Upload
eugene-d-lee
View
224
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/14/2019 83 MTC Declaration Re Joint Statement
1/207
DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE re: INABILITY TO SECURE COOPERATION OFDEFENDANTS COUNSEL TO PREPARE AND EXECUTE JOINT STATEMENT 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 LEE555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100Los Angeles, CA 90013Phone: (213) 992-3299
Fax: (213) 596-0487email: [email protected]
Joan Herrington, SB# 178988BAY AREA EMPLOYMENT LAW OFFICE5032 Woodminster LaneOakland, CA 94602-2614Telephone: (510) 530-4078Facsimile: (510) 530-4725Email: [email protected] Counsel to LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE
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
Date: January 14, 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.
//
//
//
//
///
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 83 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 1 of 207
8/14/2019 83 MTC Declaration Re Joint Statement
2/207
DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE re: INABILITY TO SECURE COOPERATION OFDEFENDANTS COUNSEL TO PREPARE AND EXECUTE JOINT STATEMENT 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
I, Eugene D. Lee, declare as follows:
1. I am counsel of record for Plaintiff. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forthbelow and I could and would competently testify thereto if called as a witness in this matter.
2. Pursuant to Local Rule 37-251, I attempted to secure the cooperation of Defendantscounsel, Mark Wasser, to prepare and execute a joint statement re discovery disagreement. I had
numerous, extensive meet and confer discussions with Mr. Wasser by phone, email and fax. On Friday,
January 4, 2008, at around 4 p.m., I sent Mr. Wasser a draft version of the Joint Statement re: Discovery
Disagreement by fax, requesting his input. I explained in the cover letter that the draft was a work in
progress and remained subject to change. I also sent to Mr. Wasser, via first-class mail, a copy of the
exhibits which I intended to attach to the Joint Statement. Later that day, at around 11 p.m., I sent Mr.
Wasser another draft of the Joint Statement by fax, again requesting his input.
3. On January 9, 2008, I approached Mr. Wasser at a deposition he was conducting of myclient, Plaintiff David Jadwin, and asked him for his feedback on the Joint Statement. He responded that
he intended to file a Declaration re Joint Statement stating that I had not delivered to him the exhibits to
the Joint Statement for his review. I explained I had mailed the exhibits to him, per my fax of January 4,
2008. I also offered to give him an electronic version of the exhibits right then and there. Mr. Wasser
refused. The exhibits consist exclusively of faxes, letters and emails exchanged between myself and Mr.
Wasser, all of which Mr. Wasser already has in his possession.
4. To date, I have not received any response from Mr. Wasser regarding the Joint Statement5. Attached hereto as Attachment A is a true and correct copy of the draft Joint Statement
which I had prepared.
6. Defendants refuse to produce documents in response to Plaintiffs request for productionset one unless and until Plaintiff reimburses Defendants for copy costs which Defendants incurred
without once consulting with Plaintiff. Plaintiff had requested Defendants produce the documents for
Plaintiffs inspection and copying at its own cost, but Defendants refused, insisting on reimbursement
for the copies which it had unilaterally made. Plaintiff has moved this Court to compel Defendants to
produce the documents.
7. Defendants refuse to produce a privilege log unless and until Plaintiff reimburses
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 83 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 2 of 207
8/14/2019 83 MTC Declaration Re Joint Statement
3/207
DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE re: INABILITY TO SECURE COOPERATION OFDEFENDANTS COUNSEL TO PREPARE AND EXECUTE JOINT STATEMENT 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 for the above-referenced copy costs. Plaintiff contends that the copy costs have nothing to
do with the privilege log and Defendants should have timely produced it.
8. Defendants invoke peer review privilege based upon state law. Plaintiff contends thatstate privilege law does not apply in federal question jurisdiction cases in federal court. Plaintiff also
contends that there is no federal peer review privilege.
9. Defendants invoke numerous other objections and privileges which Plaintiff contends areimproper and/or baseless.
10. Briefing regarding Plaintiffs above-referenced contentions is contained in the draft JointStatement, attached hereto as Attachment A.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the United States
that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on: January 9, 2008
/s/ Eugene D. Lee
EUGENE D. LEEDeclarant
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 83 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 3 of 207
8/14/2019 83 MTC Declaration Re Joint Statement
4/207
DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE re: INABILITY TO SECURE COOPERATION OFDEFENDANTS COUNSEL TO PREPARE AND EXECUTE JOINT STATEMENT 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
ATTACHMENT A
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 83 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 4 of 207
8/14/2019 83 MTC Declaration Re Joint Statement
5/207
JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 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 LEE555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100Los Angeles, CA 90013Phone: (213) 992-3299
Fax: (213) 596-0487email: [email protected]
Joan Herrington, SB# 178988BAY AREA EMPLOYMENT LAW OFFICE5032 Woodminster LaneOakland, CA 94602-2614Telephone: (510) 530-4078Facsimile: (510) 530-4725Email: [email protected] Counsel to LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE
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 93301
Phone: (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
Date: January 14, 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 83 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 5 of 207
8/14/2019 83 MTC Declaration Re Joint Statement
6/207
JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 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
This joint statement re: discovery disagreement is submitted pursuant to Local Rule 37-251(a) in
advance of the January 14, 2008 hearing on Plaintiffs motion to compel production and further
responses to Plaintiffs requests for production, set one (RPD1).
I. DETAILS OF THE PARTIES DISCOVERY CONFERENCESThe parties engaged in a prolonged meet and confer process that was conducted by letter,
email and phone over the course of several months as shown in the attached Exhibits. Plaintiff David F.
Jadwin (Plaintiff) served RPD1 on Defendant County of Kern (Defendant) on October 11, 2007.
After Defendant served initial responses to Plaintiffs RPD1 (Response 1) on November 20, 2007,
Plaintiff met and conferred extensively with Defendant in an attempt to resolve discovery disputes. As
Defendant has admitted, Plaintiff has tried to be flexible with Defendant in extending deadlines and
narrowing request language. Plaintiff even gave technological advice on optical scanning, OCR
functions, and cost-efficient purchase of Adobe Acrobat 8.0.
On December 17, 2007, four days before the agreed-upon December 21, 2007 deadline to
produce documents, Defendant suddenly demanded Plaintiff pay $10,000 (later reduced to $3,765) in
reimbursement of Kern Countys copy costs. Defendant stated that if it was not in receipt of such
payment, Defendant would not produce any documents at all. Defendant admits it had not previously
raised this issue with Plaintiff.
Plaintiff initially agreed to pay under protest, but after researching case law and upon being
further informed by Defendant for the first time that Many of the documents you have requested have,
at most, a very tenuous connection to any issues in the case, Plaintiff hesitated to pay such a substantial
and possibly wasteful sum for possibly unnecessary copies which Defendant had unilaterally made
without consulting Plaintiff. Unlike Defendant Kern County, Plaintiff is an individual and cannot easily
bear such a cost.
On December 19, 2007, Defendant served supplemental responses (Response 2). As compared
to Response 1, Response 2 raised new objections, contained overbroad objections, contained new
refusals to produce, etc. Despite extensive meet and confers, Response 2 represented a step backward
from Response 1.
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 83 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 6 of 207
8/14/2019 83 MTC Declaration Re Joint Statement
7/207
JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 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
In lieu of paying Defendants demanded sum of $3,765 for copies, Plaintiff requested Defendant
produce originals for inspection and copying at Plaintiffs office, as had been requested in Plaintiffs
RPD1. Defendants refused and, to date, continue to withhold documents and the associated privilege
log.
Following is a brief chronology of relevant events:
October 11, 2007 Plaintiff serves requests for production, set one, on Defendant,requesting written responses by November 12, 2007 andproduction by November 16, 2007.
October 31, 2007 Defendant requests extension of deadlines to December 21,2007.
November 1, 2007 Parties meet and confer by phone.
November 7, 2007 Parties meet and confer by phone. Plaintiff agrees to permitboth responses and production in three separate installmentsdue November 16, December 7 and December 21. Defendantrequests stipulation to delay pre-trial and trial deadlines bythree months to accommodate Defendants documentprocessing requirements. Plaintiff later agrees.
November 14, 2007 Parties meet and confer by phone. Defendant confirmsproduction/response deadlines.
November 15, 2007 Plaintiffs counsel, Eugene Lee, speaks by phone withDefendants counsel, Mark Wasser, and his assistant andguides them through the OCR and redaction functions of
Adobe Acrobat 8.0. In an email, Mr. Lee advises Mr. Wasseron cost-efficient methods to purchase Acrobat.
November 20, 2007 Defendant serves written responses (Response 1) indicatingproduction dates of November 20, December 7 and December21, and the first document production installment (Production1). Production 1 contains up to 8 duplicate sets of the samedocuments. Parties meet and confer by emails.
November 21, 2007 Parties meet and confer by phone regarding Response 1.Defendant agrees that Defendants objection documentsprotected from disclosure by state or federal law is overbroadand intends to revise its responses.
November 26, 2007 Parties meet and confer by phone regarding Response 1.Defendant clarifies that its objection, documents protectedfrom disclosure by state or federal law, refers specifically toHIPAA and peer review privilege. Defendant agrees to reviseResponse 1 accordingly by November 30.
At Defendants request, Plaintiff narrows Request 33 byrevising it to read:
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 83 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 7 of 207
8/14/2019 83 MTC Declaration Re Joint Statement
8/207
JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 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
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO complaints orgrievances made by YOUR past or present employees againstYOU for defamation, retaliation, disability discrimination,failure to accommodate, and/or failure to engage in aninteractive process RELATING TO Kern Medical Center
and/or its officers or staff, including but not limited to anyinformal or internal complaints, grievances or charges to anystate or federal agency, and complaints filed in any state orfederal court from October 24, 2000 to date.(redlined to show revisions)
November 30, 2007 Parties meet and confer by phone regarding Response 1.
December 3, 2007 Parties meet and confer by phone. Defendant reiteratesproduction deadlines of December 7 and December 21.Defendant states that it will serve privilege log on December 6.
December 7, 2007 Defendant fails to produce second document installment(Production 2) or privilege log.
December 13, 2007 Defendant serves incomplete privilege log relating only toProduction 1 (Log 1).
December 14, 2007 Parties meet and confer by email regarding Response 1.Defendant makes no mention of reimbursement costs andstates I expect to produce the remaining documents beforeDecember 21.
December 17, 2007 Parties meet and confer by phone and emails. Defendant raisesthe issue of copy reimbursement costs for the first time anddemands Plaintiff pay $10,000 in actual and estimatedcopy costs, otherwise, Defendant will not produce Production2.
December 19, 2007 Defendant sends fax to Plaintiff requesting Plaintiffs paymentof $3,765 in reimbursement of Defendants copy costs.Defendant admits You are correct that we did not raise theissue of costs earlier.
Defendant serves supplemental responses (Response 2).Response 2 is deficient in that it:
- raises new objections which were waived in Response1;
- fails to narrow Defendants overly-broad objectiondocuments protected from disclosure by state orfederal law as had been agreed on several occasions;
- adds several new refusals to produce documents,despite agreeing to such production in meet and confer;
- refuses to produce documents based on privilegeinstead of producing redacted versions;
- refuses to produce in response to Request 35 indisregard of Plaintiffs narrowing of Request 35 thatDefendant had requested and agreed to.
- conditions all roduction on recei t of reimbursement
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 83 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 8 of 207
8/14/2019 83 MTC Declaration Re Joint Statement
9/207
JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 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
of its estimated copy costs of $3,765.
December 20, 2007 Plaintiff sends fax to Defendant refusing to pay the demandedreimbursement and requesting Defendant produce originaldocuments for Plaintiffs inspection and copying by December
21.Defendant tells Plaintiff that it is suspending production ofdocuments.
December 21, 2007 Defendant fails to produce second document installment orprivilege log (Log 2).
December 28, 2007 Plaintiff and Defendant exchange meet and confer emailsregarding the cost reimbursement issue.
December 31, 2007 Plaintiff and Defendant meet and confer by phone and emailsregarding the cost reimbursement issue and the numerousdeficiencies in Response 2.
January 2, 2008 Plaintiff and Defendant meet and confer by emails regardingthe cost reimbursement issue. Defendant admits to mis-remembering events.
January 4, 2008 Plaintiff and Defendant meet and confer by emails regardingthe cost reimbursement issue. Defendants states they haveidentified case citations which definitively establish thecorrectness of their position. Defendants ask Plaintiff to sharecase citations in support of Plaintiffs position, but when askedto do the same, they refuse.
II. A STATEMENT OF THE NATURE OF THE CASE AND FACTUAL DISPUTESPlaintiff David F. Jadwin, D.O., F.C.A.P., former Chair of Pathology at Kern Medical Center
(KMC) and senior pathologist from October 24, 2000 to October 4, 2007, filed a Complaint with this
Court on January 6, 2007. Plaintiff contends that various defendants retaliated against and defamed him
for reporting his concerns about patient care quality issues at KMC. As a result, Plaintiff was forced to
take medical and recuperative leave for disabling clinical depression in early 2006. While Plaintiff was
on leave, Defendants demoted him in June 2006 to a staff pathologist for unavailability and refused to
reinstate him upon his return to work on October 4, 2006. On December 7, 2006, he was placed on
involuntary administrative leave and restricted to his home during working hours until May 1, 2007.
Around May 1, 2007, Defendant informed Plaintiff of its decision to either buy out the remaining term
of his contract (due to expire on October 4, 2007) or simply let the contract run out. On October 4,
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 83 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 9 of 207
8/14/2019 83 MTC Declaration Re Joint Statement
10/207
JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 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
2007, Defendants did not renew Plaintiffs employment contract.
Plaintiffs Complaint alleges whistleblower retaliation, disability discrimination, medical leave
interference and retaliation, defamation and deprivation of compensation and professional fees without
procedural due process. Critical to Plaintiffs case is evidence that Plaintiff was treated differently from
other similarly situated individuals at KMC, i.e., so-called comparators, as a result of discrimination
and retaliation by Defendants.
Defendants contend that the dispute arose out of Plaintiffs tenure as a pathologist at Kern
Medical Center. Plaintiffs 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 ISSUEA. Defendants Refusal to Produce Documents or Privilege Log until Plaintiff
Reimburses Defendant for Copy Costs
1. Plaintiffs Positiona. The Privilege LogDuring a meet and confer call of December 31, 2007, Defendants stated that they refused to
produce the final privilege log, Log 2, until the cost reimbursement issue regarding production of
Production 2 has been resolved. Later that day, Plaintiff sent an email to Defendants stating: Contrary
to what you said on the call, production of the privilege log should not be made contingent on actual
production of the documents. Presumably Defendants are not asking Plaintiff to reimburse it for copy
costs associated with Log 2. As such, Defendants should have provided Log 2 to Plaintiff on December
21, 2007. Instead, nearly three months after Plaintiff had first served the requests for production set one,
they continue to withhold it.The Court should deem all privileges asserted by Defendants waived. The Court has discretion to
reject a claim of privilege where an insufficient privilege log is provided. United States v. Construction
Products Research, Inc. (2nd Cir. 1996) 73 F3d 464, 473; United States v. British American Tobacco
(Investments) Ltd. (DC Cir. 2004) 387 F3d 884, 890891.
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 83 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 10 of 207
8/14/2019 83 MTC Declaration Re Joint Statement
11/207
JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 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
b. Defendants Rely upon a Misreading of CaselawDefendants have cited page 11-236, section 11:1937 of the Schwarzer, Tashima and Wagstaffe
handbook on federal practice in meet and confers for the proposition that the requesting party must pay
the producing partys copy costs. Section 11:1937 reads:
Ordinarily, the producing party bears the costs of reviewing and gathering documentswhile the requesting party pays for the costs of the copies only. [Continental Ill. Nat'lBank & Trust Co. of Chicago v. Caton (D KS 1991) 136 FRD 682, 690;Bills v.Kennecott Corp. (D UT 1985) 108 FRD 459, 462]CAFEDCIVP CH. 11(IV)-C.
However, Defendants misconstrue this proposition. The proposition is not that requesting party must pay
any and all copy costs incurred in whatsoever manner, no matter how exorbitant or wasteful, by any
party, with or without prior consultation with the requesting party. This would give responding parties
wide discretion to financially harass, ambush and drain the resources of the requesting party, particularly
where, as here, the requesting party is an individual. That is exactly what Defendants have done by
suddenly demanding Plaintiff Dr. Jadwin pay $10,000 in copy costs just four days before the final
production deadline.
The proposition correctly stated is that the responding party must produce documents to the
requesting party, bearing its own costs of gathering the documents, while the requesting party must be
permitted to inspect the documents and copy documents of Plaintiffs choosing, bearing its own costs of
copying and inspection. The Washington District Court articulates this exact proposition (citing both
Continental and Kennecott) in Fryer v. Brown, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20830 (D. Wash. 2005):
Any party may serve on any other party a request to produce and permit the partymaking the request to inspect and copy any designated documents. Fed. R. Civ. P.34(a). Ordinarily, the producing party bears the costs of reviewing and gatheringdocuments while the requesting party pays for the costs and copies only. Continental Ill.Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. Of Chicago v. Caton, 136 FRD 682, 690 (D KS 1991);Bills v.Kennecott Corp., 108 FRD 459, 462 (D UT 1985). [emphasis added].
Plaintiffs requests for production set one had requested Defendants produce and permitinspection and copying of the documents described below [at the office of plaintiff's counsel]. On
December 20, 2007, faced with Defendants sudden last-minute demand for payment of $10,000 in copy
costs (later reduced by Defendants to ~$3,000), Plaintiff had no choice but to reiterate its original
request that Defendants produce the original documents for inspection and copying by Plaintiff at its
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 83 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 11 of 207
8/14/2019 83 MTC Declaration Re Joint Statement
12/207
JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 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
own cost. Defendants refused to comply, citing objections to the manner and place of production despite
having failed to raise, and thereby having waived, those objections in Response 1. Instead, Defendants
continued to insist Plaintiff pay Defendants for copy costs associated with a massive volume of
documents which in Defendants own words have, at most, a very tenuous connection to any issues in
the case, copy costs which Defendants unilaterally incurred without consulting or meeting and
conferring with Plaintiff beforehand.
c. Defendants Had a Duty to Meet and Confer with Plaintiff on Copy CostsEven if the Court determines Defendants are entitled to be reimbursed for their copy costs,
Defendants are under a duty to meet and confer with Plaintiff regarding such costs. In Rodger v.
Electronic Data Sys. Corp., defendant EDS, a large multi-national corporation, argued that plaintiffs
requests for documents relating to multiple reductions in force over a number of years across 26
countries would impose a mind-boggling burden on defendant. 155 F.R.D. 537, 539 (D.N.C. 1994).
TheRodgercourt found it appropriate to tax the costs of production to the plaintiff given the undue
burden imposed on the defendant. However, the court further held that the parties should meet and
confer so as to minimize those costs for the plaintiff:
Defendant's counsel are directed to confer, after consultation with their client, to seek tominimize these costs by: (1) restricting the scope of materials as much as possible, and
(2) using the lowest level employees who have the knowledge and skill required toretrieve the documents. Counsel shall attempt to agree on these expenses and onlyfailing that, file a motion for taxation of these expenses with the court..Id. at 542.
In meet and confers occurring over more than two months, Defendants repeatedly committed to
producing Production 2 by December 21, 2007. It was only on December 17, just four days before the
final production deadline, that Defendants raised the issue of copy costs with Plaintiff. As Defendants
admit, this was the first time Defendants had done so. Defendants demanded Plaintiff pay Defendants
$10,000 or Defendants would not produce Production 2 by December 21, as had been promised.
However, on August 6, 2007, Plaintiff and Defendants had exchanged Rule 26 Initial Disclosures
without either party making any mention of copy costs. Plaintiffs Initial Disclosures were more
voluminous than Defendants Initial Disclosures. On November 20, 2007, Defendants served Production
1 on Plaintiff in the form of electronic files stored on CDs, again without a single mention of copy costs.
Production 1 comprised over 12,000 pages of documents (much of it useless chaff).
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 83 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 12 of 207
8/14/2019 83 MTC Declaration Re Joint Statement
13/207
JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 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
By failing to consult with Plaintiff as to cost, Defendants acted on their own initiative in
incurring processing costs of roughly 14 cents per page. Had Defendants informed Plaintiff earlier of the
substantial costs involved, Plaintiff would definitely have worked with Defendants to narrow requests
and/or suggest other less costly alternatives. As Defendants admit, Plaintiff had already narrowed
numerous production requests in its meet and confers with Defendants in order to expedite Defendants
production.
1. Defendants Position[INSERT HERE]
B. Defendants Objection that Documents are Protected from Disclosure by State orFederal law
1. Plaintiffs PositionIn Response 2, Defendants responses to Plaintiff requests nos. 12-15, 17, 23-30, 32-34, 36-43,
51, 54-58, 63, 65-67, 70-73, and 78 contain the following objection: Defendants also object to this
request to the extent it requests information protected from disclosure by state or federal law . . . .. On
November 20, 2007, Plaintiff sent an email to Defendants explaining why this objection, which was also
contained in Response 1, was overbroad and therefore defective. On a November 21, 2007 call,
Defendants admitted it was overbroad. Plaintiff wrote in followup to the call:
As you know, in that email, we had explained that defendants' oft-used objection,"documents protected from disclosure by state or federal law", does not comply withFRCP Rule 34 because it (a) is too broadly stated and (b) fails to explain how theobjection relates to the documents demanded. During the call, you indicated thatdefendants would re-state this objection.
Yet, in Response 2, the objection remains just as overbroad as it had been in Response 1.
The objection does not comply with FRCP Rule 34 because it (a) is too broadly stated and (b)fails to explain how the objection relates to the documents demanded. In Obiajulu v City of Rochester,
Dep't of Law (1996, WD NY) 166 FRD 293, the defendant City of Rochester had objected that each
request seeks information and material protected by the attorney client, work product doctrine or other
privilege. The court held that Such pat, generic, non-specific objections, intoning the same boilerplate
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 83 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 13 of 207
8/14/2019 83 MTC Declaration Re Joint Statement
14/207
JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 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
language, are inconsistent with both the letter and the spirit of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The court further held:
An objection to a document request must clearly set forth the specifics of the objection
and how that objection relates to the documents being demanded. Roesberg v. Johns-Manville Corp., 85 F.R.D. 292 (E.D. Pa. 1980). The burden is on the party resistingdiscovery to clarify and explain precisely why its objections are proper given the broadand liberal construction of the discovery rules found in the Federal Rules of CivilProcedure.
Other federal courts have reached similar holdings. Pulsecard, Inc. v Discover Card Servs.
(1996, DC Kan) 168 FRD 295 (Although FRCP 34, which governs production of documents and things,
does not provide any language with respect to specificity and waiver of objections, which FRCP 33,
which governs interrogatories, does, no reason exists to distinguish between interrogatories and requests
for production as to these matters);Rivera v Kmart Corp. (2000, DC Puerto Rico) 190 FRD 298, 45 FR
Serv 3d 1349 (asserting general objection to request for production of documents does not comply with
FRCP 34(b)).
InHall v Sullivan, the court held that Rule 34 requires objections to document production
requests be stated with particularity in a timely answer, and that failure to do so may constitute waiver of
grounds not properly raised, including privilege or work product immunity, unless the court excuses this
failure for good cause shown. (2005, DC Md) 231 FRD 468. Defendants bad faith overbroad objection,
which Defendants themselves admitted is overbroad and had agreed to narrow in meet and confer,
should be deemed waived in all responses.
2. Defendants Position[INSERT HERE]
C. Defendants Objection based on State-Law Peer Review Privilege1.
Plaintiffs Position
a. State Privilege Law Does Not ApplyIn Response 2, Defendants invoke the peer-review privilege in response to Plaintiffs requests
no. 12-15, 17, 26, 28, 32, 36-43, 45, 51, 54-58, 60, 61, 63, 65-74 and 78. Defendants state in boilerplate
fashion: Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests . . . documents protected from
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 83 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 14 of 207
8/14/2019 83 MTC Declaration Re Joint Statement
15/207
JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 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
disclosure by state or federal law, including . . . the peer-review privilege.
As Plaintiff has repeatedly made clear to Defendants in meet and confers, state privilege law
does not apply to federal question jurisdiction cases in federal court. This principle is well-settled in
federal law. In the oft-cited case, Wm. T. Thompson, Co. v. Gen. Nutrition Corp., Inc., the court held:
Thus, under Rule 501, it is clear that federal claims asserted in a federal question caseare governed by federal common law. Further, it is been held that where state law claimsoverlap with federal claims in a federal question case such that particular documents arerelevant to both the state and the federal claims, federal privilege law also applies.671 F.2d 100, 104 (3rd Cir.1982).
The 9th Circuit cited Thompson Co. v. Gen. Nutrition Corp. with approval inAgster v. Maricopa County,
holding that Where there are federal question claims and pendent state law claims present, the federal
law of privilege applies. 422 F.3d 836, 839-840 (9th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted).
In the instant case, plaintiff is bringing federal question claims under FMLA, 42 USC 1983
(procedural due process), and FLSA. These federal law claims involve events spanning the entire period
of Plaintiffs employment with Defendant County of Kern. Defendants were on notice of Plaintiffs
depression disability as early as 2000. Plaintiff began raising patient care quality concerns as early as
2001 and the retaliation he suffered was almost immediate. As a result of the ongoing hostile work
environment, Plaintiff required FMLA medical leave in 2006 in response to which the Defendants
demoted him, placed him on 5-months involuntary administrative leave and restriction to his home, and
did not renew his contract. Defendants explain their harsh conduct as being in response to Plaintiffs
arrogance. At a minimum, all these events establish the willful and malicious nature of the individual
Defendants conduct in violation of federal laws.
A single court has held that, where documents sought are relevant only to pendant state law
claims and not to the federal claims in a diversity jurisdiction case, state privilege law applies: Platypus
Wear, Inc. v. K.D. Co., Inc., 905 F. Supp. 808 (S.D. Cal. 1995). However, that case is distinguishable
due to its extreme circumstances. There, plaintiff had brought exclusively state claims in federal court
under diversity, not federal question, jurisdiction. The defendant then brought counter-claims which
included a single federal counter-claim. On the slim basis of the defendants lone federal counter-
claim, plaintiff argued that federal privilege law should apply to its state law claims. The court held in
those extreme circumstances that state privilege law should apply to plaintiffs state law claims.Id. at
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 83 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 15 of 207
8/14/2019 83 MTC Declaration Re Joint Statement
16/207
JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 12
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
812.
The distinction between diversity and federal question jurisdiction should not be underestimated.
In federal question cases, the state's interest is that of a litigant, and not, as in diversity cases, that of a
sovereign whose law is being applied in a foreign forum. Reference to federal law in this case is
necessary on the issue of the existence and scope of the claimed privilege.Heathman v. United States
District Court, 503 F.2d at 1034; Fears v. Burris Manufacturing Co., 436 F.2d 1357, 1360-1361 (5th
Cir. 1971); Carr v. Monroe Manufacturing Co., 431 F.2d 384, 387-389 (5th Cir. 1970); Colton v. United
States, 306 F.2d 633, 636 (2d Cir. 1962).
Even if the Court were inclined to find that state privilege law should apply to Plaintiffs pendent
state law claims, it should be noted that the task of discerning which evidence goes solely to Plaintiffs
state law claims vis--vis federal law claims will be impracticable and will engender unending disputes
between the parties that will ultimately require excessive judicial resources to sort out.
Under the well-settled holding in Thompson, Co. v. Gen. Nutrition Corp, the Court should hold
that state privilege law does not apply.
b. There Is No Federal Peer Review PrivilegeThere is no federal peer review privilege, nor has a single case in the 9th Circuit yet recognized
one. InAgster v. Maricopa County, the 9th
Circuit refused to recognize a federal peer review privilege:
No case in this circuit has recognized the [peer review] privilege. . . . We are constrainedby two considerations, one general and the other particular to this case. We must be"especially reluctant to recognize a privilege in an area where it appears that Congresshas considered the relevant competing concerns but has not provided the privilegeitself." . . . . Congress has twice had occasion and opportunity to consider the [peerreview] privilege and not granted it either explicitly or by implication, there exists ageneral objection to our doing so.422 F.3d 836, 839-840 (9th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted).
The Defendants oft-invoked peer review privilege is baseless. The Court should order
Defendants to produce all documents requested.
2. Defendants Position[INSERT HERE]
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 83 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 16 of 207
8/14/2019 83 MTC Declaration Re Joint Statement
17/207
JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
D. Defendants Objection of Personnel Privilege1. Plaintiffs Position
In Response 2, Defendants invoke the personnel privilege in response to Plaintiffs requests
nos. 12-15, 17, 26, 28, 32, 36-39, 41, 51, 54-58, 63, 65-67, 70-73, 78. In Response 2, Defendants state in
boilerplate fashion: Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests . . . documents protected
from disclosure by state or federal law, including . . . the personnel privilege.
Failing to object to a Rule 34 request within the time permitted waives such objections thereto,
including claims of privilege and work product.Hall v Sullivan (2005, DC Md) 231 FRD 468; see also
Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants (9th Cir. 1992) 959 F2d 1468, 1473(Failure to object to
discovery requests within the time required constitutes a waiver of any objection); see also Coregis Ins.
Co. v. Baratta & Fenerty, Ltd. (ED PA 1999) 187 FRD 528, 529.
Defendants failed to raise the personnel privilege in Response 1, and is raising it for the first time
in Response 2. Plaintiff had met and conferred with Defendants in the hopes that Defendants would
remedy the many deficiencies contained in Response 1. Defendants ostensibly served Response 2 as a
product of the meet and confers. In fact, Defendants used Response 2 to make a mockery of the meet
and confer process and raise new objections that had not been raised in Response 1.
Moreover, as stated above, FRCP Rule 34 prohibits objections which (a) are too broadly stated
and (b) fail to explain how the objection relates to the documents demanded. Defendants are under a
duty to clarify and explain precisely why their objections are proper. The mere boilerplate assertion of
personnel privilege with no further explication fails to comply with Rule 34. It fails to put Plaintiff on
notice as to what the privilege is (Plaintiff has no idea), what its basis is, what it covers, etc.
The Court should deem the personnel privilege waived in all responses.
2.
Defendants Position[INSERT HERE]
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 83 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 17 of 207
8/14/2019 83 MTC Declaration Re Joint Statement
18/207
JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 14
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
E. Defendants Refusal to Produce Due to Marginal Relevancy1. Plaintiffs Position
In Response 2, Defendants refuse to produce any documents in response to Plaintiffs requests
nos. 32, 36, 38, 39, 41, 54-58, 70-73, 78. In Response 2, Defendants state: Defendants have determined
that the burden of redacting privileged information outweighs the marginal relevancy of the remaining
information in the documents. Plaintiff requests the Court conduct an in camera review of the
documents at issue to confirm that Defendants redactions are valid and that their refusal to produce any
documents is justified.
2. Defendants Position[INSERT HERE]
F. Specific Contested Responses and ObjectionsREQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Kern Medical Center personnel directories or lists,
including but not limited to names, direct work phone numbers, departments, etc. which were
maintained by YOU during Plaintiffs employment with YOU.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 11
Defendants will produce all non-privileged documents responsive to this request. Production is
expected to be complete on or about December 21, 2007, depending on receipt of reimbursement for
estimated copy costs. Defendants will redact privileged information as appropriate.
PLAINTIFFS POSITION
FRCP Rule 34 prohibits objections which (a) are too broadly stated and (b) fail to explain how
the objection relates to the documents demanded. Defendants are under a duty to clarify and explain
precisely why their objections are proper. Defendants merely reference privileged personal or
confidential information. This assertion of privilege fails to comply with Rule 34. It fails to put Plaintiff
on notice as to what the privileges are (Plaintiff has no idea), what its basis is, what it covers, etc.
Failing to object to a Rule 34 request within the time permitted waives such objections thereto
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 83 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 18 of 207
8/14/2019 83 MTC Declaration Re Joint Statement
19/207
JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
including claims of privilege and work product.Hall v Sullivan (2005, DC Md) 231 FRD 468; see also
Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants (9th Cir. 1992) 959 F2d 1468, 1473(Failure to object to
discovery requests within the time required constitutes a waiver of any objection); see also Coregis Ins.
Co. v. Baratta & Fenerty, Ltd. (ED PA 1999) 187 FRD 528, 529.
The Court should deem this assertion of privilege waived.
DEFENDANTS POSITION
[INSERT HERE]
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26
Any and all DOCUMENTS maintained by Plaintiff at Kern Medical Center during his
employment by YOU, including any and all e-mails, Groupwise calendars, memoranda, written
materials, and computer files stored on Plaintiffs computer at Kern Medical Centers servers.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 26
Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain confidential
personnel information, documents protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA,
the peer-review privilege and the personnel privilege, and documents that are subject to the attorney-
client privilege. After diligent search, Defendants believe Groupwise calendar information was deleted
many months ago as part of the routine 90-day cycling of the Groupwise software. Defendants are
continuing to search for materials that were on the computer that was assigned to Plaintiff. Some
material was archived before the computer was reassigned and Defendants will produce copies of the
material that was archived by December 21, 2007, depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated
copy costs. Defendants will redact privileged information, if any, as appropriate.
PLAINTIFFS POSITION
Failing to object to a Rule 34 request within the time permitted waives such objections thereto
including claims of privilege and work product.Hall v Sullivan (2005, DC Md) 231 FRD 468; see also
Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants (9th Cir. 1992) 959 F2d 1468, 1473(Failure to object to
discovery requests within the time required constitutes a waiver of any objection); see also Coregis Ins.
Co. v. Baratta & Fenerty, Ltd. (ED PA 1999) 187 FRD 528, 529.
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 83 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 19 of 207
8/14/2019 83 MTC Declaration Re Joint Statement
20/207
JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendants are for the first time raising objections of confidential personnel information,
documents protected by disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA, the peer-review privilege
and the personnel privilege, and attorney-client privilege. Defendants did not timely raise these
objections or privileges in Response 1.
The Court should deem these objections waived.
DEFENDANTS POSITION
[INSERT HERE]
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO complaints or grievances made by YOUR past or
present employees against YOU for defamation, retaliation, disability discrimination, failure to
accommodate, and/or failure to engage in an interactive process, including but not limited to any
informal or internal complaints, grievances or charges to any state or federal agency, and complaints
filed in any state or federal court from October 24, 2000 to date.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 33
Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that
contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in this case. Consequently,
this request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also
object on the ground that the phrase, informal or internal complaints is vague and, depending on
interpretation, could include any off-hand gripe by any employee, to the extent it was memorialized in
writing. Defendant County of Kern employs several thousand employees. In the past seven years, there
could be many documents that fit the description of this request yet none have anything to do with the
issues in this case. This request is, accordingly, overbroad and burdensome. Defendants do not believe
redaction would resolve these objections.
PLAINTIFFS POSITION
During meet and confers, specifically at Defendants request Plaintiff had narrowed Request 33.
In a meet and confer fax of November 22, 2007, memorializing a meet and confer call, Plaintiff stated:
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 83 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 20 of 207
8/14/2019 83 MTC Declaration Re Joint Statement
21/207
JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
In past meet and confer calls, plaintiff had narrowed this request to complaints orgrievances relating to Kern Medical Center which had been made to a governmentagency or court. These documents are essential to prove disparate treatment anddiscriminatory/retaliatory intent.
On November 27, 2007, following a meet and confer call, Plaintiff sent another meet and conferfax stating:
We reiterated that we have already agreed to narrow this request [33] to documentsrelating to complaints or grievances relating to Kern Medical Center which had beenmade to a government agency or court. We further explained that these documents areessential to prove disparate treatment and discriminatory/retaliatory intent. Yourequested and we agreed to send you revised response language which nails downexactly what we are requesting. You confirmed that the documents are already in theprocess of being collected and that, once the request language is revised, you willproduce responsive documents by December 7.
In that same fax, Plaintiff revised Request 33 to read:
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO complaints or grievances made by YOURpast or present employees against YOU for defamation, retaliation, disabilitydiscrimination, failure to accommodate, and/or failure to engage in an interactiveprocess RELATING TO Kern Medical Center and/or its officers or staff, including butnot limited to any informal or internal complaints, grievances or charges to any state orfederal agency, and complaints filed in any state or federal court from October 24, 2000to date.
On November 30, 2007, following a meet and confer call, Plaintiff sent another meet and confer
fax stating:
You confirmed that plaintiffs revised request language is adequate and that you willproduce responsive documents tentatively by December 7, but you would have a moredefinite idea as to production date by next Monday.
Despite this extensive meet and confer process, Defendants chose to disregard the revisions
Plaintiff had made to Request 33. In Response 2, Defendants restated Request 33 in its unrevised form
and restated their same objections. In so doing, Defendants breached the numerous assurances they had
made to Plaintiff that they would produce documents upon receiving a revised version of Request 33.
DEFENDANTS POSITION
[INSERT HERE]
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR search for, recruitment, of and evaluation of
candidates for the position of locum tenens pathologist at Kern Medical Center during the period from
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 83 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 21 of 207
8/14/2019 83 MTC Declaration Re Joint Statement
22/207
JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
January 1, 2006 to present.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 38
Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that
contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in this case and is not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also object to this
request to the extent it requests information protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including
HIPAA, the peer-review privilege and the personnel privilege, and documents that contain information
protected by the attorney-client privilege. After review of the documents potentially responsive to this
request, Defendants have determined that the burden of redacting privileged information outweighs the
marginal relevancy of the remaining information in the documents.
PLAINTIFFS POSITION
A showing of relevancy may be enough to cause the court to balance the compelling public need
for discovery against the fundamental right of privacy. (Mendez v. Superior Court(1988) 206
Cal.App.3d 557, 567.)
These documents are highly probative to Plaintiffs claim that Defendant County of Kern failed
to reasonably accommodate his depression disability by failing to timely arrange for locum tenens
pathologists who could assist with the Pathology departments workload during Plaintiffs reduced work
schedule medical and recuperative leaves in 2006. During meet and confers, the parties had specifically
discussed Defendants privacy concerns regarding this request. The parties agreed that Defendants need
not produce any third party letters of reference. In exchange, Defendants agreed to produce documents
in response to Request 38. In typical fashion, Defendants now breach the assurances they made to
Plaintiff in meet and confer.
DEFENDANTS POSITION
[INSERT HERE]
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR search for, recruitment, of and evaluation of
candidates for the position of Chair or Chief of OB-GYN at Kern Medical Center during the period from
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 83 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 22 of 207
8/14/2019 83 MTC Declaration Re Joint Statement
23/207
JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
January 1, 2006 to present.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 39
Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that
contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in this case and is not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also object to this
request to the extent it requests information protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including
HIPAA, the peer-review privilege and the personnel privilege, and documents that contain information
protected by the attorney-client privilege. After review of the documents potentially responsive to this
request, Defendants have determined that the burden of redacting privileged information outweighs the
marginal relevancy of the remaining information in the documents.
PLAINTIFFS POSITION
A showing of relevancy may be enough to cause the court to balance the compelling public need
for discovery against the fundamental right of privacy. (Mendez v. Superior Court(1988) 206
Cal.App.3d 557, 567.)
An employer's failure to follow its own policies and procedures indicates discrimination. Village
of Arlington Heights v. Met. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 267 (1977);Duschene v. Pinole Point
Steel Co. (1999) 76 Cal. App. 4th 33 (Departures from the normal procedural sequence also might
afford evidence that improper purposes are playing a role).
Plaintiff has a compelling need for this evidence to establish whether Defendant County of Kern
customarily complied with their policies regarding removal and replacement of department chairs and
whether Plaintiff was treated in a disparate manner. The evidence is highly probative to Plaintiffs
claims.
DEFENDANTS POSITION
[INSERT HERE]
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 40
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR removal of Dr. Royce Johnson from the
position of Chair or Chief of Medicine at Kern Medical Center.
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 83 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 23 of 207
8/14/2019 83 MTC Declaration Re Joint Statement
24/207
8/14/2019 83 MTC Declaration Re Joint Statement
25/207
JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR search for, recruitment, of and evaluation of
candidates for the position of Chair or Chief of Medicine at Kern Medical Center during the period from
October 24, 2000 to present.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 41
Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that
contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in this case and is not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also object to this
request to the extent it requests information protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including
HIPAA, the peer-review privilege and the personnel privilege, and documents that contain information
protected by the attorney-client privilege. After review of the documents potentially responsive to this
request, Defendants have determined that the burden of redacting privileged information outweighs the
marginal relevancy of the remaining information in the documents.
PLAINTIFFS POSITION
See Plaintiffs Position re Request for Production Nos. 39 and 40 above.
DEFENDANTS POSITION
[INSERT HERE]
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 43
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Plaintiffs presentations made at the Kern Medical
Center oncology conference on or about October 12, 2005.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 43
Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that
contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in this case and is not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also object to this
request to the extent it requests information protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including
HIPAA and the peer review privilege, and documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege.
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 83 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 25 of 207
8/14/2019 83 MTC Declaration Re Joint Statement
26/207
JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Without waving these objections, Defendants will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this
request, if any, by December21, 2007. Defendants will redact privileged, if any, information as
appropriate.
PLAINTIFFS POSITION
Failing to object to a Rule 34 request within the time permitted waives such objections thereto
including claims of privilege and work product.Hall v Sullivan (2005, DC Md) 231 FRD 468; see also
Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants (9th Cir. 1992) 959 F2d 1468, 1473(Failure to object to
discovery requests within the time required constitutes a waiver of any objection); see also Coregis Ins.
Co. v. Baratta & Fenerty, Ltd. (ED PA 1999) 187 FRD 528, 529.
Defendants are for the first time raising objections of confidential personnel information,
irrelevance and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence, documents
protected by disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA, the peer-review privilege and the
personnel privilege, and attorney-client privilege. Defendants did not timely raise these objections or
privileges in Response 1.
The Court should deem these objections waived.
DEFENDANTS POSITION
[INSERT HERE]
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 55
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the review of Kern Medical Centers placental
evaluations and billing activity as conducted by outside consultants, including but not limited to ProPay
Physician Services, LLC, from October 24, 2000 to the present.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 55
Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that
contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in this case and is not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also object to this
request to the extent it requests information protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including
HIPAA, the peer-review privilege and the personnel privilege, and documents that contain information
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 83 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 26 of 207
8/14/2019 83 MTC Declaration Re Joint Statement
27/207
JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
protected by the attorney-client privilege. After review of the documents potentially responsive to this
request, Defendants have determined that the burden of redacting privileged information outweighs the
marginal relevancy of the remaining information in the documents.
PLAINTIFFS POSITION
A showing of relevancy may be enough to cause the court to balance the compelling public need
for discovery against the fundamental right of privacy. (Mendez v. Superior Court(1988) 206
Cal.App.3d 557, 567.)
An employer's failure to follow its own policies and procedures indicates discrimination. Village
of Arlington Heights v. Met. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 267 (1977);Duschene v. Pinole Point
Steel Co. (1999) 76 Cal. App. 4th 33 (Departures from the normal procedural sequence also might
afford evidence that improper purposes are playing a role).
Plaintiff has a compelling need for this evidence to establish whether Defendant County of Kern
customarily complied with their policies and procedures regarding their audit of Plaintiffs placental
evaluations and billing activity in or around 2005 and whether Plaintiff was treated in a disparate
manner. The evidence is highly probative to Plaintiffs claims.
DEFENDANTS POSITION
[INSERT HERE]
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 71
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO exceptional event logs for histology and pathology
on Kern Medical Centers Pathology Department from January 1, 2006 to the present.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 71
Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that
contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in this case and is not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also object to this
request to the extent it requests information protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including
HIPAA, the peer-review privilege and the personnel privilege, and documents that contain information
protected by the attorney-client privilege. After review of the documents potentially responsive to this
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 83 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 27 of 207
8/14/2019 83 MTC Declaration Re Joint Statement
28/207
JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
request, Defendants have determined that the burden of redacting privileged information outweighs the
marginal relevancy of the remaining information in the documents.
PLAINTIFFS POSITION
A showing of relevancy may be enough to cause the court to balance the compelling public need
for discovery against the fundamental right of privacy. (Mendez v. Superior Court(1988) 206
Cal.App.3d 557, 567.)
An employer's failure to follow its own policies and procedures indicates discrimination. Village
of Arlington Heights v. Met. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 267 (1977);Duschene v. Pinole Point
Steel Co. (1999) 76 Cal. App. 4th 33 (Departures from the normal procedural sequence also might
afford evidence that improper purposes are playing a role).
Plaintiff has a compelling need for this evidence to establish whether Defendant County of Kern
customarily complied with their policies and procedures regarding Dr. Jadwins numerous alleged
violations of hospital policy, including the leaving of sharps out at the workstation when not in use, the
taking of a sternal bone biopsy without proctoring, the unauthorized accessioning of tissue samples, etc.
and whether Plaintiff was treated in a disparate manner as compared to others in the Pathology
department or laboratory who engaged in similar conduct. The evidence is highly probative to Plaintiffs
claims.
DEFENDANTS POSITION
[INSERT HERE]
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 72
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO paper accession logs at Kern Medical Centers
Pathology Department from January 1, 2006 to present.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 72
Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that
contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in this case and is not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also object to this
request to the extent it requests information protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 83 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 28 of 207
8/14/2019 83 MTC Declaration Re Joint Statement
29/207
JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HIPAA, the peer-review privilege and the personnel privilege, and documents that contain information
protected by the attorney-client privilege. After review of the documents potentially responsive to this
request, Defendants have determined that the burden of redacting privileged information outweighs the
marginal relevancy of the remaining information in the documents.
PLAINTIFFS POSITION
A showing of relevancy may be enough to cause the court to balance the compelling public need
for discovery against the fundamental right of privacy. (Mendez v. Superior Court(1988) 206
Cal.App.3d 557, 567.)
In late 2006, Acting Chair of Pathology Dr. Dutt accused Plaintiff of engaging in unauthorized
accessioning of tissue samples. Dr. Dutt reported this issue to the CEO. The accession logs are directly
relevant to this accusation against Plaintiff.
DEFENDANTS POSITION
[INSERT HERE]
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 73
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO tissue disposal records for skull-flaps from January
1, 2006 to the present.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 73
Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that
contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in this case and is not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also object to this
request to the extent it requests information protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including
HIPAA. the peer-review privilege and the personnel privilege, and documents that contain information
protected by the attorney-client privilege. After review of the documents potentially responsive to this
request, Defendants have determined that the burden of redacting privileged information outweighs the
marginal relevancy of the remaining information in the documents.
PLAINTIFFS POSITION
A showing of relevancy may be enough to cause the court to balance the compelling public need
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 83 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 29 of 207
8/14/2019 83 MTC Declaration Re Joint Statement
30/207
JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
for discovery against the fundamental right of privacy. (Mendez v. Superior Court(1988) 206
Cal.App.3d 557, 567.)
In December of 2006, Plaintiff reported to Kern Medical Center CEO David Culberson the
storage of skull flaps in a non-regulation freezer as a possible violation of state and federal regulations.
These documents are directly probative of Plaintiffs California Labor Code 1102.5 claim for
whistleblower retaliation.
DEFENDANTS POSITION
[INSERT HERE]
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 78
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO placental evaluations conducted by Plaintiff from
June 14, 2006 to the present.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 78
Plaintiff has attempted to narrow this request but the revised request is broader, more
burdensome and less calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence than the original request.
Defendants object to this request because it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence and is burdensome. Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for
the production of documents that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any
issues in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Defendants also object to this request to the extent it requests information protected from disclosure by
state or federal law, including HIPAA, the peer-review privilege and the personnel privilege, and
documents that contain information protected by the attorney-client privilege. After review of the
documents potentially responsive to this request. Defendants have determined that the burden of
redacting privileged information outweighs the marginal relevancy of the remaining information in the
documents.
PLAINTIFFS POSITION
Based on newly discovered evidence, Plaintiff has reason to believe that Acting Chair of
Pathology, Dr. Philip Dutt, has defrauded Plaintiff by claiming credit for placental evaluations
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 83 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 30 of 207
8/14/2019 83 MTC Declaration Re Joint Statement
31/207
8/14/2019 83 MTC Declaration Re Joint Statement
32/207
JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 28
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
good faith to Defendants during meet and confer discussions in the past. When Plaintiff asked
Defendants to provide its case citations to Plaintiff, stating Mark, I would appreciate the case citations.
I look forward to receiving them, Defendants refused, stating:
No. I am not researching this for you. I have done my research. It is your motion tocompel. I presume you have authority to support your motion. If not, too bad. If so,proceed with your motion.
Regrettably, this exchange fairly characterizes the interactions Plaintiff has had with Defendants
throughout this action.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: January __, 2008 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
Dated: January___, 2008 LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE
By:__________________________________________Eugene D. LeeAttorney for PlaintiffDAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 83 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 32 of 207
8/14/2019 83 MTC Declaration Re Joint Statement
33/207
USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAGEXHIBITS TO JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT 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 LEE555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100Los Angeles, CA 90013Phone: (213) 992-3299
Fax: (213) 596-0487email: [email protected]
Joan Herrington, SB# 178988BAY AREA EMPLOYMENT LAW OFFICE5032 Woodminster LaneOakland, CA 94602-2614Telephone: (510) 530-4078Facsimile: (510) 530-4725Email: [email protected] Counsel to LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE
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 93301
Phone: (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
Date: January 14, 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 83 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 33 of 207
8/14/2019 83 MTC Declaration Re Joint Statement
34/207
EXHIBITS TO JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT
EXHIBIT 1. Meet and confer letter faxed by Defendants to Plaintiffs attorney, 10/31/07
EXHIBIT 2. Meet and confer letter faxed by Plaintiffs to Defendants attorney, 11/1/07
EXHIBIT 3. Meet and confer letter faxed by Plaintiffs to Defendants attorney, 11/8/07
EXHIBIT 4. Meet and confer emails between Plaintiffs and Defendants attorney, 11/15/07
EXHIBIT 5. Meet and confer letter faxed by Plaintiffs to Defendants attorney, 11/15/07
EXHIBIT 6. Meet and confer emails between Plaintiffs and Defendants attorney, 11/20/07
EXHIBIT 7. RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION SET ONE(Response 1), 11/20/07
EXHIBIT 8. Meet and confer letter faxed by Plaintiffs to Defendants attorney, 11/22/07
EXHIBIT 9. Meet and confer letter faxed by Plaintiffs to Defendants attorney, 11/27/07
EXHIBIT 10. Meet and confer letter faxed by Plaintiffs to Defendants attorney, 11/30/07
EXHIBIT 11. Meet and confer letter faxed by Plaintiffs to Defendants attorney, 12/10/07
EXHIBIT 12. DEFENDANTS PARTIAL PRIVILEGE LOG, 12/13/07
EXHIBIT 13. Meet and confer emails between Plaintiffs and Defendants attorney, 12/14/07
EXHIBIT 14. Meet and confer emails between Plaintiffs and Defendants attorney, 12/17/07
EXHIBIT 15. SUPPLEMENTED RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS REQUESTS FORPRODUCTION SET ONE (Response 2), 12/19/07
EXHIBIT 16. Meet and confer letter faxed by Defendants to Plaintiffs attorney, 12/19/07
EXHIBIT 17. Meet and confer emails between Plaintiffs and Defendants attorney, 12/20/07
EXHIBIT 18. Meet and confer letter faxed by Plaintiffs to Defendants attorney, 12/20/07
EXHIBIT 19. Meet and confer letter faxed by Defendants to Plaintiffs attorney, 12/20/07
EXHIBIT 20. Meet and confer letter faxed by Defendants to Plaintiffs attorney, 12/21/07
EXHIBIT 21. Meet and confer emails between Plaintiffs and Defendants attorney, 12/31/07
EXHIBIT 22. Meet and confer emails between Plaintiffs and Defendants attorney, 1/2/08
EXHIBIT 23. Meet and confer emails between Plaintiffs and Defendants attorney, 1/4/08
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 83 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 34 of 207
8/14/2019 83 MTC Declaration Re Joint Statement
35/207
EXHIBIT 1. Meet and confer letter faxed by Defendants to Plaintiffs attorney,10/31/07
MTC000001
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 83 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 35 of 207
8/14/2019 83 MTC Declaration Re Joint Statement
36/207
t 31 07 11:21a Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.1
The Law Offices of Mark A. Wasser400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100Sacramento, California 95814Office: 916-444-6400Fax: 916-444-6405
FaxTo: Eugene LeeFax: (213) 596-0487Phone: (213) 992-3299
From: MarkWasserPages: 2 (including cover page)Date: October 31, 2007
Re: Jadwin v. County ofKern cc:
o Urgent o For Review 0 Please Comment 0 Please Reply D Please Recycle Comments:Please see attached letter.
MTC000002
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 83 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 36 of 207
t 31 07 11:21a Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.1
The Law Offices of Mark A. Wasser400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100Sacramento, California 95814Office: 916-444-6400Fax: 916-444-6405
FaxTo: Eugene LeeFax: (213) 596-0487Phone: (213) 992-3299
From: MarkWasserPages: 2 (including cover page)Date: October 31, 2007
Re: Jadwin v. County ofKern cc:
o Urgent o For Review 0 Please Comment 0 Please Reply D Please Recycle Comments:Please see attached letter.
8/14/2019 83 MTC Declaration Re Joint Statement
37/207
31 07 11:21a Mark WasserLaw Offices ofMARK A. WASSER
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100Sacramento, California 95814
Office: 916-444-6400 Fax: [email protected]
916-444-6405 p.2
October 31, 2007
VIA FACSIMILE & FIRST CLASS MAILEugene LeeLaw Offices ofEugene Lee555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100Los Angeles, California 90013-1010
Re: Jadwin v. County ofKern, et at.DearMr. Lee:
I have reviewed your Request For Production ofDocuments and discussed it withCounty staff. Our best estimate is that it will take until December 21, 2007 to locate,assemble and serve the documents you have requested. Some of the documents mayrequire extensive redaction to remove patient identifiers.We request an extension of time until December 21,2007 to respond to yourRequest.Let me know your position.Thank you.
Very Truly Yours,
Mark A. Wasser
cc: Karen Barnes (via first class mail)Joan Herrington (via first class mail)
Admit ted to Practice in California an d Nevada MTC000003
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 83 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 37 of 207
31 07 11:21a Mark WasserLaw Offices ofMARK A. WASSER
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100Sacramento, California 95814
Office: 916-444-6400 Fax: [email protected]
916-444-6405 p.2
October 31, 2007
VIA FACSIMILE & FIRST CLASS MAILEugene LeeLaw Offices ofEugene Lee555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100Los Angeles, California 90013-1010
Re: Jadwin v. County ofKern, et at.DearMr. Lee:
I have reviewed your Request For Production ofDocuments and discussed it withCounty staff. Our best estimate is that it will take until December 21, 2007 to locate,assemble and serve the documents you have requested. Some of the documents mayrequire extensive redaction to remove patient identifiers.We request an extension of time until December 21,2007 to respond to yourRequest.Let me know your position.Thank you.
Very Truly Yours,
Mark A. Wasser
cc: Karen Barnes (via first class mail)Joan Herrington (via first class mail)
Admit ted to Practice in California an d Nevada
8/14/2019 83 MTC Declaration Re Joint Statement
38/207
EXHIBIT 2. Meet and confer letter faxed by Plaintiffs to Defendants attorney,11/1/07
MTC000004
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 83 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 38 of 207
8/14/2019 83 MTC Declaration Re Joint Statement
39/207
- - rom: aw ce o ugene ee g : pm
(213) 992 -3299TELEPHONE LAWE U G
OFFICEENE L OFE [email protected]
(213) 596 -0487FACSIMILE
FAX5 5 5 WEST F IFTH STREET SUITE 3 1 0 0Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9001 3-1 01 0 WWW.LOEL.COMWEBSITE
To:Fax Number: 2135960487
Pages: 3 (including cover page)Re: Jadwin/KC:
Comments:Mark,
From: Law Office of Eugene LeeDate: 11/01/2007
Tran sm it te d he rew it h i s a l e t t e r in fol lowup to our meet and confer c a l lo f t h i s morning.Sincere ly .
MTC000005
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 83 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 39 of 207
- - rom: aw ce o ugene ee g : pm
(213) 992 -3299TELEPHONE LAWE U G
OFFICEENE L OFE [email protected]
(213) 596 -0487FACSIMILE
FAX5 5 5 WEST FIFTH STREET SUITE 3 1 0 0Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9001 3-1 01 0 WWW.LOEL.COMWEBSITE
To:Fax Number: 2135960487
Pages: 3 (including cover page)Re: Jadwin/KC:
Comments:Mark,
From: Law Office of Eugene LeeDate: 11/01/2007
Tran sm it te d he rew it h i s a l e t t e r in fol lowup to our meet and confer c a l lo f t h i s morning.Sincere ly .
8/14/2019 83 MTC Declaration Re Joint Statement
40/207
- - rom: aw ce o ugene ee g : pm
LEELAW OFFICEEUGENE
( 2 13 ) 992-3299TELEPHONE
(Z 1 3 ) 596-0487FACS IM ILE
555 WES T F IF TH S TR EE T, SU I TE 3100L O S A N G E LE S , C A LIF O R NIA 90013-1010
WWW.LOEL .COMWEBS I TE
EUGENE D. LEE, ESQPRINCIPAL
JOAN E. HERRINGTON, ESQOF COUNSEL
November 1, 2007VIA FACSIMILEMark WasserLaw Offices ofMark Wasser400 Capitol Mall Ste 1100Sacramento, CA 95814
100011.001
Re: Plaintiff's Requests for Production, Set OneJadwin / County of Kern, et al. (USDC EDCA NO.1 :07-cv-00026-0WW/TAG)
Dear Mark:It was a pleasure speaking and meeting and conferring with you today on plaintiff 's requests forproduction, set one.In order to facilitate things, we thought we would try to narrow and clarify some of ourdocument requests.DocReq Proposed clarificationNo.
12 Exclude "training materials" from the request13 Exclude "training materials" from the request16 Delete subparts b) through tt)52 Exclude from the request DOCUMENTS which are on file in Superior Court of
California in and for County of Kern59 The request is for DOCUMENTS RELATING TO medical staff sign-in sheets for
Kern Medical Center's Cancer Clinic held pursuant to ACS-CoC standards fromJanuary 1, 2003 to the present.
Also, as we discussed, please let us know your thoughts on providing us with patientidentification numbers, including those which were redacted from defendants' initial disclosures,as well as entering into a stipulation with us whereby plaintiffwould electronically redact anypatient identifying information (other than patient identification numbers) from all documentsproduced by defendants (along with concomitant covenants to strictly preserve theconfidentiality and guard against disclosure of such information). As we stated, plaintiffhas nointerest in jeopardizing anyone's medical information privacy.
MTC000006
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 83 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 40 of 207
- - rom: aw ce o ugene ee g : pm
LEELAW OFFICEEUGENE
( 2 13 ) 992-3299TELEPHONE
(Z 1 3 ) 596-0487FACS IM ILE
555 W ES T F IF TH S TR EE T, SU I TE 3100L O S A N G E LE S , C A LIF O R NIA 90013-1010
WWW.LOEL .COMWEBS I TE
EUGENE D. LEE, ESQPRINCIPAL
JOAN E. HERRINGTON, ESQOF COUNSEL
November 1, 2007VIA FACSIMILEMark WasserLaw Offices ofMark Wasser400 Capitol Mall Ste 1100Sacramento, CA 95814
100011.001
Re: Plaintiff's Requests for Production, Set OneJadwin / County of Kern, et al. (USDC EDCA NO.1 :07-cv-00026-0WW/TAG)
Dear Mark:It was a pleasure speaking and meeting and conferring with you today on plaintiff 's requests forproduction, set one.In order to facilitate things, we thought we would try to narrow and clarify some of ourdocument requests.DocReq Proposed clarificationNo.
12 Exclude "training materials" from the request13 Exclude "training materials" from the request16 Delete subparts b) through tt)52 Exclude from the request DOCUMENTS which are on file in Superior Court of
California in and for County of Kern59 The request is for DOCUMENTS RELATING TO medical staff sign-in sheets for
Kern Medical Center's Cancer Clinic held pursuant to ACS-CoC standards fromJanuary 1, 2003 to th