ONCOLOGY
CONFERENCE” (as that term is used in the memo from Dr. Albert McBride to Dr. David
Jadwin, dated May 9, 2005 [DFJ381]) from October 4, 2001 to the present.
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 61 of 130
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 78/146
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES
43
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13
We do not know the answer to this Interrogatory. The only such documents we know of
were sent to Plaintiff. There may be others but we have not found any.
INTERROGATORY NO. 14IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who conducted any investigations for or on YOUR
behalf into any aspect of PLAINTIFF’s claims against YOU that are alleged in the Second
Supplemental Complaint; state the claims that each such PERSON investigated; and IDENTIFY
any written reports RELATING TO said investigations that each such PERSON produced,
authored or otherwise contributed to.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14
None.
INTERROGATORY NO. 15
IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS whom YOU contend participated in any “PEER
REVIEW” (as that term is defined in the KMC Bylaws) of PLAINTIFF’s work from April 15,
2005 to the present, describe each such PERSON’s role in the PEER REVIEW, and IDENTIFY
the work and/or PATHOLOGY REPORTS each such PERSON peer reviewed.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15
PEER REVIEW
Masukh Ghadiya, MD
MR#1152531 (S06-4619)
Mohammed Molla, MD
MR #266068 (S06-4131 and S06-5229)
Mia Lagunda, MD
MR #1029588 (S06-5394)
William J. Colburn, MD
PATHOLOGY SLIDES/REPORT
Quality Assessment Review by William J. Colburn, MD
Kern Medical Center
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 62 of 130
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 79/146
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES
44
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case # MR # Name # of Slides
S05-2186 1145729 WHEAT 63
S05-3265 679293 BURTON 93
S05-2176 1146515 MATHIS 73
S05-1066
S05-1680
1029137 THOMPSON 2
14
S05-7551 1146283 VOSS 32
S05381 1138812 UNRICH 6
S06-91 1100262 VILLAREAL 4
S05-812 1142312 KAUR, S. 4
S04-7471 1138692 MASSONI 2
S05-3286
S05-2811
S05-1514
870589 DAWSON 16
12
5
S06-728 800794 PERALES 32
S05-2246 1146465 MARTINEZ 36
S05-923 1128182 RODRIQUEZ 59
S05-592 1141122 KAUR, N. 35
S04-6857 633431 SPILLERS 37
S04-4674
N04-222
1000548 KIRSCH 12
3
S05-7114 1142693 CISNEROS 22
S05-1347 1135192 HOLSCHER 2
S06-981
N06-51
S06-757
1155514 SANCHEZ 38
1
1
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 63 of 130
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 80/146
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES
45
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
S06-541 0871307 BORQUEZ 38
C04-28 1097368 CARPIO 0 Consult only,
slides sent back
(9)
Jonathan I. Epstein, MD
S06-4131
Parakrama T. Chandrasoma, MD
S06-3933
S05-123
S02-4614
INTERROGATORY NO. 16
IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC other
than Plaintiff whom YOU removed or suspended from the position of Chair of a Department at
KMC since October 4, 1996; state the date and any and all reasons for each and every such
removal or suspension; and describe the opportunities provided to such former or current
employees to defend themselves, present evidence and/or cross-examine witnesses RELATING
TO their removal or suspension.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 16
None.
INTERROGATORY NO. 17
IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who held the position of Acting Chair of a
Department at KMC since October 24, 1995; state the dates of their tenure in said position; and
state any all reasons for the end of their tenure in said position.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 17
Royce Johnson, Dept of Medicine, December 8, 1998 to Present; Leonard Perez, Dept of
OB/Gyn, August 31, 1996 to June 11, 2007, voluntary resignation; Robert Wallace, Dept of
OB/GYN, June 12, 2007 – Present; Phillip Dutt, Dept of Pathology, August 2006 – Present; Rick
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 64 of 130
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 81/146
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES
46
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
McPheeters, Dept of Emergency Medicine, December 12, 2007 – Present; Elsa Ang, replaced by
Plaintiff.
INTERROGATORY NO. 18
IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS other than PLAINTIFF who took or were placed on“PERSONAL NECESSITY LEAVE” (as that term is used in Rule 1202.20 of the Civil Service
Commission Rules for the County of Kern) in excess of one month while holding the position of
Chair of a Department at KMC since October 24, 1995, state any all reasons for each such period
of PERSONAL NECESSITY LEAVE; and state the dates of each and every such period of
PERSONAL NECESSITY LEAVE.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 18
None.
INTERROGATORY NO. 19
IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC other
than PLAINTIFF who were not reinstated to their same position following a period of
PERSONAL NECESSITY LEAVE taken since October 24, 1995; state any and all reasons for
each such non-reinstatement.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 19
None
INTERROGATORY NO. 20
IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC who
were demoted during the dependency of, or within one month after their return to work from, a
period of PERSONAL NECESSITY LEAVE taken since October 24, 2005.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 20
None
INTERROGATORY NO. 21
IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC other
than PLAINTIFF who took “SICK LEAVE” (as that term is used in the Civil Service
Commission Rules for the County of Kern) in excess of one month while holding the position of
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 65 of 130
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 82/146
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES
47
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Chair of a Department at KMC since October 24, 1995; and for each such PERSON state the
dates of each and every such period of SICK LEAVE.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 21
None.INTERROGATORY NO. 22
IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC other
than PLAINTIFF who were not reinstated to their same position following a period of SICK
LEAVE since October 24, 1995.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 22
None.
INTERROGATORY NO. 23
IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC who
were demoted during the pendency of, or within one month after their return to work from, a
period SICK LEAVE since October 24, 1995.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 23
Defendants object to this Interrogatory on the grounds it seeks confidential personnel and
personal medical information that is protected from disclosure by California Evidence Code
section 1040 and HIPAA.
INTERROGATORY NO. 24
IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC other
than PLAINTIFF who took leave pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act or California
Family Rights Act since October 24, 1995; and state the dates of each and every such period of
leave.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 24
Defendants object to this Interrogatory on the grounds it seeks confidential personnel and
personal medical information that is protected from disclosure by California Evidence Code
section 1040 and HIPAA.
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 66 of 130
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 83/146
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES
48
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
INTERROGATORY NO. 25
IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC other
than PLAINTIFF who were not reinstated to their same position following a period of leave
taken pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act or California Family Rights Act sinceOctober 24, 1995.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 25
To the extent this Interrogatory suggests or implies that Plaintiff was not reinstated to his
same position following a period of leave taken pursuant to the FMLA, Defendants object on the
grounds that the Interrogatory mistakes the evidence and is factually incorrect and misleading.
Defendants are, therefore, not able to respond further.
INTERROGATORY NO. 26
IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC who
were demoted during the pendency of or within one month after their return to work from a
period of leave taken pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act or California Family Rights
Act since October 24, 1995.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 26
None
INTERROGATORY NO. 27
IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC other
than PLAINTIFF who took or were placed on “ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE” (as that term is
used in David Culberson’s letter to PLAINTIFF, dated December 7, 2006 [DFJ01482]) in excess
of one month while holding the position of Chair of a Department at KMC since October 24,
1995; for each such PERSON state the dates of each and every such period of
ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE; state whether each such period of ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE
was paid or unpaid; and state any and all reasons for each such period of ADMINISTRATIVE
LEAVE.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 27
Sheldon Freedman, 2000. 217 hours, paid
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 67 of 130
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 84/146
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES
49
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
INTERROGATORY NO. 28
During the period from October 24, 2000 to the present, IDENTIFY any and all former
members of the “MEDICAL STAFF” at KMC (as the term is defined in the Bylaws of KMC)
other than PLAINTIFF who employment contract with YOU was not renewed or extended; statewhether the contract expired or was terminated; and state any and all reasons for non-renewal or
non-extension of each such contract.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 28
Defendants object to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is burdensome and
oppressive and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Defendants also object on the grounds it seeks confidential personnel and personal medical
information that is protected from disclosure by California Evidence Code section 1040 and
HIPAA. Without waiving these objections, Defendants state that members of the Medical Staff
have left KMC for almost every reason imaginable, including such reasons as moving to
Pakistan, lack of credentials, careers opportunities and undisclosed personal reasons. We do not
know the reasons in many, if not most cases.
INTERROGATORY NO. 29
IDENTIFY any and all of YOUR former or current members of the MEDICAL STAFF
other than PLAINTIFF whose employment contract was extended or renewed for a contract term
of less than five years during the period from October 24, 2000 to November 16, 2006.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 29
None.
INTERROGATORY NO. 30
IDENTIFY any and all of YOUR former or current members of the MEDICAL STAFF
other than PLAINTIFF whose employment contract was extended or renewed for a contract term
of five or more years during the period from October 24, 2000 to November 16, 2006.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 30
None.
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 68 of 130
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 85/146
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES
50
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
INTERROGATORY NO. 31
IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked as a staff
pathologist at KMC after October 24, 2000 other than PLAINTIFF whose job description or
employment contract contained a provision requiring him or her to be responsible for providingonsite shift coverage during specifically stated hours, unless otherwise assigned or excused by
the department chairman.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 31
Plaintiff issued rules for the Pathology Department that required this.
INTERROGATORY NO. 32
IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked as a staff
pathologist at KMC after October 24, 2000 other than PLAINTIFF whose job description or
employment contract contained a provision requiring him or her to carry a pager when on call
and respond to KMC within a specific number minutes of being called.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 32
Plaintiff issued rules for the Pathology Department that required this.
INTERROGATORY NO. 33
IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who worked as a staff pathologist at KMC after
October 24, 2000 other than PLAINTIFF whose job description or employment contract
contained a provision requiring him or her to perform according to productivity standards set by
the department chairman, but at no time read out and report less than an average of a specified
number cases per day, for “County Responsible” (which means medically indigent adults
pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 17000 et seq., and adult inmates and juvenile
detainees in custody in County-owned or operated facilities) under compensated and uninsured
patients.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 33
None.
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 69 of 130
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 86/146
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES
51
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
INTERROGATORY NO. 34
IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to solicit and/or
collect “LETTERS OF DISSATISFACTION” (as that term is used in the letter from Dr. Eugene
Kercher, Scott Ragland, Jennifer Abraham and Irwin Harris to PLAINTIFF, dated October 17,2005 [DFJ588]) in or about October 12, 2005; and state the date that such decision was made.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 34
None.
INTERROGATORY NO. 35
IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the initial decision to place
LETTERS OF DISSATISFACTION in PLAINTIFF’S PERSONNEL FILE on or about October
17, 2005; and state the date that decision was made.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 35
None.
INTERROGATORY NO. 36
IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to convert
PLAINTIFF’S reduced work schedule leave to full-time leave on or about April 28, 2006; and
state the date that decision was made.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 36
Peter Bryan and Plaintiff.
INTERROGATORY NO. 37
IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to recommend
removal of PLAINTIFF from his position as Chair of Pathology at KMC in 2006; and state the
date that decision was made.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 37
Peter Bryan.
INTERROGATORY NO. 38
IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decisions RELATING TO
each and every provision contained in the DOCUMENT entitled “Amendment No. 1 to
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 70 of 130
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 87/146
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES
52
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Agreement for Professional Services” [DFJ1416]; and state the date that each such decision was
made.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 38
Peter Bryan, David Culberson, Karen Barnes, Eugene Lee, Kern County Board of Supervisors. The decision was made on the date the amendment was approved by the Board of
Supervisors.
INTERROGATORY NO. 39
IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to recommend
reduction of PLAINTIFF’S base salary in 2006; and state the date that decision was made.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 39
Peter Bryan, David Culberson, Karen Barnes, Eugene Lee, Kern County Board of
Supervisors. The decision was made on the date the amendment was approved by the Board of
Supervisors.
INTERROGATORY NO. 40
IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in calculating the amount of the
reduction of PLAINTIFF’S base salary in 2006.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 40
David Culberson and Peter Bryan
INTERROGATORY NO. 41
State the manner in which YOU calculated the amount of the reduction of PLAINTIFF’S
base salary in 2006; and state all factual bases on which YOU relied in support thereof.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 41
The new salary was comparable to that of a core pathologist.
INTERROGATORY NO. 42
IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to place
PLAINTIFF on administrative leave with pay on or about December 7, 2006; and state the date
that decision was made.
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 71 of 130
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 88/146
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES
53
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 42
David Culberson, Irwin Harris, Phil Dutt and counsel.
INTERROGATORY NO. 43
IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to lift therestriction on PLAINTIFF’S administrative leave (as that term is used in the letter of April 30,
2007 from Mark Wasser, DEFENDANT’S counsel [DFJ7101]); and state the date that decision
was made.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 43
Mark Nations and Mark Wasser.
INTERROGATORY NO. 44
IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to propose to
PLAINTIFF a “BUYOUT” (as that term is used in the email of May 1, 2007 from Mark Wasser,
DEFENDANT’S counsel [DFJ01482]); and state the date that decision was made.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 44
It was a settlement offer communicated to Plaintiff’s counsel.
INTERROGATORY NO. 45
IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision not to renew
PLAINTIFF’S employment contract with YOU; and state the date that decision was made.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 45
None.
INTERROGATORY NO. 46
IDENTIFY each DOCUMENT or portion thereof contained in PLAINTIFF’S FRCP
Rule 26 Initial Disclosures that YOU contend is privileged; state the nature of each privilege
asserted; and state in detail the factual bases for each such asserted privilege.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 46
We do not understand this Interrogatory and are, consequently, unable to answer it. What
is privileged about the documents Plaintiff produced?
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 72 of 130
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 89/146
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES
54
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
INTERROGATORY NO. 47
IDENTIFY each DOCUMENT or portion thereof contained in YOUR FRCP Rule 26
Initial Disclosures that YOU contend is privileged; state the nature of each privilege asserted;
and state in detail the factual bases for each such asserted privilege.RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 47
We do not understand this Interrogatory and are, consequently, unable to answer it. Are
you inquiring about our privilege log?
INTERROGATORY NO. 48
State each and every job function which YOU contend were the essential functions of
PLAINTIFF’S position as Chair of Pathology at KMC.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 48
Medical Staff Bylaws and job description for the position.
Dated: February 1, 2008 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER
By: /s/ Mark A. Wasser
Mark A. Wasser
Attorney for Defendants, County of Kern, et al.
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 73 of 130
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 90/146
EXHIBITS TO JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENTre: INTERROGATORIES 3
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
EXHIBIT 3:
Defendant’s Supplemental Responses to Interrogatories – served 3/5/08
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 74 of 130
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 91/146
1 Mark A. Wasser CA SB #60160LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER
2 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100Sacramento, CA 95814
3 Phone: (916) 444-6400Fax: (916) 444-6405
4 E-mail: [email protected]
5 Bernard C. Barrnann, Sr.KERN COUNTY COUNSEL
6 Mark Nations, Chief Deputy1115 Truxtun Avenue, Fourth Floor
7 Bakersfield, CA 93301Phone: (661) 868-3800
8 Fax: (661) 868-3805E-mail: [email protected]
9
10 Attorneys for Defendants County ofKern,Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher,
11 Jennifer Abraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smithand William Roy
Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007Trial Date: August 26, 2008
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTALRESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S
INTEROGATORIES (SET ONE)
PlaintiffDAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., F.C.A.P.
Defendant COUNTY OF KERN
ONE (1) SUPPLEMENTAL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
j Case No.: 1:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG
jj)
j
)))
-------------)
12
13
14
15
16 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.
20 Defendants.
17 Plaintiff,
18 vs.
19 COUNTY OF KERN, et aI.,
21
22
23
24 PROPOUNDING PARTY:
25 RESPONDING PARTY:
26 SET NUMBER:
27
28
1
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSESTO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 75 of 130
1 Mark A. Wasser CA SB #60160LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER
2 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100Sacramento, CA 95814
3 Phone: (916) 444-6400Fax: (916) 444-6405
4 E-mail: [email protected] Bernard C. Barrnann, Sr.KERN COUNTY COUNSEL
6 Mark Nations, ChiefDeputy1115 Truxtun Avenue, Fourth Floor
7 Bakersfield, CA 93301Phone: (661) 868-3800
8 Fax: (661) 868-3805E-mail: [email protected]
9
10 Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern,Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher,
11 Jennifer Abraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smithand William Roy
Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007Trial Date: August 26, 2008
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTALRESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S
INTEROGATORIES (SET ONE)
Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., F.C.A.P.
Defendant COUNTY OF KERN
ONE (1) SUPPLEMENTAL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
j Case No.: 1:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG
jj)
j
)))
-------------)
12
13
14
15
16 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.
20 Defendants.
17 Plaintiff,
18 vs.
19 COUNTY OF KERN, et aI.,
21
22
23
24 PROPOUNDING PARTY:
25 RESPONDING PARTY:
26 SET NUMBER:
27
28
1
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSESTO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 92/146
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 supplemental responses to PlaintiffDavid F. Jadwin's
Interrogatories, Set One.
INTERROGATORY NO. 10
For each ofthe PERSONS YOU listed in the "WITNESSES" section (Section 1 and
Appendix 1) of YOUR FRCP Rule 26 "Supplement to Defendants' Rule 26(a)(l) Initial
Disclosures", dated September 13,2007, state the following:
a) Whether each PERSON is YOUR current employees or former employees, and if
so, their dates of employment and job titles;
b) For each PERSON who is YOUR former employees, the date and reason for their
separation from employment;
c) For each PERSON who is YOUR former employees, whether the employee
resigned, abandoned his job, was laid off, or was otherwise terminated.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10
NAME JOB TITLE EMPLOYMENT DATE DATE OF EXPLANATIONSTATUS OF HIRE SEPARATION
Leonard Chairman!O Former 8/11/90 1/17108 Terminated
Perez B-GYN
Adam Associatel Former 8129/85 11117/03 Personal
Lang Pathology
ElsaAng Associatel Former 712/79 5/11/02 RetiredPathology
Fangluo Associatel Former 73/95 5120102 No record
Liu Pathology
Ellen Independent Never
Bunyi- Contractor employed
Teopengc
0
Savita Associatel Current 10/5/04
Shertukde Pathology
Gilbert Manager, Current 1/5/81
Martinez Clinical LabServices
Royce Chairman! Current 7115/75
Johnson Medicine
Irwin Medical Former 5/16/05 8/31/07 Resigned
Harris Director
2
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSESTO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 76 of 130
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendants hereby submit these supplemental responses to PlaintiffDavid F. Jadwin's
Interrogatories, Set One.
INTERROGATORY NO. 10
For each ofthe PERSONS YOU listed in the "WITNESSES" section (Section 1 and
Appendix 1) of YOUR FRCP Rule 26 "Supplement to Defendants' Rule 26(a)(l) Initial
Disclosures", dated September 13,2007, state the following:
a) Whether each PERSON is YOUR current employees or former employees, and if
so, their dates of employment and job titles;
b) For each PERSON who is YOUR former employees, the date and reason for their
separation from employment;
c) For each PERSON who is YOUR former employees, whether the employee
resigned, abandoned his job, was laid off, or was otherwise terminated.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10
NAME JOB TITLE EMPLOYMENT DATE DATE OF EXPLANATIONSTATUS OF HIRE SEPARATION
Leonard Chairman!O Former 8/11/90 1/17108 Terminated
Perez B-GYN
Adam Associatel Former 8129/85 11117/03 Personal
Lang Pathology
ElsaAng Associatel Former 712/79 5/11/02 RetiredPathology
Fangluo Associatel Former 73/95 5120102 No record
Liu Pathology
Ellen Independent Never
Bunyi- Contractor employed
Teopengc
0
Savita Associatel Current 10/5/04
Shertukde Pathology
Gilbert Manager, Current 1/5/81
Martinez Clinical LabServices
Royce Chairman! Current 7115/75
Johnson Medicine
Irwin Medical Former 5/16/05 8/31/07 Resigned
Harris Director
2
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSESTO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 93/146
12
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
NAME JOB TITLE EMPLOYMENT DATE DATE OF EXPLANATIONSTATUS OF HIRE SEPARATION
Antionette Hospital Current 9/3/96
Smith Nurse
Executive
David Interim N ev er
Culberson Ch i ef employed
Executive
Officer
Jane Supervising Current 8/21195
Thornton Clinical Lab
Scientist
Kathy Supervisor, Current 5/22/79
Griffith Core
Lab/Client
Services
Juan Felix nl a Never
employed
Bernard County Current 112/75
Barmann Counsel
Nitin Associate/ Former 11112/01 9/30/03 Personal
Athavale Radiology
Jennifer Associate/ Current 6/23/87
Abraham Medicine
Eugene Ch i ef Current 12/1/87
Kercher Medical
Officer
Scott Associate/ Current 6/23/89Ragland Medicine
Peter Ch i ef Former 7/15/96 11110/06 Retired
Bryan Executive
Officer
Edward Associate/ Current 6/23/87
Taylor Surgery
Michele Supervising Current 3112/84
Burris Clinical Lab
Scientist
Javad Chairmanl Current 8/31/01
Naderi Radiology
Maureen Chairmanl Current 6/18/02
Martin Surgery
3
DEFENDANTS' SU PPL EM E N T AL RE SPO N SE S
T O PL A IN T IFF' S INTERROGATORIES
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 77 of 130
1
2
3
4
5
6
78
9
10
1112
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NAME JOB TITLE EMPLOYMENT DATE DATE OF EXPLANATIONSTATUS OF HIRE SEPARATION
Antionette Hospital Current 9/3/96
Smith Nurse
Executive
David Interim Never
Culberson Chief employed
Executive
Officer
Jane Supervising Current 8/21195
Thornton Clinical Lab
Scientist
Kathy Supervisor, Current 5/22/79
Griffith Core
Lab/Client
Services
Juan Felix nla Never
employed
Bernard County Current 112/75
Barmann Counsel
Nitin Associate/ Former 11112/01 9/30/03 Personal
Athavale Radiology
Jennifer Associate/ Current 6/23/87
Abraham Medicine
Eugene Chief Current 12/1/87
Kercher Medical
Officer
Scott Associate/ Current 6/23/89Ragland Medicine
Peter Chief Former 7/15/96 11110/06 Retired
Bryan Executive
Officer
Edward Associate/ Current 6/23/87
Taylor Surgery
Michele Supervising Current 3112/84
Burris Clinical Lab
Scientist
Javad Chairmanl Current 8/31/01
Naderi RadiologyMaureen Chairmanl Current 6/18/02
Martin Surgery
3
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES
TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 94/146
12
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
NAME JOB TlTLE EMPLOYMENT DATE DATE OF EXPLANATlON
STATUS OFHlRE SEPARATlON
Navin Chairman! Current 9/4/79
Amin Family
Practice
Chester Associatel Former 8/31101 9126106 OtherLau Radiology employment
Steve Human Current 7128180
O'Connor Resources
Director
Albert Associatel Current 10113/97
McBride Surgery
Alice Quality Current 4/15/91
Hevle Management
Analvst
Philip Associatel Current 6/25/05
Dutt PathologyKaren Chief Current 10/22/01
Barnes Deputy
County
Counsel
Ronald County Current 8/22/88
Errera Administrative
Officer
Cindy nla Never
Lighthill employed
Erin Resident Former No No record Completed
Baldwin record residency
training
Carol Office Current 1115/90
Gates Services
Specialist
Denise Office Current 11118/02
Long Services
Specialist
INTERROGATORYNO. 15
IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS whom YOU contend participated in any "PEER
REVIEW" (as that term is defined in the KMC Bylaws) of PLAINTIFF's work from April 15,
2005 to the present, describe each such PERSON's role in the PEER REVIEW, and IDENTIFY
the work and/or PATHOLOGY REPORTS each such PERSON peer reviewed.
4
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES
TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 78 of 130
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
1112
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NAME JOB TlTLE EMPLOYMENT DATE DATE OF EXPLANATlON
STATUS OFHlRE SEPARATlON
Navin Chairman! Current 9/4/79
Amin Family
Practice
Chester Associatel Former 8/31101 9126106 Other
Lau Radiology employment
Steve Human Current 7128180
O'Connor Resources
Director
Albert Associatel Current 10113/97
McBride Surgery
Alice Quality Current 4/15/91
Hevle Management
Analvst
Philip Associatel Current 6/25/05
Dutt PathologyKaren Chief Current 10/22/01
Barnes Deputy
County
Counsel
Ronald County Current 8/22/88
Errera Administrative
Officer
Cindy nla Never
Lighthill employed
Erin Resident Former No No record Completed
Baldwin record residency
training
Carol Office Current 1115/90
Gates Services
Specialist
Denise Office Current 11118/02
Long Services
Specialist
INTERROGATORY NO. 15
IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS whom YOU contend participated in any "PEER
REVIEW" (as that term is defined in the KMC Bylaws) of PLAINTIFF's work from April 15,
2005 to the present, describe each such PERSON's role in the PEER REVIEW, and IDENTIFY
the work and/or PATHOLOGY REPORTS each such PERSON peer reviewed.
4
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES
TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 95/146
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1112
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15
Masukh Ghadiya,MD
Kern Medical Center
Department of Family Practice
1830 Flower Street
Bakersfield, California 93305
MohammedMolla, MD
Kern Medical Center
Department ofPsychiatry
1830 Flower Street
Bakersfield, California 93305
Mia Lagunda, MD
Sagebrush Pediatric Care Center
1111 Columbus Street, Suite 1100
Bakersfield, California 93305
William 1. Colburn, MD
Tarzana Regional Medical Center
Department ofAnatomic Pathology
18321 Clark Street
Tarzana, California 91356
Jonathan 1. Epstein, MD
The Johns Hopkins Hospital
Department of Pathology
401 N Broadway
Weinberg Building,Rm2242Baltimore, Maryland 21231
Parakrama T. Chandrasoma,MD
GNH2900
1200 North State Street
Los Angeles, California 90033
INTERROGATORY NO. 23
IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC who
were demoted during the pendency of, or within one month after their return to work from, a
period SICK LEAVE since October 24, 1995.
SUUPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 23
Michael Ardis, Sara Diaz, Rosann Guadian, Linda Huggins and Rosanna Ruiz.
5
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES
TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 79 of 130
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15
Masukh Ghadiya, MD
Kern Medical Center
Department of Family Practice
1830 Flower Street
Bakersfield, California 93305
Mohammed Molla, MD
Kern Medical Center
Department of Psychiatry
1830 Flower Street
Bakersfield, California 93305
Mia Lagunda, MD
Sagebrush Pediatric Care Center
1111 Columbus Street, Suite 1100
Bakersfield, California93305
William 1. Colburn, MD
Tarzana Regional Medical Center
Department ofAnatomic Pathology
18321 Clark Street
Tarzana, California 91356
Jonathan 1. Epstein, MD
The Johns Hopkins Hospital
Department of Pathology
401 N Broadway
Weinberg Building, Rm 2242Baltimore, Maryland 21231
Parakrama T. Chandrasoma, MD
GNH2900
1200 North State Street
Los Angeles, California 90033
INTERROGATORYNO. 23
IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC who
were demoted during the pendency of, or within one month after their return to work from, a
period SICK LEAVE since October 24, 1995.
SUUPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 23
Michael Ardis, Sara Diaz, Rosann Guadian, Linda Huggins and Rosanna Ruiz.
5
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES
TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 96/146
1 INTERROGATORY NO. 24
2 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or fonnerly worked at KMC other
3 than PLAINTIFF who took leave pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act or California
4 Family Rights Act since October 24, 1995; and state the dates of each and every such period of
5 leave.
6 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 24
7 NAME BEGIN LEAVE END LEAVE
8 Acosta, Cynthia 03/23/98 06/14/98
9 Acosta, Cynthia 04/05/01 05/21101
10 Acosta, Cynthia 11104/03 01/02/04
11 Acosta, Manuel 01105198 01117/98
12 Acosta, Manuel 09/22/03 10116103
13 Aguilar, Cynthia 10/31105 11104/05
14 Aguilera, Elizabeth 03/25/03 04/24/03
15 Aguirre, Mary 03/15/00 05/01100
16 Aguirre, Mary 09/16103 12110/03
17 Alaniz, Felipa 03/08/05 03117105
18 Alaniz, Felipa 01122/07 01131107
19 Alcala, Phillis 01129/04 03/08/04
20 Alcala, Phillis 06/24/04 11108104
21 Alfaro, Beverly 09/17/06 10102/06
22 Alfaro, Beverly 01119107 01129/07
23 Alire, Rosalina 01126106 02/14/06
24 Alkhouri, George 01122/07 02/01107
25 Allen, Nonna 01118/07 02/16107
26 Allen, Tracy 08/06103 08121103
27 Allen, Tracy 08/30107 09/26107
28
6
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSESTO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 80 of 130
1 INTERROGATORY NO. 24
2 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or fonnerly worked at KMC other
3 than PLAINTIFF who took leave pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act or California
4 Family Rights Act since October 24, 1995; and state the dates of each and every such period of
5 leave.
6 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 24
7 NAME BEGIN LEAVE END LEAVE
8 Acosta, Cynthia 03/23/98 06/14/98
9 Acosta, Cynthia 04/05/01 05/21101
10 Acosta, Cynthia 11104/03 01/02/04
11 Acosta, Manuel 01105198 01117/98
12 Acosta, Manuel 09/22/03 10116103
13 Aguilar, Cynthia 10/31105 11104/05
14 Aguilera, Elizabeth 03/25/03 04/24/03
15 Aguirre, Mary 03/15/00 05/01100
16 Aguirre, Mary 09/16103 12110/03
17 Alaniz, Felipa 03/08/05 03117105
18 Alaniz, Felipa 01122/07 01131107
19 Alcala, Phillis 01129/04 03/08/04
20 Alcala, Phillis 06/24/04 11108104
21 Alfaro, Beverly 09/17/06 10102/06
22 Alfaro, Beverly 01119107 01129/07
23 Alire, Rosalina 01126106 02/14/06
24 Alkhouri, George 01122/07 02/01107
25 Allen, Nonna 01118/07 02/16107
26 Allen, Tracy 08/06103 08121103
27 Allen, Tracy 08/30107 09/26107
28
6
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSESTO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 97/146
1 Allen, Tracy 01/28/08
2 Amaya, Victoria 12/14/01 01/21/02
3 Amaya, Victoria 06/02/04 08/16/04
4 Amaya, Victoria 03/03/06 05/30/06
5 Ancheta, Kathleen 04/13/06 07/13/06
6 Araujo, Yolanda 01/13/04 01/24/04
7 Arguello-Rizo, Maria 12/23/97 02/03/98
8 Arguello-Rizo, Maria 09/13/03 11/18/03
9 Arguello-Rizo, Maria 06/12/06 09/06/06
10 AUclair, Barbara 10/02/03 12/26/03
11 Bakalar, Debra 03/13/07 03/24/07
12 Baldivia, Patricia 09/06/06 10/19/06
13 Baldivia, Patricia 12/16/06 12/31/06
14 Baldivia, Patricia 05/19/07 06/02/07
15 Baldivia, Patricia 06/28/07 07/12/07
16 Baldoz, Nancy 12/19/05 01/19/06
17 Baldoz, Vilma 06/18/00 07/05/00
18 Bareng, Mafe 01/08/07 02/02/07
19 Bazmi, Ali 03/19/06 03/27/06
20 Bazmi, Ali 04/10/06 04/17/06
21 Bernal, Angelica 02/27/07 04/28/07
22 Bernal, Angelica 01/09/08
23 Bickford, Lisa 10/08/06 01/02/07
24 Black, Shirley OS/25/05 11/11/05
25 Black, Shirley OS/26/06 OS/27/07
26 Blank, Rosearme 12/25/99 12/26/99
27 Blommers, Mercedes 11/03/00 11/25/00
28
7
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSESTO PLAlNTlFF'S lNTERROGATORIES
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 81 of 130
1 Allen, Tracy 01/28/08
2 Amaya, Victoria 12/14/01 01/21/02
3 Amaya, Victoria 06/02/04 08/16/04
4 Amaya, Victoria 03/03/06 05/30/06
5 Ancheta, Kathleen 04/13/06 07/13/06
6 Araujo, Yolanda 01/13/04 01/24/04
7 Arguello-Rizo, Maria 12/23/97 02/03/98
8 Arguello-Rizo, Maria 09/13/03 11/18/03
9 Arguello-Rizo, Maria 06/12/06 09/06/06
10 AUclair, Barbara 10/02/03 12/26/03
11 Bakalar, Debra 03/13/07 03/24/07
12 Baldivia, Patricia 09/06/06 10/19/06
13 Baldivia, Patricia 12/16/06 12/31/06
14 Baldivia, Patricia 05/19/07 06/02/07
15 Baldivia, Patricia 06/28/07 07/12/07
16 Baldoz, Nancy 12/19/05 01/19/06
17 Baldoz, Vilma 06/18/00 07/05/00
18 Bareng, Mafe 01/08/07 02/02/07
19 Bazmi, Ali 03/19/06 03/27/06
20 Bazmi, Ali 04/10/06 04/17/06
21 Bernal, Angelica 02/27/07 04/28/07
22 Bernal, Angelica 01/09/08
23 Bickford, Lisa 10/08/06 01/02/07
24 Black, Shirley OS/25/05 11/11/05
25 Black, Shirley OS/26/06 OS/27/07
26 Blank, Rosearme 12/25/99 12/26/99
27 Blommers, Mercedes 11/03/00 11/25/00
28
7
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSESTO PLAlNTlFF'S lNTERROGATORIES
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 98/146
1 Boschini, Deborah 08/14/04 10/15/04
2 Bouldokian, Anne 09/07/01 11/21/01
3 Boxley, Sandra 03/09/01 03/27/01
4 Boxley, Sandra 08/16/01 09/09/01
5 Boyd, Susan 11/29/97 12/21/97
6 Boyd, Susan 09/17/07 12/21/97
7 Braswell, Debra 02/17/06 04/01/06
8 Braswell, Debra OS/20/06 OS/28/06
9 Braswell, Debra 06/24/06 07/01/06
10 Braswell, Debra 08/04/06 08/11/06
11 Braswell, Debra 08/19/06 08/26/06
12 Braswell, Debra 09/28/06 10/16/06
13 Broom, Serena 07/25/05 09/01/05
14 Brown, Janice 07/16/07 07/28/07
15 Burger, David 04/16/07 06/11/07
16 Burrell, Kellie 05/12/06 06/24/06
17 Burrell, Kellie 04/24/07 07/16/07
18 Camarillo, Veronica 03/19/07 04/27/07
19 Cameron, Alice 12/05/04 01/07/05
20 Cameron, Jennifer 06/15/06 06/22/06
21 Campa, Andree 12/16/05 01/30/06
22 Carbaj aI, Delfina 01/26/06 02/06/06
23 Carey, Todd 01/05/08
24 Carrillo, Eduardo 02/16/05 03/10/05
25 Castro, Marisol 10/25/06 01/02/07
26 Celestino, Virginia 02/25/05 03/15/05
27 Cervantes, Mary 06/01/04 07/10/04
28
8
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSESTO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 82 of 130
1 Boschini, Deborah 08/14/04 10/15/04
2 Bouldokian, Anne 09/07/01 11/21/01
3 Boxley, Sandra 03/09/01 03/27/01
4 Boxley, Sandra 08/16/01 09/09/01
5 Boyd, Susan 11/29/97 12/21/97
6 Boyd, Susan 09/17/07 12/21/97
7 Braswell, Debra 02/17/06 04/01/06
8 Braswell, Debra OS/20/06 OS/28/06
9 Braswell, Debra 06/24/06 07/01/06
10 Braswell, Debra 08/04/06 08/11/06
11 Braswell, Debra 08/19/06 08/26/06
12 Braswell, Debra 09/28/06 10/16/06
13 Broom, Serena 07/25/05 09/01/05
14 Brown, Janice 07/16/07 07/28/07
15 Burger, David 04/16/07 06/11/07
16 Burrell, Kellie 05/12/06 06/24/06
17 Burrell, Kellie 04/24/07 07/16/07
18 Camarillo, Veronica 03/19/07 04/27/07
19 Cameron, Alice 12/05/04 01/07/05
20 Cameron, Jennifer 06/15/06 06/22/06
21 Campa, Andree 12/16/05 01/30/06
22 Carbaj aI, Delfina 01/26/06 02/06/06
23 Carey, Todd 01/05/08
24 Carrillo, Eduardo 02/16/05 03/10/05
25 Castro, Marisol 10/25/06 01/02/07
26 Celestino, Virginia 02/25/05 03/15/05
27 Cervantes, Mary 06/01/04 07/10/04
28
8
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSESTO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 99/146
1 Chacon Jr, Ezequiel 05/01105 05/16/05
2 Chahal, Manjinder 12/22/07
3 Colgan, Nieves 01120/07 03/03/07
4 Collett, Catherine 11/29/07 01107/08
5 Contancio, Teresa 02/11/99 04/13/99
6 Contreras-Hernandez, 07/21/04 09/13/04
Melissa7 Coodey, Monica 07/22/06 10/02/06
8 Coodey, Monica 12/19/06 01119/07
9 Cozby, Maria OS/23/06 06/23/06
10 Crow, James 07/23/07 08/14/07
I I Crow, James 09/06/07 09/28/07
12 Crow, Teresa 09/27/07 11/09/07
13 Cueto, Estella 02/23/04 03/01/04
14 Davin, Jennifer 05/13/06 06/25/06
15 Davin, Jennifer 10/23/06 10/29/06
16 Davis, Nancy 08/30/05 09/26/05
17 Decker, Rita 11/19/05 11/28/05
18 Dhaliwal, Paramjit 03/24/06 03/31106
19 Diaz, Alicia OS/21/07 06/02/07
20 Diaz, Alicia 06/18/07 07/04/07
21 Divinagracia, Mary OS/23/04 06/25/04
22 Dodson, Lorene 12/26/97 03/21/98
23 Domingo, Luz 09/11107 10/08/07
24 Dominguez, Eva-Marie 12/19/07 01/14/08
25 Doss, Justin 06/05/07 06/18/07
26 Doss, Justin 07/11107 07/24/07
27 Douglas, Shayla 10/26/04 10/26/05
28
9
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSESTO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 83 of 130
1 Chacon Jr, Ezequiel 05/01105 05/16/05
2 Chahal, Manjinder 12/22/07
3 Colgan, Nieves 01120/07 03/03/07
4 Collett, Catherine 11/29/07 01107/08
5 Contancio, Teresa 02/11/99 04/13/99
6 Contreras-Hernandez, 07/21/04 09/13/04
Melissa7 Coodey, Monica 07/22/06 10/02/06
8 Coodey, Monica 12/19/06 01119/07
9 Cozby, Maria OS/23/06 06/23/06
10 Crow, James 07/23/07 08/14/07
I I Crow, James 09/06/07 09/28/07
12 Crow, Teresa 09/27/07 11/09/07
13 Cueto, Estella 02/23/04 03/01/04
14 Davin, Jennifer 05/13/06 06/25/06
15 Davin, Jennifer 10/23/06 10/29/06
16 Davis, Nancy 08/30/05 09/26/05
17 Decker, Rita 11/19/05 11/28/05
18 Dhaliwal, Paramjit 03/24/06 03/31106
19 Diaz, Alicia OS/21/07 06/02/07
20 Diaz, Alicia 06/18/07 07/04/07
21 Divinagracia, Mary OS/23/04 06/25/04
22 Dodson, Lorene 12/26/97 03/21/98
23 Domingo, Luz 09/11107 10/08/07
24 Dominguez, Eva-Marie 12/19/07 01/14/08
25 Doss, Justin 06/05/07 06/18/07
26 Doss, Justin 07/11107 07/24/07
27 Douglas, Shayla 10/26/04 10/26/05
28
9
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSESTO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 100/146
1 Doyle, Darlene 05114/04 03/03/05
2 Duarte, Sofia 02128/02 03/04/02
3 Ducato, Diane 02/10/99 03/24/99
4 Dumlao, Shellby 01114/06 02122106
5 Dunn, Debbie 08/18/98 03/26/99
6 Elliott, Evelyn 09/25/06 10113/06
7 Espinoza, Patricia 03115/05 03/22105
8 Esposo, Rosalind 05/26105 06/16105
9 Esqueda, Christina 02115107 02124/07
10 Fadipe, Regina 12115/06 12125/06
11 Ferra, Nicole 07/22106 09/15/06
12 Fischer, Dawn 10104/06 11116106
13 Flaharty, Linda 03/31101 05/21101
14 Flanagan, Eva Marie 06124/06 06124/06
15 Flatt, Carolyn 02101199 02105/99
16 Fox, Pamela 08/08/06 08/11106
17 Fox, Pamela 02112107 03112107
18 Gaeta, Patricia 01114/08
19 Gallegos, Evangeline 06118/07 09111107
20 Gamez, Betty 09111107 10124/07
21 Garcia, Abigail 12127/06 03123107
22 Garcia, Caroline 02115/01 04/01101
23 Garcia, Cheryl 07/29/99 08/15/99
24 Garcia, Esmeralda 10/30107 11105/07
25 Gamette, Theodora 05/20/98 05129198
26 Garnette, Theodora 06/02/01 06/27/01
27 Gamette, Theodora 11117/03 12/18/03
28
10
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTALRESPONSESTO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 84 of 130
1 Doyle, Darlene 05114/04 03/03/05
2 Duarte, Sofia 02128/02 03/04/02
3 Ducato, Diane 02/10/99 03/24/99
4 Dumlao, Shellby 01114/06 02122106
5 Dunn, Debbie 08/18/98 03/26/99
6 Elliott, Evelyn 09/25/06 10113/06
7 Espinoza, Patricia 03115/05 03/22105
8 Esposo, Rosalind 05/26105 06/16105
9 Esqueda, Christina 02115107 02124/07
10 Fadipe, Regina 12115/06 12125/06
11 Ferra, Nicole 07/22106 09/15/06
12 Fischer, Dawn 10104/06 11116106
13 Flaharty, Linda 03/31101 05/21101
14 Flanagan, Eva Marie 06124/06 06124/06
15 Flatt, Carolyn 02101199 02105/99
16 Fox, Pamela 08/08/06 08/11106
17 Fox, Pamela 02112107 03112107
18 Gaeta, Patricia 01114/08
19 Gallegos, Evangeline 06118/07 09111107
20 Gamez, Betty 09111107 10124/07
21 Garcia, Abigail 12127/06 03123107
22 Garcia, Caroline 02115/01 04/01101
23 Garcia, Cheryl 07/29/99 08/15/99
24 Garcia, Esmeralda 10/30107 11105/07
25 Gamette, Theodora 05/20/98 05129198
26 Garnette, Theodora 06/02/01 06/27/01
27 Gamette, Theodora 11117/03 12/18/03
28
10
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTALRESPONSESTO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 101/146
1 Gates, Heather 09/21107 11102/07
2 Gelle, Triah 09/26/07 11120107
3 George, Donna 02/02/05 02119105
4 George, Gloria 05/06/05 05120105
5 Gervasi, Debbie 12120104 04/11/05
6 Gill, Prabhjot 01125/06 03/09/06
7 Gill, Prabhjot 04116/06 04/21106
8 Gimena, leana 03/04/05 03/23/05
9 Gomez, Enrique 03/09/06 03120106
10 Gonzalez, Anna 09/19/99 12/08/99
11 Gonzalez, Cynthia 04/30107 05/09/07
12 Goodwin, Barbara 10/26/04 05/26/06
13 Graham, Caryn 08/16/99 09116199
14 Gray, Suzann 06/05/07 06/21107
15 Green, Danielle 05/03/07 05114107
16 Green, Terri 09/05/00 09/11100
17 Greene, Amy 07/16/99 08/25/99
18 Greenfield, Traci 07113/00 08107/00
19 Grewal, Da1j i t 03/24/06 04/01106
20 Guajardo, Sandra 03/01100 04/03/00
21 Haile, Asghedet 07/04/06 09117106
22 Halko1a, Kurt 01113/05 02114/05
23 Ha1ko1a, Kurt 04/16/07 04/30107
24 Ha1ko1a, Kurt 05/05/07 05/27/07
25 Harder, Debra 03/30106 04/11106
26 Harris, Frances 03/21105 03/28/05
27 Hawkins, Karen 11126107 12/17/07
28
11
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES
TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 85 of 130
1 Gates, Heather 09/21107 11102/07
2 Gelle, Triah 09/26/07 11120107
3 George, Donna 02/02/05 02119105
4 George, Gloria05/06/05 05120105
5 Gervasi, Debbie 12120104 04/11/05
6 Gill, Prabhjot 01125/06 03/09/06
7 Gill, Prabhjot 04116/06 04/21106
8 Gimena, leana 03/04/05 03/23/05
9 Gomez, Enrique 03/09/06 03120106
10 Gonzalez, Anna 09/19/99 12/08/99
11 Gonzalez, Cynthia 04/30107 05/09/07
12 Goodwin, Barbara 10/26/04 05/26/06
13 Graham, Caryn 08/16/99 09116199
14 Gray, Suzann 06/05/07 06/21107
15 Green, Danielle 05/03/07 05114107
16 Green, Terri 09/05/00 09/11100
17 Greene, Amy 07/16/99 08/25/99
18 Greenfield, Traci 07113/00 08107/00
19 Grewal, Da1j i t 03/24/06 04/01106
20 Guajardo, Sandra 03/01100 04/03/00
21 Haile, Asghedet 07/04/06 09117106
22 Halko1a, Kurt 01113/05 02114/05
23 Ha1ko1a, Kurt 04/16/07 04/30107
24 Ha1ko1a, Kurt 05/05/07 05/27/07
25 Harder, Debra 03/30106 04/11106
26 Harris, Frances 03/21105 03/28/05
27 Hawkins, Karen 11126107 12/17/07
28
11
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSESTO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 102/146
I Heer, Jagdipak 02/14/01 03/14/01
2 Heer, Jagdipak 08/08/05 08/21105
3 Hernandez, Cecilia 09/12/03 10106103
4 Hernandez, Eva 09/29/07 11110107
5 Hernandez, Lorraine 09/28/05 10/10105
6 Herron, Wanda 09/10103 10/20103
7 Herron, Wanda 01105104 01110104
8 Hicks, Kimberly 05/20105 06104/05
9 Hodges, Chavon 06108/06 07/08/06
10 Hosseini, Gowhartaj 05/28/03 06/29/03
11 Idolyantes, Edna 03/16104 03/29/04
12 Irias, Cecilia 03/20100 04/24/00
13 Ivey, Sharon 03/09/99 03117199
14 Jimenez, Evangeline 06102/03 06112103
15 Jimenez, Pamela 11104/00 12/06100
16 Johnson, Kerrie 04/03/04 03/20104
17 Juarez, Grace 05/14/97 05/21/97
18 Juarez, Grace 02/19/99 02124199
19 Kalish, David 07/15/07 08/03/07
20 Karunakar, Arsr 06/25/07 07/10107
21 Kennison, Carolyn 09/25/07 01118108
22 Kent, April 08/23/04 08129104
23 Khan, Farah 03/12/07 04/19107
24 Khandaker, Nurun 08115/07 09/24/07
25 King, Carie 08/07/07 09117107
26 Kinsella, Robert 11110199 12101199
27 Larios, Guadalupe 09/05/05 10119105
28
12
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSESTO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 86 of 130
I Heer, Jagdipak 02/14/01 03/14/01
2 Heer, Jagdipak 08/08/05 08/21105
3 Hernandez, Cecilia 09/12/03 10106103
4 Hernandez, Eva 09/29/07 11110107
5 Hernandez, Lorraine 09/28/05 10/10105
6 Herron, Wanda 09/10103 10/20103
7 Herron, Wanda 01105104 01110104
8 Hicks, Kimberly 05/20105 06104/05
9 Hodges, Chavon 06108/06 07/08/06
10 Hosseini, Gowhartaj 05/28/03 06/29/03
11 Idolyantes, Edna 03/16104 03/29/04
12 Irias, Cecilia 03/20100 04/24/00
13 Ivey, Sharon 03/09/99 03117199
14 Jimenez, Evangeline 06102/03 06112103
15 Jimenez, Pamela 11104/00 12/06100
16 Johnson, Kerrie 04/03/04 03/20104
17 Juarez, Grace 05/14/97 05/21/97
18 Juarez, Grace 02/19/99 02124199
19 Kalish, David 07/15/07 08/03/07
20 Karunakar, Arsr 06/25/07 07/10107
21 Kennison, Carolyn 09/25/07 01118108
22 Kent, April 08/23/04 08129104
23 Khan, Farah 03/12/07 04/19107
24 Khandaker, Nurun 08115/07 09/24/07
25 King, Carie 08/07/07 09117107
26 Kinsella, Robert 11110199 12101199
27 Larios, Guadalupe 09/05/05 10119105
28
12
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSESTO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 103/146
1 Ledezma, Gladys 12118/07
2 Lee, Ruth 06/12/04 08/16/04
3 Liu, Hsin 09/08/05 12/01105
4 Lizalde, Kathleen02/25/05 03/21105
5 Lomely, Veronica 09/11107 11102/07
6 Lynch, Laura 10/30103 12/04/03
7 Lynch, Laura 05/23/02 06110102
8 Macias, Cruz 03112/07 04116/07
9 Macias, F 04/07/97 12/30/97
10 Magno, Maria 08110105 08/29/05
11 Malaque, Marygrace 01127/07 03/08/07
12 Marderosian, Susanne 05/24/03 08/24/03
13 Marichalar, Nereyda 06/30/97 07/12/97
14 Martinez, Laura 05/04/05 05111105
15 Martinez, Rosa 10102/06 10116106
16 Martinez, Susan 04117/04 04/20104
17 Mcaliste, Tracie 12/01/98 12116198
18 Mcconnehey, Diane 01124/05 02114/05
19 McNinch, Kathleen 03118/07 03/26/07
20 Medrano, Jdarius 05112107 05/27/07
21 Medrano, Jdarius 11123/07 12109/07
22 Menchaca, Vicki 12/24/06 01128107
23 Merabi, Shila 09/12/05 01106106
24 Miller, Lori 07/07/98 09/02/98
25 Montano, Rovelyn 01120107 01127/07
26 Montano, Rovelyn 02/24/07 03/03/07
27 Montano, Rovelyn 03/17/07 03124107
28
13
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSESTO PLAlNTIFF'S lNTERROGATORIES
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 87 of 130
1 Ledezma, Gladys 12118/07
2 Lee, Ruth 06/12/04 08/16/04
3 Liu, Hsin 09/08/05 12/01105
4Lizalde, Kathleen 02/25/05 03/21105
5 Lomely, Veronica 09/11107 11102/07
6 Lynch, Laura 10/30103 12/04/03
7 Lynch, Laura 05/23/02 06110102
8 Macias, Cruz 03112/07 04116/07
9 Macias, F 04/07/97 12/30/97
10 Magno, Maria 08110105 08/29/05
11 Malaque, Marygrace 01127/07 03/08/07
12 Marderosian, Susanne 05/24/03 08/24/03
13 Marichalar, Nereyda 06/30/97 07/12/97
14 Martinez, Laura 05/04/05 05111105
15 Martinez, Rosa 10102/06 10116106
16 Martinez, Susan 04117/04 04/20104
17 Mcaliste, Tracie 12/01/98 12116198
18 Mcconnehey, Diane 01124/05 02114/05
19 McNinch, Kathleen 03118/07 03/26/07
20 Medrano, Jdarius 05112107 05/27/07
21 Medrano, Jdarius 11123/07 12109/07
22 Menchaca, Vicki 12/24/06 01128107
23 Merabi, Shila 09/12/05 01106106
24 Miller, Lori 07/07/98 09/02/98
25 Montano, Rovelyn 01120107 01127/07
26 Montano, Rovelyn 02/24/07 03/03/07
27 Montano, Rovelyn 03/17/07 03124107
28
13
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSESTO PLAlNTIFF'S lNTERROGATORIES
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 104/146
1 Montano, Rove1yn 04114/07 04/21/07
2 Montano, Rove1yn OS/27/07 06/03/07
3 Montano, Rove1yn 06/23/07 06/30/07
4 Montemayor, Martha 10/28/01 01/19/02
5 Moon, Nicole 07110/03 09/08/03
6 Morales, Maria 12/04/07 01/14/08
7 Morris, Jeneal 11/19/03 12/09/03
8 Morrow, Antonieta 06118/07 09/30/07
9 Mudryk, Cheri 03/26/99 04/27/99
10 Mullen, Amanda 07/26/03 12/16/03
11 Murr, George 05/04/05 05116/05
12 Negranza, Melita 08111/99 09/03/99
13 Nitro, Gilbert 04/25/04 05/08/04
14 Nunez, Leticia 07/21/06 08/4/06
15 Nunez, Nicole 01/10/07 03/28/07
16 Nunez, Nicole 11/29/07
17 Nunn, Patsy 11115/06 11/30/06
18 Ochoa, Gary 01/09/05 02/21/05
19 Ornelas, Petra 10116/06 10/27/06
20 Ortiz, Mary 09/24/07 10/04/07
21 Ortiz, Rosario 06/19/01 06/25/01
22 Padgett, Shirley 09/14/98 10112/98
23 Patrick, Brian 07/21/06 09/29/06
24 Patterson, Shane 02/21/06 02/27/06
25 Peet, John 10/16/06 10/23/06
26 Pensinger, Stephanie 11120/05 01/03/06
27 Perez, Esperanza 02/14/07 02119/07
28
14
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSESTO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 88 of 130
1 Montano, Rove1yn 04114/07 04/21/07
2 Montano, Rove1yn OS/27/07 06/03/07
3 Montano, Rove1yn 06/23/07 06/30/07
4 Montemayor, Martha 10/28/01 01/19/02
5 Moon, Nicole 07110/03 09/08/03
6 Morales, Maria 12/04/07 01/14/08
7 Morris, Jeneal 11/19/03 12/09/03
8 Morrow, Antonieta 06118/07 09/30/07
9 Mudryk, Cheri 03/26/99 04/27/99
10 Mullen, Amanda 07/26/03 12/16/03
11 Murr, George 05/04/05 05116/05
12 Negranza, Melita 08111/99 09/03/99
13 Nitro, Gilbert 04/25/04 05/08/04
14 Nunez, Leticia 07/21/06 08/4/06
15 Nunez, Nicole 01/10/07 03/28/07
16 Nunez, Nicole 11/29/07
17 Nunn, Patsy 11115/06 11/30/06
18 Ochoa, Gary 01/09/05 02/21/05
19 Ornelas, Petra 10116/06 10/27/06
20 Ortiz, Mary 09/24/07 10/04/07
21 Ortiz, Rosario 06/19/01 06/25/01
22 Padgett, Shirley 09/14/98 10112/98
23 Patrick, Brian 07/21/06 09/29/06
24 Patterson, Shane 02/21/06 02/27/06
25 Peet, John 10/16/06 10/23/06
26 Pensinger, Stephanie 11120/05 01/03/06
27 Perez, Esperanza 02/14/07 02119/07
28
14
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSESTO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 105/146
1 Perez, Jeanette 11103/03 ll/17/03
2 Perez, Maria 02/23/05 04/14/05
3 Perkins, Lois 01108/07 01117/07
4 Peterson, Michelle 09/25/07 11/08/07
5 Peterson, Sandra 03/19/02 03/26/02
6 Pob1ete, Ma OS/22/03 06/13/03
7 Poindexter, Lisa 06/01198 01102/99
8 Powers, Alexandra 11120/07
9 Prince, Lynn 12111106 01115/07
10 Probert-Thomas, G 09/14/99 12115/99
11 Prows, Jodi 06/03/02 06/17/02
12 Quintero, Gloria 11/06/05 ll/09/05
13 Rabe, Thomas 06/01100 08/12/00
14 Radica, Rebecca 02117/99 05/18/99
15 Radica, Rebecca 09/08/00 12/04/00
16 Ramirez, Jesus 07/07/07 08/03/07
17 Ramirez, Jose 03/17/05 03/22/05
18 Ramirez-Padua, Lizie1 OS/29/06 07/12/06
19 Ramos, Esperanza 02/13/01 02118/01
20 Recio, Allison 08/11107 09/25/07
21 Reneau, Olga 11111/98 02/16/99
22 Reyes, Joslyn 07119/02 07/22/02
23 Reyes, Joslyn 03/07/05 05/02/05
24 Reyes, Ruth 04/21103 05/03/03
25 Richardson, Genetra 10/18/99 01120/00
26 Rippy, Anna 10/25/04 11105/04
27 Rivera, Redempta 02/23/05 03/03/05
28
15
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSESTO PLAlNTIFF'S lNTERROGATORlES
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 89 of 130
1 Perez, Jeanette 11103/03 ll/17/03
2 Perez, Maria 02/23/05 04/14/05
3 Perkins, Lois 01108/07 01117/07
4 Peterson, Michelle 09/25/07 11/08/07
5 Peterson, Sandra 03/19/02 03/26/02
6 Pob1ete, Ma OS/22/03 06/13/03
7 Poindexter, Lisa 06/01198 01102/99
8 Powers, Alexandra 11120/07
9 Prince, Lynn 12111106 01115/07
10 Probert-Thomas, G 09/14/99 12115/99
11 Prows, Jodi 06/03/02 06/17/02
12 Quintero, Gloria 11/06/05 ll/09/05
13 Rabe, Thomas 06/01100 08/12/00
14 Radica, Rebecca 02117/99 05/18/99
15 Radica, Rebecca 09/08/00 12/04/00
16 Ramirez, Jesus 07/07/07 08/03/07
17 Ramirez, Jose 03/17/05 03/22/05
18 Ramirez-Padua, Lizie1 OS/29/06 07/12/06
19 Ramos, Esperanza 02/13/01 02118/01
20 Recio, Allison 08/11107 09/25/07
21 Reneau, Olga 11111/98 02/16/99
22 Reyes, Joslyn 07119/02 07/22/02
23 Reyes, Joslyn 03/07/05 05/02/05
24 Reyes, Ruth 04/21103 05/03/03
25 Richardson, Genetra 10/18/99 01120/00
26 Rippy, Anna 10/25/04 11105/04
27 Rivera, Redempta 02/23/05 03/03/05
28
15
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSESTO PLAlNTIFF'S lNTERROGATORlES
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 106/146
1 Robles-Gonzalez, D 09/29/05 10/05/05
2 Rogers, Nicole 12126/06 12/20/07
3 Roldan, Mario 11101105 10/31106
4 Rubio, Marcella 06/22/07 08/04/07
5 Ruiz, Rosanna 05/11105 OS/25/05
6 Ruiz, Rosanna 06/06/05 06/21105
7 Ruiz, Rosanna 08/17/05 06/21105
8 Ruiz, Rosanna OS/28/06 07/23/06
9 Ruiz, Rosanna 07/24/06 08/02/06
10 Sabo, Krita 09/10/05 10/20/05
11 Sagun, Jocelyn 10/08/05 12/08/05
12 Sagun, Jocelyn 09/20/07 11101107
13 Sagun, Rbodora 02/28/06 04/11106
14 Salazar, Renato 07/18/97 10/18/97
15 Sa1eewong, Pat 03/07/05 04/18/05
16 Sa1eewong, Pat 06/25/07 07/02/07
17 Salinas, Natalia 01117/06 02121106
18 Salinas, Natalia 01119/07 06/08/07
19 Salinas, Nora 05/08/06 09/25/06
20 Salzman, Anne 08/15/98 09/25/98
21 Sanchez, Nancy OS/24/06 09/04/06
22 Sanchez, Nancy 10131106 01113/07
23 Sanchez, Rosanna 06/18/07 07/09/07
24 Sanchotena, Mary 03/15/00 05/01100
25 Sandoval, Nora 08/21104 11114/04
26 Sandoval, Norma 05/04/04 06/01104
27 Santerre, Eric 02/16/99 02/24/99
28
16
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSESTO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 90 of 130
1 Robles-Gonzalez, D 09/29/05 10/05/05
2 Rogers, Nicole 12126/06 12/20/07
3 Roldan, Mario 11101105 10/31106
4 Rubio, Marcella 06/22/07 08/04/07
5 Ruiz, Rosanna 05/11105 OS/25/05
6 Ruiz, Rosanna 06/06/05 06/21105
7 Ruiz, Rosanna 08/17/05 06/21105
8 Ruiz, Rosanna OS/28/06 07/23/06
9 Ruiz, Rosanna 07/24/06 08/02/06
10 Sabo, Krita 09/10/05 10/20/05
11 Sagun, Jocelyn 10/08/05 12/08/05
12 Sagun, Jocelyn 09/20/07 11101107
13 Sagun, Rbodora 02/28/06 04/11106
14 Salazar, Renato 07/18/97 10/18/97
15 Sa1eewong, Pat 03/07/05 04/18/05
16 Sa1eewong, Pat 06/25/07 07/02/07
17 Salinas, Natalia 01117/06 02121106
18 Salinas, Natalia 01119/07 06/08/07
19 Salinas, Nora 05/08/06 09/25/06
20 Salzman, Anne 08/15/98 09/25/98
21 Sanchez, Nancy OS/24/06 09/04/06
22 Sanchez, Nancy 10131106 01113/07
23 Sanchez, Rosanna 06/18/07 07/09/07
24 Sanchotena, Mary 03/15/00 05/01100
25 Sandoval, Nora 08/21104 11114/04
26 Sandoval, Norma 05/04/04 06/01104
27 Santerre, Eric 02/16/99 02/24/99
28
16
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSESTO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 107/146
I Sceales, Patricia 11101106 01125/07
2 Serrano, Lydia 02/10101 04116101
3 Sevillano, Maritza 09114/03 09/29103
4 Shafa, Haleh08/03/99 08/22/99
5 Sharma, Ira 10/23/07 10/31107
6 Shaw, Judith 08111101 08118/01
7 Shaw, Judith 06108/04 06/24/04
8 Shaw, Judith 05117106 10102/06
9 Shergill, Ramanjit 07/13/06 09101106
10 Shiao, Tu 04/11198 05/28/98
11 Singh, Manjit 10/30104 12/20104
12 Singh, Manjit 01109108
13 Siritaratiwat, Pat 06116103 06/27/03
14 Smith, April 10117106 11117/06
15 Smith, Daian 05/24/04 10/21104
16 Smith, Sara 03/31/07 04/21107
17 Smith, Sara 06/23/07 07114107
18 Smith-White, Regina 04/05/00 04/26100
19 Snook, Karan 08/04/04 08/30104
20 Solanki, Sangita 06105/04 07/20104
21 Solorio, Irene 02/28/06 05/24/06
22 Soto, Mary 02114105 02/23/05
23 Standlee, Angela 09113104 11118/04
24 Standridge, Donna 06120102 07/25/02
25 Steward, Kathy 03/20100 03/27/00
26 Struzyna, Karen 11127/99 01103/00
27 Tabano, Gil 05128/07 06107/07
28
17
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSESTO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 91 of 130
I Sceales, Patricia 11101106 01125/07
2 Serrano, Lydia 02/10101 04116101
3 Sevillano, Maritza 09114/03 09/29103
4 Shafa, Haleh08/03/99 08/22/99
5 Sharma, Ira 10/23/07 10/31107
6 Shaw, Judith 08111101 08118/01
7 Shaw, Judith 06108/04 06/24/04
8 Shaw, Judith 05117106 10102/06
9 Shergill, Ramanjit 07/13/06 09101106
10 Shiao, Tu 04/11198 05/28/98
11 Singh, Manjit 10/30104 12/20104
12 Singh, Manjit 01109108
13 Siritaratiwat, Pat 06116103 06/27/03
14 Smith, April 10117106 11117/06
15 Smith, Daian 05/24/04 10/21104
16 Smith, Sara 03/31/07 04/21107
17 Smith, Sara 06/23/07 07114107
18 Smith-White, Regina 04/05/00 04/26100
19 Snook, Karan 08/04/04 08/30104
20 Solanki, Sangita 06105/04 07/20104
21 Solorio, Irene 02/28/06 05/24/06
22 Soto, Mary 02114105 02/23/05
23 Standlee, Angela 09113104 11118/04
24 Standridge, Donna 06120102 07/25/02
25 Steward, Kathy 03/20100 03/27/00
26 Struzyna, Karen 11127/99 01103/00
27 Tabano, Gil 05128/07 06107/07
28
17
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSESTO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 108/146
I Tagumpay, Shiela 12/14/06 01/24/07
2 Tagumpay, Shiela 08/04/07 08/18/07
3 Tagumpay, Shiela 09/26/07 10118/07
4 Tajran, Deena 10101/97 11117/97
5 Tak, Vandana 07/24/01 09/01/01
6 Tak, Vandana 11116/03 12112/03
7 Thiara, Kiranbir 02/07/07 03/14/07
8 Thomas, Julie 08117105 09112/05
9 Thomas, Julie 08/09/07 09/20107
10 Torres, Ramon 04113106 01118/07
11 Valadez, Angelina 07/16/97 09/22/97
12 Valencia, Luz 09/23/00 10/16/00
13 Vazquez, Lorraine 02113105 03128/05
14 Vela, Isabel 01106107 03/30107
15 Vela, Isabel 04/19/07 06/03/07
16 Velasquez, Vincent 04113103 05101103
17 Velasquez, Vincent 09/16/05 10/11105
18 Vickery, Laura 05/18/97 06/09/97
19 Villarreal, Nicole 01127198 02/22/98
20 Villarreal, Nicole 10123199 01114/00
21 Villarreal, Nicole 11122/05 02/14/06
22 Walker, Dawnelle 03112/07 03126/07
23 Walker, Misty 09/15/05 10/27/05
24 Weese, Charlene 06/12/98 06113199
25 Weese, Charlene 06121101 07/02/01
26 Wells, Deborah 08110106 09/28/06
27 Wenceslao, Norma 10109/06 11110106
28
18
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES
TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 92 of 130
I Tagumpay, Shiela 12/14/06 01/24/07
2 Tagumpay, Shiela 08/04/07 08/18/07
3 Tagumpay, Shiela 09/26/07 10118/07
4 Tajran, Deena10101/97 11117/97
5 Tak, Vandana 07/24/01 09/01/01
6 Tak, Vandana 11116/03 12112/03
7 Thiara, Kiranbir 02/07/07 03/14/07
8 Thomas, Julie 08117105 09112/05
9 Thomas, Julie 08/09/07 09/20107
10 Torres, Ramon 04113106 01118/07
11 Valadez, Angelina 07/16/97 09/22/97
12 Valencia, Luz 09/23/00 10/16/00
13 Vazquez, Lorraine 02113105 03128/05
14 Vela, Isabel 01106107 03/30107
15 Vela, Isabel 04/19/07 06/03/07
16 Velasquez, Vincent 04113103 05101103
17 Velasquez, Vincent 09/16/05 10/11105
18 Vickery, Laura 05/18/97 06/09/97
19 Villarreal, Nicole 01127198 02/22/98
20 Villarreal, Nicole 10123199 01114/00
21 Villarreal, Nicole 11122/05 02/14/06
22 Walker, Dawnelle 03112/07 03126/07
23 Walker, Misty 09/15/05 10/27/05
24 Weese, Charlene 06/12/98 06113199
25 Weese, Charlene 06121101 07/02/01
26 Wells, Deborah 08110106 09/28/06
27 Wenceslao, Norma 10109/06 11110106
28
18
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSESTO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 109/146
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Wesson, Earnest 10108/05 11110105
Wetlesen, Dorothy 09113/97 09128/97
White, Caitlyn 10103/05 11112105
Whittier, Nancy 11101106 10101107
Williams, Herman 03/08/07 03/19/07
Wilson, Brenda 08112103 02/28/04
Wilson, Brenda 03/01/04 02/28/05
Wilson, Brenda 03/01105 02/28/06
Wilson, Frances 08127107 09/22/07
Wood, Deborah 06/20/98 8114/958
Yee, Angelina 10131/05 01/24/06
Young, Ma Rhodora 04110107 05/30107
Yzaguirre, S 10/28/99 11109109
Zarate, Lucila 12/29/01 01103102
Zuniga, Maricela 11117/07 02/08/08
INTERROGATORY NO. 25
17 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked atKMC other
18 than PLAINTIFF who were not reinstated to their same position following a period of leave
19 taken pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act or California Family Rights Act since
20 October 24,1995.
21 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 25
22 None.
23 INTERROGATORYNO. 27
24 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC other
25 than PLAINTIFF who took or were placed on "ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE" (as that term is
26 used in David Culberson's letter to PLAINTIFF, dated December 7, 2006 [DFJ01482]) in excess
27 of one month while holding the position of Chair of a Department at KMC since October 24,
28 1995; for each such PERSON state the dates of each and every such period of
19
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES
TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 93 of 130
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Wesson, Earnest 10108/05 11110105
Wetlesen, Dorothy 09113/97 09128/97
White, Caitlyn 10103/05 11112105
Whittier, Nancy 11101106 10101107
Williams, Herman 03/08/07 03/19/07
Wilson, Brenda 08112103 02/28/04
Wilson, Brenda 03/01/04 02/28/05
Wilson, Brenda 03/01105 02/28/06
Wilson, Frances 08127107 09/22/07
Wood, Deborah 06/20/98 8114/958
Yee, Angelina 10131/05 01/24/06
Young, Ma Rhodora 04110107 05/30107
Yzaguirre, S 10/28/99 11109109
Zarate, Lucila 12/29/01 01103102
Zuniga, Maricela 11117/07 02/08/08
INTERROGATORY NO. 25
17 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked atKMC other
18 than PLAINTIFF who were not reinstated to their same position following a period of leave
19 taken pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act or California Family Rights Act since
20 October 24,1995.
21 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 25
22 None.
23 INTERROGATORYNO. 27
24 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC other
25 than PLAINTIFF who took or were placed on "ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE" (as that term is
26 used in David Culberson's letter to PLAINTIFF, dated December 7, 2006 [DFJ01482]) in excess
27 of one month while holding the position of Chair of a Department at KMC since October 24,
28 1995; for each such PERSON state the dates of each and every such period of
19
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES
TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 110/146
I ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE; state whether each such period ofADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE
2 was paid or unpaid; and state any and all reasons for each such period ofADMINISTRATIVE
3 LEAVE.
4SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 27
5 Dr. Sheldon Freedman was on paid administrative leave from April 13, 2000 to June 30,
6 2000. His persounel file was discarded in 2003 pursuant to the County's records retention policy
7 and we have no record of the reason for his leave of absence.
8 INTERROGATORYNO. 28
9 During the period from October 24, 2000 to the present, IDENTIFY any and all former
10 members of the "MEDICAL STAFF" at KMC (as the term is defined in the Bylaws ofKMC)
II other than PLAINTIFF who employment contract with YOU was not renewed or extended; state
12 whether the contract expired or was terminated; and state any and all reasons for non-renewal or
13 non-extension of each such contract.
14 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 28
15 Leonard Perez - involuntary termination
16 Cary Freeman - involuntary termination
17 Irwin Harris - resigned
18 Mark Root - resigned
19 Miguel Lascano - resigned
20 Deng Fong - resigned
21 John Digges - contract not renewed
22 Peter Meade - resigned
23 Jose Perez - resigned
24 Albert Ma - resigned
25 Jaafar Zada - resigned
26 HA Pershadsingh - retired
27 Lisa Burgess - resigned
28 Richard Prather - resigned
20
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSESTO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 94 of 130
I ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE; state whether each such period ofADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE
2 was paid or unpaid; and state any and all reasons for each such period of ADMINISTRATIVE
3 LEAVE.
4SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 27
5 Dr. Sheldon Freedman was on paid administrative leave from April 13, 2000 to June 30,
6 2000. His persounel file was discarded in 2003 pursuant to the County's records retention policy
7 and we have no record of the reason for his leave of absence.
8 INTERROGATORY NO. 28
9 During the period from October 24, 2000 to the present, IDENTIFY any and all former
10 members of the "MEDICAL STAFF" at KMC (as the term is defined in the Bylaws ofKMC)
II other than PLAINTIFF who employment contract with YOU was not renewed or extended; state
12 whether the contract expired or was terminated; and state any and all reasons for non-renewal or
13 non-extension of each such contract.
14 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORYNO. 28
15 Leonard Perez - involuntary termination
16 Cary Freeman - involuntary termination
17 Irwin Harris - resigned
18 MarkRoot - resigned
19 Miguel Lascano - resigned
20 Deng Fong - resigned
21 John Digges - contract not renewed
22 Peter Meade - resigned
23 Jose Perez - resigned
24 Albert Ma - resigned
25 Jaafar Zada - resigned
26 HA Pershadsingh - retired
27 Lisa Burgess - resigned
28 Richard Prather - resigned
20
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTALRESPONSESTO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 111/146
1 Arash Heideri - resigned then returned and is currently employed
2 Tha Cha - resigned
3 Shehla Baqi - resigned
4 Chester Lau - resigned
5 Nitin Athavale - resigned
6 Daniel D'Amico - retired
7 Stephen Docherty - resigned
8 Stephen Williams - resigned
9 Victor Ettinger - resigned
10 INTERROGATORY NO. 29
11 See response to Interrogatory No. 30.
12 INTERROGATORY NO. 30
13 1. Saman Ratnayake, M.D. - Dr. Ratnayake was hired as a non-core, contrac
14 employee on September 1, 1998. His contract was supposed to terminate on August 31, 2001
15 but he entered into an interim core agreement with the County effective June 26, 2001. Tha
16 agreement was to remain in effect through November 30, 2006. It expired on November 30,
17 2006 but, on June 19,2007 it was extended to June 22, 2007, retroactive to November 30,2006.
18 Dr. Ratnayake entered into a new core agreement on June 23, 2007 for a term of five years.
19 2. Irene Spinello, M.D. - Dr. Spinello entered into an interim core agreement with
20 the County on March 12, 2002. The agreement was to remain in effect through November 30,
21 2006 but Dr. Spinello entered into a new core agreement on December 27, 2003 for a term 0
22 five years.
23 3. Khosrow Mostofi, M.D. - Dr. Mostofi was hired as a non-core, contract employee
24 in 1993. The last non-core contract between Dr. Mostofi and the County had an effective date 0
25 January 1, 1999 and was for a term of two years. Dr. Mostofi entered into an interim core
26 agreement with the County on January 1, 2002. Dr. Mostofi entered into a new core agreemen
27 on December 1, 2006, for a term of five years.
28
21
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSESTO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 95 of 130
1 Arash Heideri - resigned then returned and is currently employed
2 Tha Cha - resigned
3 Shehla Baqi - resigned
4 Chester Lau - resigned5 Nitin Athavale - resigned
6 Daniel D'Amico - retired
7 Stephen Docherty - resigned
8 Stephen Williams - resigned
9 Victor Ettinger - resigned
10 INTERROGATORY NO. 29
11 See response to Interrogatory No. 30.
12 INTERROGATORY NO. 30
13 1. Saman Ratnayake, M.D. - Dr. Ratnayake was hired as a non-core, contrac
14 employee on September 1, 1998. His contract was supposed to terminate on August 31, 2001
15 but he entered into an interim core agreement with the County effective June 26, 2001. Tha
16 agreement was to remain in effect through November 30, 2006. It expired on November 30,
17 2006 but, on June 19,2007 it was extended to June 22, 2007, retroactive to November 30,2006.
18 Dr. Ratnayake entered into a new core agreement on June 23, 2007 for a term of five years.
19 2. Irene Spinello, M.D. - Dr. Spinello entered into an interim core agreement with
20 the County on March 12, 2002. The agreement was to remain in effect through November 30,
21 2006 but Dr. Spinello entered into a new core agreement on December 27, 2003 for a term 0
22 five years.
23 3. Khosrow Mostofi, M.D. - Dr. Mostofi was hired as a non-core, contract employee
24 in 1993. The last non-core contract between Dr. Mostofi and the County had an effective date 0
25 January 1, 1999 and was for a term of two years. Dr. Mostofi entered into an interim core
26 agreement with the County on January 1, 2002. Dr. Mostofi entered into a new core agreemen
27 on December 1, 2006, for a term of five years.
28
21
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSESTO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 112/146
6 November 1, 2003 for a term of five years.
5 interim core agreement with the County. Dr. Wrobel entered into a new core agreement 0
Juan Lopez, M.D. - Dr. Lopez entered into an interim core agreement with th
Charles Wrobel, M.D. - Dr. Wrobel began providing services to the County as
5.
4.
7
2 independent contractor in 1991. He was hired as a non-core, contract employee in 1997. Th
3 last non-core contract between Dr. Wrobel and the County had an effective date of January 1
4 2000 and was for a term of two years. On November 12, 2001, Dr. Wrobel entered into
8 County on July 1, 2004 for a term of five years. Dr. Lopez entered into a core agreement 0
9 January 8, 2005 for a term of five years.
10 6. Mansukh Ghadiya, M.D. - Dr. Ghadiya entered into an interim core agreemen
11 with the County on July 1,2002. He entered into a new core agreement on March 20, 2004, for
12 term of five years.
13 7. Paul Miller, M.D. - Dr. Miller was hired as a non-core employee on July 6, 1999.
14 His contract was for a term of two years. On July 2, 2001, Dr. Miller entered into an interi
15 core agreement. The agreement was to remain in effect through November 30, 2006. Dr. Mille
16 entered into a core agreement on March 20, 2004, for a term of five years.
17 8. Jose Perez, M.D. - Dr. Perez entered into an interim core agreement with th
18 County on July 1, 2001. The agreement was to remain in effect through November 30, 2006.
19 Dr. Perez entered into a new core agreement on September 6, 2003, for a term of five years. Dr.
20 Perez left County employment before the contract expired.
21 9. Richard Frelinger, D.O. - Dr. Frelinger was hired as a non-core, contrac
22 employee in 1995. The last non-core contract between Dr. Frelinger and the County had a
23 effective date of July 1, 1999 and was for a term of two years. Dr. Frelinger entered into a
24 interim core agreement with the County on July 1, 2001. The agreement was to remain in effec
25 through November 30, 2006 but Dr. Fre1inger entered into a new core agreement on March 20
26 2004 for a term of five years.
27 10. Fidel Huerta, M.D. - Dr. Huerta was hired as a non-core employee in 1998. Th
28 only non-core contract employee agreement between Dr. Huerta and the County had an effectiv
22
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSESTO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 96 of 130
1 4. Charles Wrobel, M.D. - Dr. Wrobel began providing services to the County as
Juan Lopez, M.D. Dr. Lopez entered into an interim core agreement with th.
8 County on July 1, 2004 for a term of five years. Dr. Lopez entered into a core agreement a
9 January 8, 2005 for a term of five years.
2 independent contractor in 1991. He was hired as a non-core, contract employee in 1997. Th
3 last non-core contract between Dr. Wrobel and the County had an effective date of January 1
4 2000 and was for a term of two years. On November 12, 2001, Dr. Wrobel entered into
5 interim core agreement with the County. Dr. Wrobel entered into a new core agreement a
6 November 1, 2003 for a term of five years.
10 6. Mansukh Ghadiya, M.D. - Dr. Ghadiya entered into an interim core agreemen
11 with the County on July 1,2002. He entered into a new core agreement on March 20, 2004, for
12 term of five years.
13 7. Paul Miller, M.D. Dr. Miller was hired as a non-core employee on July 6, 1999.
14 His contract was for a term of two years. On July 2, 2001, Dr. Miller entered into an interi
15 core agreement. The agreement was to remain in effect through November 30, 2006. Dr. Mille
16 entered into a core agreement on March 20, 2004, for a term of five years.
17 8. Jose Perez, M.D. - Dr. Perez entered into an interim core agreement with th
18 County on July 1, 2001. The agreement was to remain in effect through November 30, 2006.
19 Dr. Perez entered into a new core agreement on September 6, 2003, for a term of five years. Dr.
20 Perez left County employment before the contract expired.
21 9. Richard Fre1inger, D.O. - Dr. Frelinger was hired as a non-core, contrac
22 employee in 1995. The last non-core contract between Dr. Frelinger and the County had a
23 effective date of July 1, 1999 and was for a term of two years. Dr. Frelinger entered into a
24 interim core agreement with the County on July 1,2001. The agreement was to remain in effec
25 through November 30, 2006 but Dr. Frelinger entered into a new core agreement on March 20
26 2004 for a term of five years.
27 10. Fidel Huerta, M.D. - Dr. Huerta was hired as a non-core employee in 1998. Th
28 only non-core contract employee agreement between Dr. Huerta and the County had an effectiv
22
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSESTO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 113/146
6 the County on June 26, 2004 for a term of five years. On July 1,2005, Dr. Zohman entered int
9 the County on June 18, 2002 for a term of five years. On November 15, 2003, Dr. Marti
7 a core agreement for a term of five years.
Gary Zohman, M.D. - Dr. Zohman entered into an interim core agreement wi
Donald Jagger, M.D. - Dr. Jagger was hired as a non-core contract employee i
Maureen Martin, M.D. - Dr. Martin entered into an interim core agreement wit
Vahdatyar Amirpour, M.D. - Dr. Amirpour began providing services to
II.
13.
12.
14.
8
5
2 entered into an interim core agreement. The agreement was to remain in effect throug
3 November 30, 2006. On March 20, 2004, Dr. Huerta entered into a new core agreement for
4 termof
five years.
II
I date ofNovember 16, 1998 and was for a term of two years. On November 10,2000, Dr. Huert
10 entered into a core agreement for a term of five years.
15 county as an independent contractor in 1994. He was hired as a non-core contract employee i
12 1996. His last non-core contract was effective on October I, 2003 and was for a term of tw
13 years. On July 24, 2004, Dr. Jagger entered into a core agreement for a term of five years.
14
16 1997. His last non-core contract had an effective date ofOctober I, 1999. On July 24, 2004, Dr.
17 Amirpour entered into a core agreement for a term of five years.
19 in 1997. His last non-core contract had an effective date of October I, 1999 and was for a ter
Daniel D'Amico, M.D. - Dr. D'Amico was hired as a non-core contract employe5.8
20 of two years. On September 17, 200 I, Dr. D'Amico entered into an interim core agreement wi
21 the County for a term through November 30, 2006. Dr. D'Amico entered into a core agreemen
22 on July 24, 2004 for a term of five years. He retired in 2006
23 16. Nurun Khandaker, M.D. - Dr. Khandaker was hired as a non-core contrac
24 employee in 1997. Her last non-core contract had an effective date of July 11,1999 and was fo
25 a term of two years. On June 12, 2001, Dr. Khandaker entered into an interim core agreemen
26 with the County that was to remain in effect through November 30, 2006. On August 20, 2002
27 Dr. Khandaker entered into an interim core for a term of five years. On March 20, 2004, Dr.
28 Khandaker entered into a core agreement for a term of five years.
23
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSESTO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 97 of 130
10 entered into a core agreement for a term of five years.
1 date ofNovember 16, 1998 and was for a term of two years. On November 10,2000, Dr. Huert
9 the County on June 18, 2002 for a term of five years. On November 15, 2003, Dr. Marti
Donald Jagger, M.D. - Dr. Jagger was hired as a non-core contract employee i
Gary Zohman, M.D. - Dr. Zohman entered into an interim core agreement wi
Maureen Martin, M.D. Dr. Martin entered into an interim core agreement wit
Vahdatyar Amirpour, M.D. - Dr. Amirpour began providing services to
11.
14.
13.
12.
5
2 entered into an interim core agreement. The agreement was to remain in effect throug
3 November 30, 2006. On March 20, 2004, Dr. Huerta entered into a new core agreement for
4 term offive years.
15 county as an independent contractor in 1994. He was hired as a non-core contract employee i
6 the County on June 26,2004 for a term of five years. On July 1,2005, Dr. Zohman entered int
7 a core agreement for a term of five years.
11
12 1996. His last non-core contract was effective on October 1, 2003 and was for a term of tw
13 years. On July 24, 2004, Dr. Jagger entered into a core agreement for a term of five years.
14
16 1997. His last non-core contract had an effective date ofOctober 1, 1999. On July 24, 2004, Dr.
17 Amirpour entered into a core agreement for a term offive years.
Daniel D'Amico, M.D. - Dr. D'Amico was hired as a non-core contract employe5.8
19 in 1997. His last non-core contract had an effective date of October 1, 1999 and was for a ter
20 of two years. On September 17,2001, Dr. D'Amico entered into an interim core agreement wi
21 the County for a term through November 30, 2006. Dr. D'Amico entered into a core agreemen
22 on July 24, 2004 for a term of five years. He retired in 2006
23 16. Nurun Khandaker, M.D. - Dr. Khandaker was hired as a non-core contrac
24 employee in 1997. Her last non-core contract had an effective date of July 11, 1999 and was fo
25 a term of two years. On June 12, 2001, Dr. Khandaker entered into an interim core agreemen
26 with the County that was to remain in effect through November 30, 2006. On August 20, 2002
27 Dr. Khandaker entered into an interim core for a term of five years. On March 20, 2004, Dr.
28 Khandaker entered into a core agreement for a term of five years.
23
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSESTO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 114/146
1 17. Rick McPheeters, D.O. - Dr. McPheeters entered into an interim core agreemen
2 with the County on July 25, 2000 for a term through November 30, 2006. On August 24, 2002,
3 Dr. McPheeters entered into a core agreement for a term of five years. On August 21, 2007, th
4 agreement was amended to extend the term through October 12, 2007. On October 8, 2007, th5 agreement was amended to extend the term through December 7, 2007. On December 4,2007
6 the agreement was amended to extend the term through December 6, 2008.
15 into a core agreement for a term of five years.
William Meyer, M.D. - Dr. Meyer was hired as a non-core contract employee 0
Stephan Sway, M.D. - Dr. Sway was hired as a non-core contract employee 0
Chester Lau, M.D. - Dr. Lau entered into an interim core agreement effectiv
18.
20.
19.
7
8 September 1, 1998 for a term of two years. On August 29, 2000, Dr. Sway entered into
9 interim core agreement that expired on November 30, 2006. On December 19, 2006, Dr. Swa
10 entered into a core agreement that was retroactive to December 1, 2006. The agreement is for
11 term of five years.
12
13 June 15, 1999 for a term of two years. On June 12,2001, Dr. Meyer entered into an interim cor
14 agreement for a term through November 30, 2006. On November 1, 2003, Dr. Meyer entere
16
17 September 25, 2001 that was to remain in effect through November 30, 2006. On December 2,
18 2003, Dr. Lau entered into an interim core agreement, effective January 5, 2004, for a term 0
19 five years. Dr. Lau resigned his position before the agreement expired.
20 21. Javad Naderi, M.D. - Dr. Naderi entered into an interim core agreement 0
21 September 25,2001 that was to remain in effect through November 30, 2006. On December 2
22 2003, Dr. Naderi entered into an interim core agreement effective January 5, 2004, for a term 0
23 five years.
24 22. Tai Yoo, M.D. - Dr. Yoo entered into an interim core agreement effective May 1,
28 January 19,1999, for a term of two years. On January 17,2001, Dr. Ettinger entered into a
24
25 2001 for a term through November 30,2006. On September 23,2003, Dr. Yoo entered into
26 core agreement with an effective date ofAugust 9, 2003 for a term of five years.
27 23. Victor Ettinger, M.D. - Dr. Ettinger was hired as a non-core contract employee 0
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSESTO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 98 of 130
1 17. Rick McPheeters, D.O. - Dr. McPheeters entered into an interim core agreemen
2 with the County on July 25, 2000 for a term through November 30, 2006. On August 24, 2002,
3 Dr. McPheeters entered into a core agreement for a term of five years. On August 21, 2007, th
4 agreement was amended to extend the term through October 12, 2007. On October 8, 2007, th
5 agreement was amended to extend the term through December 7, 2007. On December 4, 2007
6 the agreement was amended to extend the term through December 6,2008.
William Meyer, M.D. - Dr. Meyer was hired as a non-core contract employee 0
Stephan Sway, M.D. - Dr. Sway was hired as a non-core contract employee 0
Chester Lau, M.D. - Dr. Lau entered into an interim core agreement effectiv
18.
20.
19.
7
8 September 1, 1998 for a term of two years. On August 29, 2000, Dr. Sway entered into
9 interim core agreement that expired on November 30, 2006. On December 19, 2006, Dr. Swa
10 entered into a core agreement that was retroactive to December 1, 2006. The agreement is for
11 term of five years.
12
13 June 15, 1999 for a term of two years. On June 12,2001, Dr. Meyer entered into an interim cor
14 agreement for a term through November 30, 2006. On November 1, 2003, Dr. Meyer entere
15 into a core agreement for a term of five years.
16
17 September 25, 2001 that was to remain in effect through November 30, 2006. On December 2,
18 2003, Dr. Lau entered into an interim core agreement, effective January 5, 2004, for a term 0
19 five years. Dr. Lau resigned his position before the agreement expired.
20 21. Javad Naderi, M.D. - Dr. Naderi entered into an interim core agreement 0
21 September 25, 2001 that was to remain in effect through November 30, 2006. On December 2
22 2003, Dr. Naderi entered into an interim core agreement effective January 5, 2004, for a term 0
23 five years.
24 22. Tai Yoo, M.D. - Dr. Yoo entered into an interim core agreement effective May 1,
Victor Ettinger, M.D. - Dr. Ettinger was hired as a non-core contract employee 03.
28 January 19,1999, for a term of two years. On January 17,2001, Dr. Ettinger entered into a
24
27
25 2001 for a term through November 30, 2006. On September 23, 2003, Dr. Yoo entered into
26 core agreement with an effective date of August 9, 2003 for a term of five years.
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSESTO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 115/146
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 116/146
Albert McBride, M.D. - Dr. McBride was hired as a non-core contract employe8.
2 in 1997. The last non-core contract between Dr. McBride and the County had an effective dat
3 of October 13, 1999 and was for a term of two years. On May 29, 2001, Dr. McBride entere
7 through February 7, 2009.
Vasanthi (nee Ramaswami) Srinivas, M.D. - Dr. Srinivas was hired as a non-cor9.
4 into an interim core agreement effective May 29, 2001. The agreement was to remain in effec
5 through November 30, 2006. On February 8, 2003, Dr. McBride entered into a core agreemen
6 for a term of five years. On February 26, 2008, the agreement was amended to extend the te
9 contract employee on September 1, 1998 for a term of three years. On August 30,2001, Dr.
10 Srinivas entered into an interim core agreement that was to remain in effect through Novembe
11 30, 2006. On January 8, 2005, Dr. Srinivas entered into a core agreement for a term of fiv
12 years.
Joseph Mansour, M.D. - Dr. Mansour was hired as a non-core contract employe0.3
14 on September 15, 1999 for a term extending through November 30, 2002. On November 26,
15 2002, Dr. Mansour entered into an interim core agreement effective November 30, 2002 for
16 term of five years. On January 8, 2005, Dr. Mansour entered into a core agreement with a ter
17 of five years.
18 31. Siu-Keung (Ray) Chung, M.D. - Dr. Chung was hired as a non-core contrac
19 employee on July 1, 1999 for a term of two years. On June 26,2001, Dr. Chung entered into
20 interim core agreement that was to remain in effect through November 30, 2006. On October 5,
21 2002, Dr. Chung entered into a core agreement for a term of five years. On October 2, 2007, th
22 agreement was amended to extend the term through December 7, 2007. On December 4, 2007
23 the agreement was amended to extend the term through December 6, 2008.
24 INTERROGATORYNO. 36
25 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to convert
26 PLAINTIFF'S reduced work schedule leave to full-time leave on or about April 28, 2006; and
27 state the date that decision was made.
28
26
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSESTO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 100 of 130
Albert McBride, M.D. - Dr. McBride was hired as a n o n ~ c o r e contract employe
Vasanthi (nee Ramaswami) Srinivas, M.D. - Dr. Srinivas was hired as a non-cor9.
28.
8
1
2 in 1997. The last non-core contract between Dr. McBride and the County had an effective dat
3 of October 13, 1999 and was for a term of two years. On May 29, 2001, Dr. McBride entere
4 into an interim core agreement effective May 29, 2001. The agreement was to remain in effec
5 through November 30, 2006. On February 8, 2003, Dr. McBride entered into a core agreemen
6 for a term of five years. On February 26, 2008, the agreement was amended to extend the te
7 through February 7, 2009.
9 contract employee on September 1, 1998 for a term of three years. On August 30,2001, Dr.
10 Srinivas entered into an interim core agreement that was to remain in effect through Novembe
11 30, 2006. On January 8, 2005, Dr. Srinivas entered into a core agreement for a term of fiv
12 years.
Joseph Mansour, M.D. - Dr. Mansour was hired as a non-core contract employe
Siu-Keung (Ray) Chung, M.D. - Dr. Chung was hired as a non-core contrac
30.
31.
13
19 employee on July 1,1999 for a term of two years. On June 26,2001, Dr. Chung entered into
20 interim core agreement that was to remain in effect through November 30,2006. On October 5,
21 2002, Dr. Chung entered into a core agreement for a term of five years. On October 2,2007, th
22 agreement was amended to extend the term through December 7, 2007. On December 4, 2007
23 the agreement was amended to extend the term through December 6, 2008.
14 on September 15, 1999 for a term extending through November 30, 2002. On November 26,
15 2002, Dr. Mansour entered into an interim core agreement effective November 30, 2002 for
16 term of five years. On January 8, 2005, Dr. Mansour entered into a core agreement with a ter
17 of five years.
18
24 INTERROGATORYNO. 36
25 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to convert
26 PLAINTIFF'S reduced work schedule leave to full-time leave on or about Apri128, 2006; and
27 state the date that decision was made.
28
26
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSESTO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 117/146
1 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 36
2 Peter Bryan, Steve O'Connor, Karen Barnes and Plaintiff participated in the decision to
3 convert Plaintiffs leave to full-time leave. The decision to do so was made at their meeting on
4 April28,
2006.5 INTERROGATORY NO. 37
6 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to recommend
7 removal of PLAINTIFF from his position as Chair of Pathology at KMC in 2006; and state the
8 date that decision was made.
9 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORYNO. 37
10 Peter Bryan made the decision to recommend that Plaintiffbe removed from his
11 chairmanship and the decision to make that recommendation was made on July 10, 2006.
12 INTERROGATORY NO. 38
13 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decisions RELATING TO
14 each and every provision contained in the DOCUMENT entitled "Amendment No.1 to
15 Agreement for Professional Services" [DFJl416]; and state the date that each such decision was
16 made.
17 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORYNO. 38
18 Peter Bryan, David Culberson, Karen Barnes, Plaintiff, Eugene Lee, and the Kern County
19 Board of Supervisors participated in the decisions regarding Amendment No.1 to Plaintiffs
20 contract. The decision was made on the October 3, 2006, which is the date the amendment was
21 approved by the Board of Supervisors.
22 INTERROGATORY NO. 39
23 IDENTIFY each and every PERSONwho participated in the decision to recommend
24 reduction of PLAINTIFF'S base salary in 2006; and state the date that decision was made.
25 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 39
26 Peter Bryan, David Culberson, Karen Barnes, Plaintiff, Eugene Lee, and the Kern County
27 Board of Supervisors participated in the decision to reduce Plaintiffs base salary. The decision
28
27
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSESTO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 101 of 130
1 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORYNO. 36
2 Peter Bryan, Steve O'Connor, Karen Barnes and Plaintiff participated in the decision to
3 convert Plaintiffs leave to full-time leave. The decision to do so was made at their meeting on
4 April 28, 2006.
5 INTERROGATORY NO. 37
6 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to recommend
7 removal of PLAINTIFF from his position as Chair of Pathology at KMC in 2006; and state the
8 date that decision was made.
9 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORYNO. 37
10 Peter Bryan made the decision to recommend that Plaintiffbe removed from his
11 chairmanship and the decision to make that recommendation was made on July 10, 2006.
12 INTERROGATORY NO. 38
13 IDENTIFY each and every PERSONwho participated in the decisions RELATING TO
14 each and every provision contained in the DOCUMENT entitled "AmendmentNo.1 to
15 Agreement for Professional Services" [DFJl416]; and state the date that each such decision was
16 made.
17 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 38
18 Peter Bryan, David Culberson, Karen Barnes, Plaintiff, Eugene Lee, and the Kern County
19 Board of Supervisors participated in the decisions regarding AmendmentNo.1 to Plaintiffs
20 contract. The decision was made on the October 3, 2006, which is the date the amendment was
21 approved by the Board of Supervisors.
22 INTERROGATORYNO. 39
23 IDENTIFY each and every PERSONwho participated in the decision to recommend
24 reduction of PLAINTIFF'S base salary in 2006; and state the date that decision was made.
25 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORYNO. 39
26 Peter Bryan, David Culberson, Karen Barnes, Plaintiff, Eugene Lee, and the Kern County
27 Board of Supervisors participated in the decision to reduce Plaintiffs base salary. The decision
28
27
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSESTO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 118/146
I was made on the October 3, 2006, which is the date the amendment was approved by the Board
2 of Supervisors.
3 INTERROGATORY NO. 42
4 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to place5 PLAINTIFF on administrative leave with pay on or about December 7, 2006; and state the date
6 that decision was made.
7 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 428 David Culberson, Irwin Harris, Phil Dutt, Margo Raison and Karen Barnes. The decision
9 was made on December 6, 2006.
10 INTERROGATORY NO. 43
II IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to lift the
12 restriction on PLAINTIFF'S administrative leave (as that term is used in the letter of April 30,
13 2007 from MarkWasser, DEFENDANT'S counsel [DFJ7101]); and state the date that decision
14 was made.
15 SUPPLEMETAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORYNO. 43
16 Mark Nations and Mark Wasser. The decision was made on April 27, 2007.
17 INTERROGATORY NO. 44
18 IDENTIFY each and every PERSONwho participated in the decision to propose to
19 PLAINTIFF a "BUYOUT" (as that term is used in the email ofMay I, 2007 from MarkWasser,
20 DEFENDANT'S counsel [DFJOI482]); and state the date that decision was made.
21 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 44
22 MarkNations and Mark Wasser. The decision was made on April 27, 2007.
23 INTERROGATORY NO. 48
24 State each and every job function which YOU contend were the essential functions of
25 PLAINTIFF'S position as Chair of Pathology at KMC.
26 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 48
27 The essential functions of Plaintiffs position are set forth in the KMC Medical Staff
28 Bylaws at page 46, section 9.7, Department Chairs; section 9.7-1, Qualifications and pages 48-
28
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSESTO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 102 of 130
I was made on the October 3, 2006, which is the date the amendment was approved by the Board
2 of Supervisors.
3 INTERROGATORYNO. 42
4 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to place
5 PLAINTIFF on administrative leave with pay on or about December 7, 2006; and state the date
6 that decision was made.
7 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 428 David Culberson, Irwin Harris, Phil Dutt, Margo Raison and Karen Barnes. The decision
9 was made on December 6, 2006.
10 INTERROGATORY NO. 43
II IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to lift the
12 restriction on PLAINTIFF'S administrative leave (as that term is used in the letter ofApril 30,
13 2007 from MarkWasser, DEFENDANT'S counsel [DFJ7101]); and state the date that decision
14 was made.
15 SUPPLEMETAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORYNO. 43
16 MarkNations and Mark Wasser. The decision was made on April 27, 2007.
17 INTERROGATORYNO. 44
18 IDENTIFY each and every PERSONwho participated in the decision to propose to
19 PLAINTIFF a "BUYOUT" (as that term is used in the email ofMay I, 2007 from MarkWasser,
20 DEFENDANT'S counsel [DFJOI482]); and state the date that decision was made.
21 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORYNO. 44
22 Mark Nations and Mark Wasser. The decision was made on April 27, 2007.
23 INTERROGATORY NO. 48
24 State each and every job function which YOU contend were the essential functions of
25 PLAINTIFF'S position as Chair of Pathology at KMC.
26 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 48
27 The essential functions of Plaintiffs position are set forth in the KMC Medical Staff
28 Bylaws at page 46, section 9.7, Department Chairs; section 9.7-1, Qualifications and pages 48-
28
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTALRESPONSESTO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 119/146
I 50, section 9.7-5, Responsibi lit ies and Duties ofDepartment Chairs and Plaintiffs job
2 description.
3
4 SIGNATURE OF PARTY UNDER OATH
5 I, Paul J. Hensler, have read Plaintiffs first set of interrogatories to Defendants and the
6 foregoing supplemental answers thereto and certify under penalty of perjury that the
7 supplemental answers are t rue and correct.
SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY AS TO OBJECTIONS
Dated: March S ,2008 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER
8 Dated: March_, 2008
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
By: _
Paul J. Hensler
ChiefExecutive Officer, Kern Medical Center
Mark A. Wasser
Attorney for Defendants, County ofKern, et al.
29
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSESTO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 103 of 130
1 50, section 9.7-5, Responsibil it ies and Duties o f Department Chairs and Plaintiffs jo b
2 description.
3
4 SIGNATURE OF PARTY UNDEROATH
5 I, Paul 1. Hensler, have read Plaintiffs first set of interrogatories to Defendants and the
6 foregoing supplemental answers thereto and certify under penalty o f perjury that the
7 supplemental answers are true and correct.
SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY AS TO OBJECTIONS
Dated: March S ,2008 LA W OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER
8 Dated: March _, 2008
9
10
11
12
13
1415
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
By: _
Paul 1. Hensler
ChiefExecutive Officer, Kern Medical Center
B y : _ - # = = . I , . . l o o = : : ; ! . . . . . . . : : = : . . . . : ! . . . - - : : . . = . = = = - - - ~ _ _ l
Mark A. Wasser
Attorney for Defendants, County o fKern, et al.
29
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSESTO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 120/146
1 Mark A. Wasser CA SB #060160LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER
2 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100Sacramento, CA 95814
3 Phone: (916) 444-6400Fax: (916) 444-6405
4 E-mail: [email protected]
5 Bernard C. Barmann, Sr.KERN COUNTY COUNSELMark Nations, Chief Deputy
6 1115 Truxtun Avenue, Fourth FloorBakersfield, CA 93301
7 Phone: (661) 868-3800Fax: (661) 868-3805
8 E-mail: [email protected]
9Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern,
10 Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher,Jennifer Abraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smith
11 and William Roy
18 COUNTY OF KERN, et a\.,
PROOF OF SERVICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Plaintiff,
vs.
Case No.: 1:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG
))
-------------.)
16
17
12
13
14
15 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.
19 Defendants.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 104 of 130
1 Mark A. Wasser CA SB #060160LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER
2 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100Sacramento, CA 95814
3 Phone: (916) 444-6400Fax: (916) 444-6405
4 E-mail: [email protected]
5 Bernard C. Barmann, Sr.KERN COUNTY COUNSELMarkNations, ChiefDeputy
6 1115 Truxtun Avenue, Fourth FloorBakersfield, CA 93301
7 Phone: (661) 868-3800Fax: (661) 868-3805
8 E-mail: [email protected]
9Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern,
10 Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher,Jennifer Abraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smith
11 and William Roy
18 COUNTY OF KERN, et a\.,
PROOF OF SERVICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Plaintiff,
vs.
Case No.: 1:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG
))
-------------.)
16
17
12
13
14
15 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.
19 Defendants.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 121/146
1 I, Amy Remly, declare:
2 I am a resident of the State ofCalifornia and over the age of eighteen years, and not a party tothe within action; my business address is 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100, Sacramento, CA 95814. On
3 March 5, 2008, I served the within documents: Defendants' Supplemental Responses to PlaintifrsInterrogatories (Set One).
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
o
o
o
by transmitting via facsimile from (916) 444-6405 the above listed document(s)without error to the fax number(s) set forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m. A copyof the transmittal/confirmation sheet is attached, and
by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fullyprepaid, in the United States mail at Sacramento, California addressed as set forthbelow.
by causing personal delivery by of the document(s) listed above to theperson(s) at the address (es) set forth below.
by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed Federal Express Overnight Delivery
envelope and affixing a pre-paid air bill, and causing the envelope to be delivered to aOvernight Delivery Federal Express agent for delivery at the address set forth below.
Eugene LeeLaw Offices ofEugene Lee555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100Los Angeles, California 90013-1010
18
15 I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence formailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with
16 postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course ofbusiness. I am aware that on motion of the party17 served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one
day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
I declare under penalty ofperjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true
19 and correct.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Executed on March 5, 2008, at Sacramento, California.O v ~ 1 ! , ~ V \
-2 - PROOF OF SERVICE
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 105 of 130
1 I, Amy Remly, declare:
2 I am a resident of the State ofCalifornia and over the age of eighteen years, and not a party tothe within action; my business address is 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100, Sacramento, CA 95814. On
3 March 5, 2008, I served the within documents: Defendants' Supplemental Responses to PlaintifrsInterrogatories (Set One).
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1213
14
o
o
o
by transmitting via facsimile from (916) 444-6405 the above listed document(s)without error to the fax number(s) set forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m. A copyof the transmittal/confirmation sheet is attached, and
by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fullyprepaid, in the United States mail at Sacramento, California addressed as set forthbelow.
by causing personal delivery by of the document(s) listed above to theperson(s) at the address (es) set forth below.
by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed Federal Express Overnight Delivery
envelope and affixing a pre-paid air bill, and causing the envelope to be delivered to aOvernight Delivery Federal Express agent for delivery at the address set forth below.
Eugene Lee
Law Offices ofEugene Lee
555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100Los Angeles, California 90013-1010
18
15 I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for
mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with16 postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party17 served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one
day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true
19 and correct.
20
2122
23
24
25
26
27
28
Executed on March 5, 2008, at Sacramento, California.O v ~ 1 ! , ~ V \
-2 - PROOF OF SERVICE
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 122/146
EXHIBITS TO JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENTre: INTERROGATORIES 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT 4:
Meet and confer correspondence between the parties
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 106 of 130
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 123/146
1
Eugene D. Lee
From: Mark Wasser [[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 8:48 AMTo: [email protected]: RE: Jadwin/KC: Interrogatories
Gene,
Sorry. That was my oversight. I will get you a verification.
Mark
From: Eugene D. Lee [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 8:59 PMTo: [email protected]: Jadwin/KC: Interrogatories
Mark,
We still haven’t received any verification by Defendants’ of Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories, setone. As you know, the responses were due on February 1. Please send us the verification immediately.
Sincerely,
Gene Lee
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
L A W O F F I C E O F E U G E N E L E E
E M P L O Y M E N T L A W
5 5 5 W E S T F I F T H S T . , S T E . 3 1 0 0L O S A N G E L E S , C A 9 0 0 1 3
T e l : ( 2 1 3 ) 9 9 2 - 3 2 9 9F a x : ( 2 1 3 ) 5 9 6 - 0 4 8 7E - m a i l : [email protected]
W e b s i t e : www.LOEL.com B l o g : www.CaLaborLaw.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 107 of 130
Califocnia Laboc & Emplo,ment Law 0109
Plaintiff Gets $30,300, His Lawyers Get $1,1 mil,Febn>o. . . . . , , ... " ..." ,y "'oo,,"..
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 124/146
1
Eugene D. Lee
From: Assistant [[email protected]]Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 10:22 AMTo: 'Eugene Lee'Cc: [email protected]: FW: JadwinAttachments: Jadwin.Signature of Party Under Oath.021408.pdf
Transmitted herewith is the verification to Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories.
Amy Remly, Assistant to Mark A. Wasser
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 108 of 130
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 125/146
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 109 of 130
INTERROGATORY NO. 47
2 IDENTIFY each DOCUMENT or portion thereof contained in YOUR FRCP Rule 26
J Initial Disclosures that YOU contend is privileged; slale the nature oreach privilege asserted;
4 and state in detail the factual bases for each such asserted privilege.
5 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 47
6 We do not understand this Interrogatory and are, consequently, unable to answer it. Are
7 you inquiring about our privilege log?
8 INTERROGATORY NO. 48
9 State each and every job function which YOU contend were the essential functions of
J0 PLAINTIFF'S position as Chair of Pathology at KMC.
II RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 48
12 Medical Stafr Bylaws and job description for the position.
13
14 SIGNATURE OF PARTY UNDER OATI·I
15 I, Paul J. Hensler, have read Plaintilrs first set ofinterrogalorics to Defendants and the
16 foregoing answers thereto and certi fy under penalty of perjury that the answers are true and
17 correct.
18 Dated: February /..J. 2008
19
20
21
22
B Y : : - - - ! - Y - - ~ )! c . : : . . . b= ' = = ~ _uul1. Hensler
Chief Executive Officer, Kern Medical Center
SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY AS TO OIl.IECTIONS
24
26
27
28
Dated: February 1,2008 LA W OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER
By: /s/ Mark A. Wasser
Mark A. Wasser
Attorney for Defendants, COUllty of Kern, et <II.
54
DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 126/146
1
Eugene D. Lee
From: Eugene D. Lee [[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 3:57 PMTo: '[email protected]'Subject: RE: Jadwin/KC: Interrogatories
Mark,
I’ll call you.
Sincerely,
Gene Lee
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
L A W O F F I C E O F E U G E N E L E E
E M P L O Y M E N T L A W
5 5 5 W E S T F I F T H S T . , S T E . 3 1 0 0L O S A N G E L E S , C A 9 0 0 1 3
T e l : ( 2 1 3 ) 9 9 2 - 3 2 9 9F a x : ( 2 1 3 ) 5 9 6 - 0 4 8 7E - m a i l : [email protected]
W e b s i t e : www.LOEL.com B l o g : www.CaLaborLaw.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.
From: Mark Wasser [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 3:30 PMTo: [email protected]: RE: Jadwin/KC: Interrogatories
Gene,
3:00 p.m. tomorrow is fine. Will you call me?
Mark
From: Eugene D. Lee [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 3:22 PMTo: [email protected]: RE: Jadwin/KC: Interrogatories
Mark,
3 p.m. tomorrow works for me. Let me know.
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 110 of 130
Califocnia Laboc & Emplo,ment Law Bl09
Plaintiff Gets $30,300, His Lawyers Get $1,1 mil,
Febn>Arf' , ,. . . "."" ,y "'''"'"''
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 127/146
2
Sincerely,
Gene Lee
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
L A W O F F I C E O F E U G E N E L E E
E M P L O Y M E N T L A W
5 5 5 W E S T F I F T H S T . , S T E . 3 1 0 0L O S A N G E L E S , C A 9 0 0 1 3T e l : ( 2 1 3 ) 9 9 2 - 3 2 9 9F a x : ( 2 1 3 ) 5 9 6 - 0 4 8 7E - m a i l : [email protected]
W e b s i t e : www.LOEL.com B l o g : www.CaLaborLaw.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.
From: Mark Wasser [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 2:55 PMTo: [email protected]: RE: Jadwin/KC: Interrogatories
Gene,
I am back in the office and will be here the rest of the week. We can talk tomorrow, if you want. What time is good for
you?
Mark
From: Eugene D. Lee [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 10:46 AMTo: [email protected]: Jadwin/KC: Interrogatories
Mark,
Let’s discuss Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories, set one. When are you available to talk this week?
Sincerely,
Gene Lee
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
L A W O F F I C E O F E U G E N E L E E
E M P L O Y M E N T L A W
5 5 5 W E S T F I F T H S T . , S T E . 3 1 0 0L O S A N G E L E S , C A 9 0 0 1 3
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 111 of 130
Califocnia Laboc & Emplo,ment Law 0109
Plaintiff Gets $30,300, His Lawyers Get $1,1 mil,Febn>o..,', , ... " ..." ,y "'oo,,"..
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 128/146
3
T e l : ( 2 1 3 ) 9 9 2 - 3 2 9 9F a x : ( 2 1 3 ) 5 9 6 - 0 4 8 7E - m a i l : [email protected]
W e b s i t e : www.LOEL.com B l o g : www.CaLaborLaw.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 112 of 130
Califocnia Laboc & Emplo,ment Law 0109
Plaintiff Gets $30,300, His Lawyers Get $1,1 mil,
Febn>o..,', , ... " ..." ,y "'oo,,"..
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 129/146
- - rom: aw ce o ugene ee g : pm
(213) 992 -3299
TELEPHONELAW
E U G
OFFICE
ENE L
OF
E E
(213) 596 -0487
FACSIMILE
FAX
5 5 5 WEST F IFTH STREET SUITE 3 1 0 0
Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9001 3-1 01 0
WWW.LOEL.COM
WEBSITE
To:
Fax Number: 2135960487
Pages: 6 (including cover page)
Re: Jadwin/KC: Rog1
Comments:
Mark,
Please see a t tached .
From: Law Office of Eugene Lee
Date: 02/20/2008
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 113 of 130
- - rom: aw ce o ugene ee g : pm
(213) 992 -3299
TELEPHONELAW
E U G
OFFICE
ENE L
OF
E E
(213) 596 -0487
FACSIMILE
FAX
5 5 5 WEST FIFTH STREET SUITE 3 1 0 0
Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9001 3-1 01 0
WWW.LOEL.COM
WEBSITE
To:
Fax Number: 2135960487
Pages: 6 (including cover page)
Re: Jadwin/KC: Rog1
Comments:
Mark,
P le ase see a t tached .
From: Law Office of Eugene Lee
Date: 02/20/2008
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 130/146
- - rom: aw ce o ugene ee g : pm
E-MAILOF
LEELAW OFFICE
EUGENE
( 2 13 ) 992-3299
TELEPHONE
(Z 1 3 ) 596-0487
FACS IM ILE
555 WES T F IF TH S TR EE T, SU I TE 3100
L O S A N G E LE S , C A LIF O R NIA 90013-1010
WWW.LOEL .COM
WEBS I TE
E U G E N E D. LEE, ESQ
PRINCIPAL
JOAN E. H E R R IN G T O N , E S Q
O F C O UN S EL
February 20, 2008
VIA U.S. MAIL FIRST CLASS & FACSIMILE
Mark Wasser
Law Offices ofMark Wasser
400 Capitol Mall Ste 1100
Sacramento, CA 95814
100011.001
Re: Defendants Responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories, Set One
Jadwin / County ofKern, et al. (USDC EDCANO.1 :07-cv-00026-0WW/TAG)
Dear Mark:
It was a pleasure speaking with you today regarding Defendant Kern County's deficient
responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories, Set One. We are writing this letter in follow-up to our
discussion.
As discussed, Defendant has agreed to fully supplement its responses as described below by no
later than March 5, 2008. Ifthe following issues are not fully resolved at that time, Plaintiffwill
have no choice but to immediately file a motion to compel.
Response Issue
toRog
No.
1,2,4,5, Defendant refuses to state any facts. Plaintiff's position is that Defendant is required
6, 7 to state the facts upon which it contends supports its affirmative defenses.
Contention interrogatories are not objectionable on the ground that they encroach on
attorney work product. See Security Ins. Co. ofHartford v. Trustmark Ins. CO. (D
CT 2003) 218 FRD 29, 34; United States v. Boyce, 148 F. Supp. 2d 1069, 1086 (D.
Cal. 2001)(" Under Rule 33(c), a party can serve an interrogatory the answer to
which involves "an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application oflaw
to fact." Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(c); O'Connor v. Boeing NorthAm., Inc., 185 F.R.D. 272,
280-81 (C.D. Cal. 1999). The Government's contention interrogatories are notdirected to issues of "pure law" that would infringe on the attorney-work product
doctrine as codified in Rule 26(b)(3). Rather, they seek the facts upon which the
Boyces' relied for their defense to the Forms 4340. As such, the contention
interrogatories were permissible and the Boyces were required to respond to them."
You stated Defendant disagrees. Plaintiffintends to move to compel.
3 Defendant's response is vague and non-specific. It fails to specify (i) what efforts
were made by whom to "counsel Plaintiff', (ii) what physical confrontations
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 114 of 130
- - rom: aw ce o ugene ee g : pm
E-MAILOF
LEELAW OFFICE
EUGENE
( 2 13 ) 992-3299
TELEPHONE
(Z 1 3 ) 596-0487
FACS IM ILE
555 W ES T F IF TH S TR EE T, SU I TE 3100
L O S A N G E LE S , C A LIF O R NIA 90013-1010
WWW.LOEL .COM
WEBS I TE
E U G E N E D. LEE, ESQ
PRINCIPAL
JOAN E. HERRINGTON, ES Q
OF C O U N S E L
February 20, 2008
VIA U.S. MAIL FIRST CLASS & FACSIMILE
Mark Wasser
Law Offices ofMark Wasser
400 Capitol Mall Ste 1100
Sacramento, CA 95814
100011.001
Re: Defendants Responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories, Set One
Jadwin / County ofKern, et al. (USDC EDCANO.1 :07-cv-00026-0WW/TAG)
Dear Mark:
It was a pleasure speaking with you today regarding Defendant Kern County's deficient
responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories, Set One. We are writing this letter in follow-up to our
discussion.
As discussed, Defendant has agreed to fully supplement its responses as described below by no
later than March 5, 2008. Ifthe following issues are not fully resolved at that time, Plaintiffwill
have no choice but to immediately file a motion to compel.
Response Issue
toRog
No.
1,2,4,5, Defendant refuses to state any facts. Plaintiff's position is that Defendant is required
6, 7 to state the facts upon which it contends supports its affirmative defenses.
Contention interrogatories are not objectionable on the ground that they encroach on
attorney work product. See Security Ins. Co. ofHartford v. Trustmark Ins. CO. (D
CT 2003) 218 FRD 29, 34; United States v. Boyce, 148 F. Supp. 2d 1069, 1086 (D.
Cal. 2001)(" Under Rule 33(c), a party can serve an interrogatory the answer to
which involves "an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application oflaw
to fact." Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(c); O'Connor v. Boeing NorthAm., Inc., 185 F.R.D. 272,
280-81 (C.D. Cal. 1999). The Government's contention interrogatories are notdirected to issues of "pure law" that would infringe on the attorney-work product
doctrine as codified in Rule 26(b)(3). Rather, they seek the facts upon which the
Boyces' relied for their defense to the Forms 4340. As such, the contention
interrogatories were permissible and the Boyces were required to respond to them."
You stated Defendant disagrees. Plaintiffintends to move to compel.
3 Defendant's response is vague and non-specific. It fails to specify (i) what efforts
were made by whom to "counsel Plaintiff', (ii) what physical confrontations
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 131/146
- - rom: aw ce o ugene ee g : pm
Plaintiff allegedly had with other persons and with whom, etc.
You stated Defendant would supplement its response by March 5.
9 The term "IDENTIFY" when used in connection with natural PERSONS includes
the name, address, phone number, the current or most recent position held with YOUif the PERSON is or was employed with YOU as of the date these interrogatories are
answered, and the last day ofthe PERSON's employment with YOu. Defendant has
not fully responded to the interrogatory.
You stated Defendant will supplement its response by giving the last date of
employment and current or most recent position for each person listed.
10 Plaintiff's position is that it is entitled to know the dates of employment, job titles,
dates, circumstances and reasons for departure ofCounty employees named as
potential witnesses by Defendant. Moreover, all grounds for objection to an
interrogatory must be stated "with specificity." FRCP 33(b)(4); see Nagele v.
Electronic Data Systems Corp. (WD NY 2000) 193 FRD 94,109 (objection thatinterrogatories were "burdensome" overruled because objecting party failed to
"particularize" basis for objection). Regarding Ev. C. 1040, it is a generally-worded
statute regarding "official information". Defendants have the burden under Ev. C.
1040 to establish the specific "official information" privilege.
Defendant disagrees. Plaintiff intends to move to compel.
IS The term "IDENTIFY" when used in connection with natural PERSONS includes
the name, address, phone number, the current or most recent position held with YOU
if the PERSON is or was employed with YOU as of the date these interrogatories are
answered, and the last day ofthe PERSON's employment with you. Defendant has
not fully responded to the interrogatory. When used in connection withDOCUMENTS, the term "IDENTIFY" includes the name(s) ofthe author(s),
name(s) of recipient(s), date of creation, date ofmodification, date of delivery, date
of execution, effective date, subject matter, bates numbers, page numbers, paragraph
numbers, line numbers and/or section numbers. Defendant has not fully responded to
the interrogatory. Also, Defendant has failed to state the "role" each person listed
played in the PEER REVIEW.
You stated Defendant will supplement its response.
23 All grounds for objection to an interrogatory must be stated "with specificity." FRCP
33(b)(4); see Nagele v. Electronic Data Systems Corp. (WD NY 2000) 193 FRD 94,
109 (objection that interrogatories were "burdensome" overruled because objectingparty failed to "particularize" basis for objection). Regarding Ev. C. 1040, it is a
generally-worded statute regarding "official information". Defendants have the
burden under Ev. C. 1040 to establish the specific "official information" privilege.
Moreover, no HIPAA protected information has been requested.
You stated Defendant will supplement its response.
24 All grounds for objection to an interrogatory must be stated "with specificity." FRCP
2
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 115 of 130
- - rom: aw ce o ugene ee g : pm
Plaintiff allegedly had with other persons and with whom, etc.
You stated Defendant would supplement its response by March 5.
9 The term "IDENTIFY" when used in connection with natural PERSONS includes
the name, address, phone number, the current or most recent position held with YOUif the PERSON is or was employed with YOU as of the date these interrogatories are
answered, and the last day ofthe PERSON's employment with YOu. Defendant has
not fully responded to the interrogatory.
You stated Defendant will supplement its response by giving the last date of
employment and current or most recent position for each person listed.
10 Plaintiff's position is that it is entitled to know the dates of employment, job titles,
dates, circumstances and reasons for departure ofCounty employees named as
potential witnesses by Defendant. Moreover, all grounds for objection to an
interrogatory must be stated "with specificity." FRCP 33(b)(4); see Nagele v.
Electronic Data Systems Corp. (WD NY 2000) 193 FRD 94,109 (objection thatinterrogatories were "burdensome" overruled because objecting party failed to
"particularize" basis for objection). Regarding Ev. C. 1040, it is a generally-worded
statute regarding "official information". Defendants have the burden under Ev. C.
1040 to establish the specific "official information" privilege.
Defendant disagrees. Plaintiff intends to move to compel.
IS The term "IDENTIFY" when used in connection with natural PERSONS includes
the name, address, phone number, the current or most recent position held with YOU
if the PERSON is or was employed with YOU as of the date these interrogatories are
answered, and the last day ofthe PERSON's employment with you. Defendant has
not fully responded to the interrogatory. When used in connection withDOCUMENTS, the term "IDENTIFY" includes the name(s) ofthe author(s),
name(s) of recipient(s), date of creation, date ofmodification, date of delivery, date
of execution, effective date, subject matter, bates numbers, page numbers, paragraph
numbers, line numbers and/or section numbers. Defendant has not fully responded to
the interrogatory. Also, Defendant has failed to state the "role" each person listed
played in the PEER REVIEW.
You stated Defendant will supplement its response.
23 All grounds for objection to an interrogatory must be stated "with specificity." FRCP
33(b)(4); see Nagele v. Electronic Data Systems Corp. (WD NY 2000) 193 FRD 94,
109 (objection that interrogatories were "burdensome" overruled because objectingparty failed to "particularize" basis for objection). Regarding Ev. C. 1040, it is a
generally-worded statute regarding "official information". Defendants have the
burden under Ev. C. 1040 to establish the specific "official information" privilege.
Moreover, no HIPAA protected information has been requested.
You stated Defendant will supplement its response.
24 All grounds for objection to an interrogatory must be stated "with specificity." FRCP
2
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 132/146
- - rom: aw ce o ugene ee g : pm
33(b)(4); see Nagele v. Electronic Data Systems Corp. (WD NY 2000) 193 FRD 94,
109 (objection that interrogatories were "burdensome" overruled because objecting
party failed to "particularize" basis for objection). Regarding Ev. C. 1040, it is a
generally-worded statute regarding "official information". Defendants have the
burden under Ev.C.
1040 to establish the specific "official information" privilege.
Moreover, no HIPAA protected information has been requested.
You stated Defendant will supplement its response.
25 Plaintiff's position is that Defendant's objection only goes to the phrase "other than
PLAINTIFF". When objection is made to part of an interrogatory, the remainder of
the interrogatory must be answered (unless an extension is obtained). FRCP
33(b)(l).
You stated Defendant will supplement its response.
27 The term "IDENTIFY" when used in connection with natural PERSONS includesthe name, address, phone number, the current or most recent position held with YOU
if the PERSON is or was employed with YOU as of the date these interrogatories are
answered, and the last day ofthe PERSON's employment with you. Defendant hasnot fully responded to the interrogatory..
Moreover, Defendant has failed to state the dates of administrative leave, and any
and all reasons for such leave.
You stated Defendant will supplement its response and understands that it has
waived objections by failing to raise them in its Response. Absent extension or good
cause, failure to timely respond to interrogatories generally constitutes a waiver of
any objections thereto. FRCP 33(b)(4); Davis v. Fendler (9th Cir. 1981) 650 F2d
1154, 1160; Starlight Int'l, Inc. v. Herlihy (D KS 1998) 181 FRD 494, 497.
28 At Defendant's request, Plaintiffhas agreed to narrow this interrogatory from
"MEDICAL STAFF" to "CORE PHYSICIANS". Based on this narrowing, you
agreed that Defendant would supplement its response.
29/30 Defendant's responses to these interrogatories are contradictory and illogical.
Plaintiff further explained that the term "renew" includes the "replacement of an old
contract with a new contract". See Black's LegalDictionary.
You agreed and stated Defendant will supplement its response.
31/32 Defendant 's response is completely non-responsive.
You stated Defendant will supplement its response.
36/37 Defendant failed to state the date the decision was made.
You stated Defendant will supplement its response.
39 Defendant failed to state the date the decision was made TO RECOMMEND
REDUCTION of Plaintiff's base salary in 2006 (NOT approve it).
3
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 116 of 130
- - rom: aw ce o ugene ee g : pm
33(b)(4); see Nagele v. Electronic Data Systems Corp. (WD NY 2000) 193 FRD 94,
109 (objection that interrogatories were "burdensome" overruled because objecting
party failed to "particularize" basis for objection). Regarding Ev. C. 1040, it is a
generally-worded statute regarding "official information". Defendants have the
burden under Ev.C.
1040 to establish the specific "official information" privilege.
Moreover, no HIPAA protected information has been requested.
You stated Defendant will supplement its response.
25 Plaintiff's position is that Defendant's objection only goes to the phrase "other than
PLAINTIFF". When objection is made to part of an interrogatory, the remainder of
the interrogatory must be answered (unless an extension is obtained). FRCP
33(b)(l).
You stated Defendant will supplement its response.
27 The term "IDENTIFY" when used in connection with natural PERSONS includesthe name, address, phone number, the current or most recent position held with YOU
if the PERSON is or was employed with YOU as of the date these interrogatories are
answered, and the last day ofthe PERSON's employment with you. Defendant hasnot fully responded to the interrogatory..
Moreover, Defendant has failed to state the dates of administrative leave, and any
and all reasons for such leave.
You stated Defendant will supplement its response and understands that it has
waived objections by failing to raise them in its Response. Absent extension or good
cause, failure to timely respond to interrogatories generally constitutes a waiver of
any objections thereto. FRCP 33(b)(4); Davis v. Fendler (9th Cir. 1981) 650 F2d
1154, 1160; Starlight Int'l, Inc. v. Herlihy (D KS 1998) 181 FRD 494, 497.
28 At Defendant's request, Plaintiffhas agreed to narrow this interrogatory from
"MEDICAL STAFF" to "CORE PHYSICIANS". Based on this narrowing, you
agreed that Defendant would supplement its response.
29/30 Defendant's responses to these interrogatories are contradictory and illogical.
Plaintiff further explained that the term "renew" includes the "replacement of an old
contract with a new contract". See Black's LegalDictionary.
You agreed and stated Defendant will supplement its response.
31/32 Defendant 's response is completely non-responsive.
You stated Defendant will supplement its response.
36/37 Defendant failed to state the date the decision was made.
You stated Defendant will supplement its response.
39 Defendant failed to state the date the decision was made TO RECOMMEND
REDUCTION of Plaintiff's base salary in 2006 (NOT approve it).
3
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 133/146
- - rom: aw ce o ugene ee g : pm
You stated Defendaut will supplement its response.
41 The amount of reduction of Plaintiff's base salary was a precise number.
Defendant's response fails to state the manner of calculation and all factual bases
relied on.
You stated Defendant will supplement its response.
42 The term "IDENTIFY" when used in connection with natural PERSONS includes
the name, address, phone number, the current or most recent position held with YOU
ifthe PERSON is or was employed with YOU as ofthe date these interrogatories are
answered, and the last day ofthe PERSON's employment with you. Defendant has
not fully responded to the interrogatory. and failed to IDENTIFY "counsel".
Moreover, Defendants fail to state the date the decision was made.
You stated Defendant will supplement its response.
43 Defendants fail to state the date the decision was made.
You stated Defendant will supplement its response.
44 Defendant's response is utterly non-responsive.
You stated Defendant will supplement its response.
46/47 Plaintif fexplained that the questions are intended to determine which documents in
the Rule 26 Initial Disclosures will be subject to privilege-based admissibility
challenges by Defendant.
You stated Defendant will supplement its response. You also acknowledged the
meaning ofthe term "IDENTIFY" as used in this Interrogatory includes the name(s)ofthe author(s), name(s) ofrecipient(s), date of creation, date ofmodification, date
of delivery, date of execution, effective date, subject matter, bates numbers, page
numbers, paragraph numbers, line numbers and/or section numbers.
48 An answer to an interrogatory should be complete in itself and should not refer to the
pleadings, or to depositions or other documents, or to other interrogatories. Scaife v.
Boenne (ND IN 2000) 191 FRD 590, 594.
Moreover, Defendant has the burden of stating what the essential functions of
Plaintiff's position were.
You stated Defendant will supplement its response by stating the "essentialfunctions" of Plaintiff's position.
4
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 117 of 130
- - rom: aw ce o ugene ee g : pm
You stated Defendaut will supplement its response.
41 The amount of reduction of Plaintiff's base salary was a precise number.
Defendant's response fails to state the manner of calculation and all factual bases
relied on.
You stated Defendant will supplement its response.
42 The term "IDENTIFY" when used in connection with natural PERSONS includes
the name, address, phone number, the current or most recent position held with YOU
ifthe PERSON is or was employed with YOU as ofthe date these interrogatories are
answered, and the last day ofthe PERSON's employment with you. Defendant has
not fully responded to the interrogatory. and failed to IDENTIFY "counsel".
Moreover, Defendants fail to state the date the decision was made.
You stated Defendant will supplement its response.
43 Defendants fail to state the date the decision was made.
You stated Defendant will supplement its response.
44 Defendant's response is utterly non-responsive.
You stated Defendant will supplement its response.
46/47 Plaintif fexplained that the questions are intended to determine which documents in
the Rule 26 Initial Disclosures will be subject to privilege-based admissibility
challenges by Defendant.
You stated Defendant will supplement its response. You also acknowledged the
meaning ofthe term "IDENTIFY" as used in this Interrogatory includes the name(s)ofthe author(s), name(s) ofrecipient(s), date of creation, date ofmodification, date
of delivery, date of execution, effective date, subject matter, bates numbers, page
numbers, paragraph numbers, line numbers and/or section numbers.
48 An answer to an interrogatory should be complete in itself and should not refer to the
pleadings, or to depositions or other documents, or to other interrogatories. Scaife v.
Boenne (ND IN 2000) 191 FRD 590, 594.
Moreover, Defendant has the burden of stating what the essential functions of
Plaintiff's position were.
You stated Defendant will supplement its response by stating the "essentialfunctions" of Plaintiff's position.
4
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 134/146
- - rom: aw ce o ugene ee g : pm
We look forward to our next meet and confer conference call with you at 9:30 a.ill. tomorrow
(February 21, 2008).
cc:
EtDavid F. Jadwin, D.O., F.C.A.P. \J
5
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 118 of 130
- - rom: aw ce o ugene ee g : pm
We look forward to our next meet and confer conference call with you at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow
(February 21, 2008).
cc:
Et
David F. Jadwin, D.O., F.C.A.P. Iv)
5
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 135/146
1
Eugene D. Lee
From: Eugene D. Lee [[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 12:13 PMTo: '[email protected]'Subject: RPD1/ROG1
Mark,
It was a pleasure speaking with you this morning.
We had discussed the following:
- You said that you had just received 2 boxes of additional documents from KMC and that you would behanding me those documents at the beginning of Dr. Jadwin’s deposition on March 11. We also agreed that we would have a call at 5 p.m. on Sunday, March 9, to discuss Plaintiff’s requests 65, 66, 67, 69, 70, 72, 76,77 and 78.
- You said that, today, you would be serving supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories 10, 15, 23,24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 36, 37, 38, 39, 42, 43, 44, 48, as well as a letter explaining Defendant’s refusal to
supplement responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories 1-7, 9, 31-32, 41, 46, 47- I further clarified interrogatories 46 and 47 (for a second time), explaining that Plaintiff seeks to know which
documents produced in the Initial Disclosures by ANY party are subject to Defendants’ claim of privilegeand challenge to admissibility. You confirmed that you had no further confusions or need for furtherclarification of interrogatories 46 and 47 and that you fully understood them.
- I explained that Plaintiff intends to immediately file a motion to compel regarding any unresolved requestsfor production and/or interrogatories.
Also, regarding Dr. Jadwin’s deposition, you stated it was Defendants’ intention to complete Dr. Jadwin’sdeposition by March 12. If that does not occur, Plaintiff will not agree to a third deposition session in the absenceof a stipulation or court order.
I look forward to discussing the requests for production with you on March 9. Please contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Gene Lee
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
L A W O F F I C E O F E U G E N E L E E
E M P L O Y M E N T L A W
5 5 5 W E S T F I F T H S T . , S T E . 3 1 0 0
L O S A N G E L E S , C A 9 0 0 1 3T e l : ( 2 1 3 ) 9 9 2 - 3 2 9 9F a x : ( 2 1 3 ) 5 9 6 - 0 4 8 7E - m a i l : [email protected]
W e b s i t e : www.LOEL.com B l o g : www.CaLaborLaw.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 119 of 130
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 136/146
ar 05 08 03:35p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.1
The Law Offices of Mark A. Wasser400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100Sacramento, California 95814
Office: 916444-6400Fax: 916-444-6405
FaxTo: Eugene Lee
Fax: (213) 596-0487
Phone: (213) 992-3299
From: AmyRemly
Pages: 5 (including cover page)
Date: 3/5/08
Re: Jadwin v. County ofKern CC:
D Urgent D ForReview D Please Comment D Please Reply D Please Recycle
• Comments:
Please see attached letter.
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 120 of 130
ar 05 08 03:35p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.1
The Law Offices of Mark A. Wasser400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100Sacramento, California 95814Office: 916444-6400Fax: 916-444-6405
FaxTo: Eugene Lee
Fax: (213) 596-0487
Phone: (213) 992-3299
From: AmyRemly
Pages: 5 (including cover page)
Date: 3/5/08
Re: Jadwin v. County ofKern CC:
D Urgent D ForReview D Please Comment D Please Reply D Please Recycle
• Comments:
Please see attached letter.
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 137/146
ar 05 08 03:35p Mark Wasser
Law Offices of
MARK A. WASSER400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100
Sacl'am.entQ, California 95814
Office: 916-444-6400 Fax: 916-444-6405
mwasser@markwasser,com
916-444-6405 p.2
March 5, 2008
VIA FACSIMILE AND FIRST CLASS MAIL
Eugene Lee
Law Offices of Eugene Lee
555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100
Los Angeles, California 90013-1010
Re: Jadwin v. County ofKern, et al.
Dear Gene:
This is in response to our telephone conferences O n February 20 and today
regarding the Defendants' supplemental responses to Plaintiff's first set of
interrogatories.
Interrogatory Numbers 1. 2. 4. 5.6 an d 7.
Although we objected to this interrogatory on grounds of attorney work product
and attorney-client privilege, the facts that support the third affinnative defense are set
forth in the Second Supplemental Complaint and in the text of the defense itself. The
third affirmative defense states that the Defendants' actions, as alleged in the Second
Supplemental Complaint, were in furtherance ofmedical peer review, maintenance of
quality of care standards, discharge of official duties and performed in the course of
official proceedings authorized by law and that, as such, they are privileged under the
referenced statutes. In drafting the third affirmative defense, the Defendants bad in mind
only the facts alleged in the Second Supplemental Complaint. The legal analysis and
reasoning why the Defendants believe their actions are privileged is protected under
attorney-work product and attorney-client privilege doctrines but the facts have been
disclosed.
The same is true of the fourth, sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth affirmativedefenses. They each reference the factual allegations set forth in the Second
Supplemental Complaint. In interposing those defenses the defendants had no facts in
mind other than those set forth in the Second Supplemental Complaint.
Admitted to Pracrice in California and Nevada
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 121 of 130
ar 05 08 03:35p Mark Wasser
Law Offices of
MARK A. WASSER400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100
Sacl'am.entQ, California 95814
Office: 916-444-6400 Fax: 916-444-6405
mwasser@markwasser,com
916-444-6405 p.2
March 5, 2008
VIA FACSIMILE AND FIRST CLASS MAIL
Eugene Lee
Law Offices of Eugene Lee
555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100
Los Angeles, California 90013-1010
Re: Jadwin v. County ofKern, et al.
Dear Gene:
This is in response to our telephone conferences O n February 20 and today
regarding the Defendants' supplemental responses to Plaintiff's first set of
interrogatories.
Interrogatory Numbers 1. 2. 4. 5.6 an d 7.
Although we objected to this interrogatory on grounds of attorney work product
and attorney-client privilege, the facts that support the third affinnative defense are set
forth in the Second Supplemental Complaint and in the text of the defense itself. The
third affirmative defense states that the Defendants' actions, as alleged in the Second
Supplemental Complaint, were in furtherance ofmedical peer review, maintenance of
quality of care standards, discharge of official duties and performed in the course of
official proceedings authorized by law and that, as such, they are privileged under the
referenced statutes. In drafting the third affirmative defense, the Defendants bad in mind
only the facts alleged in the Second Supplemental Complaint. The legal analysis and
reasoning why the Defendants believe their actions are privileged is protected under
attorney-work product and attorney-client privilege doctrines but the facts have been
disclosed.
The same is true of the fourth, sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth affirmativedefenses. They each reference the factual allegations set forth in the Second
Supplemental Complaint. In interposing those defenses the defendants had no facts in
mind other than those set forth in the Second Supplemental Complaint.
Admitted to Pracrice in California and Nevada
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 138/146
ar 05 08 03:35p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.3
Eugene Lee
March 5, 2008
Page 2
Thus, there are no additional facts to disclose.
Interrogatory Number 3.
The text of the fifth affirmative defense and our response to interrogatory number
three fully disclosed the factual basis for that defense. In addition, the defendants have
produced several tens of thousands of documents and Plaintiffhas taken the depositions
of several current and former members of the Kern Medical Center staff. TheDefendants
are under no obligation to summarize, in their response to Interrogatory Number Three,
the discovery that has occurred in this case to date. For example, although you assert that
the Defendants have not disclosed "what physical confrontations plaintiffallegedly had
with other persons" the Defendants have produced the transcript of the investigation that
was conducted after your client pulled a fellow physician out of a room by his necktie.
We have disclosed letters admonishing your client for his behavior and you have listened
to the deposition testimony of several employees describing your client's behavior. The
Defendants' response to Interrogatory Number Three is more than adequate.
Interrogatory Numbers 9 and 10.
You continue to characterize the individuals we identified in our Initial
Disclosures as "witnesses" and these two Interrogatories seek additional information
about those individuals on the assumption they are witnesses. As I have told you on
multiple occasions, the Defendants have not yet identified any ",itnesses. The list of
persons included in the Defendants' initial disclosures was compiled in compliance with
Rule 26(a)(I )(A) which requires the name and address "of each individual likely to havediscoverable infoffilation". It is not a witness list and Defendants have made no decision
regarding who may be a witness in this action. There are no "witnesses" identified in the
initial disclosures. I
Plaintiff's attempt to bootstrap the persons identified in Defendants' initial
disclosures into a list of trial witnesses and then demand employment history information
on all of them is burdensome and oppressive and Defendants will not respond further to
tillS interrogatory for that reason.
At your request, Defendants will produce all those individuals for deposition and
you are free to inquire as to their employment history. As soon as Defendants identifyany trial witnesses, we will share that list with you.
Interrogatory Number 28.
It is a small point but the Defendants did not request that Plaintiffnarrow this
interrogatory from "medical staff' to "core physicians". The Defendants objected to the
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 122 of 130
ar 05 08 03:35p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.3
Eugene Lee
March 5, 2008
Page 2
Thus, there are no additional facts to disclose.
Interrogatory Number 3.
The text of the fifth affirmative defense and our response to interrogatory number
three fully disclosed the factual basis for that defense. In addition, the defendants have
produced several tens of thousands of documents and Plaintiffhas taken the depositions
of several current and former members of the Kern Medical Center staff. TheDefendants
are under no obligation to summarize, in their response to Interrogatory Number Three,
the discovery that has occurred in this case to date. For example, although you assert that
the Defendants have not disclosed "what physical confrontations plaintiffallegedly had
with other persons" the Defendants have produced the transcript of the investigation that
was conducted after your client pulled a fellow physician out of a room by his necktie.
We have disclosed letters admonishing your client for his behavior and you have listened
to the deposition testimony of several employees describing your client's behavior. The
Defendants' response to Interrogatory Number Three is more than adequate.
Interrogatory Numbers 9 and 10.
You continue to characterize the individuals we identified in our Initial
Disclosures as "witnesses" and these two Interrogatories seek additional information
about those individuals on the assumption they are witnesses. As I have told you on
multiple occasions, the Defendants have not yet identified any v.itnesses. The list of
persons included in the Defendants' initial disclosures was compiled in compliance with
Rule 26(a)(I )(A) which requires the name and address "of each individual likely to havediscoverable infoffilation". It is not a witness list and Defendants have made no decision
regarding who may be a witness in this action. There are no "witnesses" identified in the
initial disclosures. I
Plaintiff's attempt to bootstrap the persons identified in Defendants' initial
disclosures into a list of trial witnesses and then demand employment history information
on all of them is burdensome and oppressive and Defendants will not respond further to
tillS interrogatory for that reason.
At your request, Defendants will produce all those individuals for deposition and
you are free to inquire as to their employment history. As soon as Defendants identifyany trial witnesses, we will share that list with you.
Interrogatory Number 28.
It is a small point but the Defendants did not request that Plaintiffnarrow this
interrogatory from "medical staff' to "core physicians". The Defendants objected to the
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 139/146
ar 05 08 03:36p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 pA
Eugene Lee
March 5, 2008
Page 3
interrogatory and refused to respond further. You agreed to limit the interrogatory to
only core physicians and I agreed, based upon that narrowing, to reconsider our response.
Interrogatory Numbers 29 and 30.
The Defendants' responses to these interrogatories are neither contradictory nor
illogical and, contrary to what you write in your letter, we have not agreed that they are.
The history of physician agreements at KMC does not lend itselfto categorization basedon the length of the contract. It is more complicated. Nevertheless, and despite the fact
that answering this Interrogatory will yield nothing of any use in this case, Defendants
will supplement their answer.
InterrogatoryNumbers 31 and 32.
The Defendants' responses to these interrogatories are responsive. As I explained
to you during our telephone conference, the job descriptions and employment agreements
for medical staff employed at Kern Medical Center include a provision requiring them to
comply with all hospital policies and procedures. Your client issued rules for the
Pathology Department that required staffpathologists to provide onsite shift coverage
during specifically stated hours and carry pagers when on call. Thus, those requirements
became part of the job description and employment agreement for each and every staff
pathologist employed after October 24, 2000. The Defendants have previously provided
lists of staffpathologists employed since 2000 and there is no reason to do so again.
Interrogatory Number 41.
The Defendants recognize that the amount of the reduction in Plaintiffs base
salary was a precise number. Our response to Interrogatory Number Forty-One
accurately and completely responds to the interrogatory. Plaintiff's new salary was
selected because it was comparable to that of a core pathologist. There is no further
explanation required and defendants will not respond further to this interrogatory.
Interrogatory Numbers 46 and 47.
Defendants prepared a privilege log that accompanied their initial disclosures.
Documents the Defendants believe are privileged are identified in the privilege log. Youhave asked us to review Plaintiff's Initial Disclosures and let you know if we think any
documents Plaintiff disclosed are privileged. As you note, we have discussed it twice.
You describe this request as a "housekeeping" issue and that you simply want to know if
Defendants intend to object to the admissibility of any documents contained in your
Initial Disclosures on the basis ofprivilege. This still strikes me as a strange request but I
will review your Initial Disclosures and let you know ifwe believe any of the documents
you disclosed are privileged.
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 123 of 130
ar 05 08 03:36p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 pA
Eugene Lee
March 5, 2008
Page 3
interrogatory and refused to respond further. You agreed to limit the interrogatory to
only core physicians and I agreed, based upon that narrowing, to reconsider our response.
Interrogatory Numbers 29 and 30.
The Defendants' responses to these interrogatories are neither contradictory nor
illogical and, contrary to what you write in your letter, we have not agreed that they are.
The history of physician agreements at KMC does not lend itselfto categorization basedon the length of the contract. It is more complicated. Nevertheless, and despite the fact
that answering this Interrogatory will yield nothing of any use in this case, Defendants
will supplement their answer.
InterrogatoryNumbers 31 and 32.
The Defendants' responses to these interrogatories are responsive. As I explained
to you during our telephone conference, the job descriptions and employment agreements
for medical staff employed at Kern Medical Center include a provision requiring them to
comply with all hospital policies and procedures. Your client issued rules for the
Pathology Department that required staffpathologists to provide onsite shift coverage
during specifically stated hours and carry pagers when on call. Thus, those requirements
became part of the job description and employment agreement for each and every staff
pathologist employed after October 24, 2000. The Defendants have previously provided
lists of staffpathologists employed since 2000 and there is no reason to do so again.
Interrogatory Number 41.
The Defendants recognize that the amount of the reduction in Plaintiffs base
salary was a precise number. Our response to Interrogatory Number Forty-One
accurately and completely responds to the interrogatory. Plaintiff's new salary was
selected because it was comparable to that of a core pathologist. There is no further
explanation required and defendants will not respond further to this interrogatory.
Interrogatory Numbers 46 and 47.
Defendants prepared a privilege log that accompanied their initial disclosures.
Documents the Defendants believe are privileged are identified in the privilege log. Youhave asked us to review Plaintiff's Initial Disclosures and let you know ifwe think any
documents Plaintiff disclosed are privileged. As you note, we have discussed it twice.
You describe this request as a "housekeeping" issue and that you simply want to know if
Defendants intend to object to the admissibility of any documents contained in your
Initial Disclosures on the basis ofprivilege. This still strikes me as a strange request but I
will review your Initial Disclosures and let you know ifwe believe any of the documents
you disclosed are privileged.
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 140/146
ar 05 08 03:36p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.5
Eugene Lee
March 5, 2008
Page 4
With regard to the other interrogatories referenc·ed in your February 20 letter, to
the extent Defendants have additional information, we will serve a set of supplemental
responses today.
Very Truly Yours,
Mark A. Wasser
cc; Karen Baines (via facsimile)
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 124 of 130
ar 05 08 03:36p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.5
Eugene Lee
March 5, 2008
Page 4
With regard to the other interrogatories referenc·ed in your February 20 letter, to
the extent Defendants have additional information, we will serve a set of supplemental
responses today.
Very Truly Yours,
Mark A. Wasser
cc; Karen Baines (via facsimile)
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 141/146
1
Eugene D. Lee
From: Mark Wasser [[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 3:39 PMTo: Eugene LeeSubject: Verification to Supplemental ResponsesAttachments: Jadwin.Signature.Supplemental Interrogatories.030508.pdf; Karen Barnes.vcf
Gene,
Here is the verification to the supplemental responses to the interrogatories.
Mark
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 125 of 130
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 142/146
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 126 of 130
50, section 9.7-5, Responsibilities and Duties ofDcparlment Chairs and Plaintiffsjob
2 description.
3
4SIGNATURE OF PARTY UNDER OATH
5 I, Paul 1. Hensler, have read Plainlifrs first sel of interrogatories to Defendants and {he
6 foregoing supplemental answers thereto and certify under penalty of perjury that the
7 supplemental answers are tme and correct.
8
9
10
I I12
Dated: March s-, 2008
B y . : ~y j } J ~ _L=---_Paul J. Hensler
Chief Executive Orficer, Kern Medical Center
13SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY AS TO OBJECTIONS
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
247 '-,
26
27
28
Dated: M,uch __ ' 2008 LA W OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER
By:_-,-.,---,------:.,,-- _
Mark A. WasserAttorney for Defendants, County ofKem, et al.
29
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSESTO PLAfNTIFF'S fNTERROGATORJES
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 143/146
EXHIBITS TO JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENTre: INTERROGATORIES 5
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
EXHIBIT 5:
Declaration of Eugene Lee in Support of Motion
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 127 of 130
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 144/146
DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TOINTERROGATORIES 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Eugene D. Lee SB#: 236812LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100Los Angeles, CA 90013Phone: (213) 992-3299
Fax: (213) 596-0487email: [email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.,
Plaintiff,v.
COUNTY OF KERN, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG
DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPELRESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES
Date: April 28, 2008Time: 9:30 a.m.Place: U.S. District Court, Bankruptcy Courtroom
1300 18th St., Bakersfield, CA
Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007Date Set for Trial: December 3, 2008
Plaintiff submits this Declaration of Eugene D. Lee pursuant to Local Rule 37-251(d) in lieu of a
joint statement re discovery disagreement.
I, Eugene D. Lee, declare as follows:
7. I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before the Federal and State Courts of
California and admitted to practice before the U.S.D.C. for the Eastern District of California. I am
counsel of record for Plaintiff David F. Jadwin in this matter.
8. I am making this declaration in support of plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to
interrogatories. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth below and I could and would
competently testify thereto if called as a witness in this matter.
9. I have spent and anticipate spending substantially in excess of 5 hours meeting and
conferring with Mr. Wasser by phone, fax, letter and email, researching and drafting these moving
papers and attending the motion hearing in Bakersfield, CA. My regular rate for such services is $400
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 128 of 130
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 145/146
DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TOINTERROGATORIES 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
26
27
28
per hour.
10. My rate is consistent with those charged in the Los Angeles area by attorneys of similar
skill and experience. I received my B.A. with honors from Harvard University in 1991 and my J.D. with
honors from the University of Michigan Law School in 1995. I was admitted to the New York State Bar
in 1996 and worked as an associate in the New York office of Shearman & Sterling from 1995 to 1996. I
worked as an associate in the New York office of Sullivan & Cromwell from 1996 to 1997. After a brief
leave of absence from practicing law from 1997 to 1999, I returned to active practice as the General
Counsel of Tcom America, Inc., a technology venture in Silicon Valley from 1999 to 2002. From 2002
to 2004, I worked as a senior associate for Kim & Chang, a law firm located in Seoul, Korea. In 2005, I
was admitted to the California Bar. I have been the principal of Law Office of Eugene Lee since 2005.
11. I attempted several times to secure local counsel to prosecute Plaintiff’s suit but was
ultimately unsuccessful.
12. On September 18, 2006, I sent an email to over 600 members of the California
Employment Lawyers Association seeking co-counsel. No attorneys from Fresno responded.
13. On February 28, 2007, I called Andrew Jones, Esq. in Fresno, CA, requesting his
involvement as local counsel in this action. Mr. Jones declined.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the United States
that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on: April 23, 2008
/s/ Eugene D. Lee
EUGENE D. LEEDeclarant
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 129 of 130
8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 146/146
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, hereby declare:
I am a resident of Los Angeles in the State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party
to the action described herein. I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, California. My businessaddress is LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE, 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100, Los Angeles, CA90013. On the date of execution of this DOCUMENT, I served the following:
JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPELRESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES
on the following parties in this action by and through their attorneys addressed as follows:
Mark A. WasserLAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100Sacramento, CA 95814Fax: (916) 444-6405Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern, PeterBryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher, JenniferAbraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smith andWilliam Roy
BY UNITED STATES MAIL: I enclosed the DOCUMENT(s) listed above in a sealed envelopewith postage thereon fully prepaid, addressed to the PERSON(s) listed above, and deposited the sealedenvelope with the United States Postal Service at Los Angeles, California. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is morethan one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 130 of 130