140 DFJ MPO DME

8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/140-dfj-mpo-dme 1/73

USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER; MOTION TO QUASH TWO RECORD SUBPOENAS FOR PLAINTIFF’S

PSYCHIATRIC RECORDS. 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

LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE Eugene D. Lee (SB#: 236812)555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100Los Angeles, CA 90013Phone: (213) 992-3299

Fax: (213) 596-0487email: [email protected]

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRESNO DIVISION

DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF KERN, et al.,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVEORDER; MOTION TO QUASH TWORECORD SUBPOENAS FOR PLAINTIFF’SPSYCHIATRIC RECORDS; [F.R.C.P. 26 &45].

Date: May 27, 2008Time:Place: U.S. District Court, Crtrm. 3

2500 Tulare St, Fresno, CA Complaint

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

Defendants have stipulated to shortened time to hear this motion due to the fact that the second

session of the defense mental examination is scheduled to take place on May 29, 2008.

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

Please take notice that on May 27, 2008, or as soon thereafter as the parties may be heard, that

pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 45, Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O. will move

this Court, at the United States Courthouse located at 2500 Tulare Street, Fresno, California 93721

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 140 Filed 05/22/2008 Page 1 of 15

8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME



MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER; MOTION TO QUASH TWO RECORD SUBPOENAS FOR PLAINTIFF’S

PSYCHIATRIC RECORDS. 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

(Phone: (559) 499-5600), Courtroom 3, for the following:

1. A protective order prohibiting Defendants, and their experts, from seeking discovery of

Plaintiff’s psychiatric records in violation of the Scheduling Order dated May 31, 2007;

2. An order quashing Defendants’ Records Subpoenas for Plaintiff’s psychiatric records kept by

Paul Riskin, M.D;


Anoshiravan Taheri-Tafreshi, M.D.;

4. An order requiring Defendants to comply with this Court’s modified schedule regarding

Plaintiff’s Rule 35 examination.

This motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, the accompanying declarations of

Eugene D. Lee and David F. Jadwin, D.O., the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities,

and the pleadings and papers on file in this action.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED on May 22, 2008.

/s/ Eugene D. LeeLAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100Los Angeles, CA 90013

Phone: (213) 992-3299Fax: (213) 596-0487email: [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.


8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME



PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER;

MOTION TO QUASH TWO RECORDS SUBPOENAS RE PLAINTIFF’S PSYCHIATRIC RECORDS. 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

LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE Eugene D. Lee (SB#: 236812)555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100Los Angeles, CA 90013Phone: (213) 992-3299


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



FRESNO DIVISION


Plaintiff,

v.


Defendants.


PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTSAND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF;MOTION TO QUASH TWO RECORDSSUBPOENA RE PLAINTIFF’SPSYCHIATRIC RECORDS; MOTION FORPROTECTIVE ORDER; AND REQUESTFOR SANCTIONS. [F.R.C.P. 26 & 45].

Date: May 27, 2008Time: 2 p.m.

Place: U.S. District Court, Crtrm. 32500 Tulare St, Fresno, CA

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

Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O. submits this memorandum of points and authorities in

support of his motion for the following relief:


Plaintiff’s psychiatric records in violation of the Scheduling Order dated May 31, 2007;


Paul Riskin, M.D.;


8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME





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 Rule 35 examination.

I. BACKGROUND

At the outset of this case, the parties met and conferred regarding a discovery plan pursuant to

Rule 26. As part of this discovery plan, Parties agreed to strike a balance between Plaintiff’s continuing

need for psychotherapy and Defendants need for evidence of Plaintiff’s disabling depression and plea

for emotional distress damages. The parties entered into a stipulation that was converted into an order

(“Stipulation”). Plaintiff requests that the Court take judicial notice of the stipulation and order

contained in the Scheduling Order dated May 31, 2007 (Doc. 29, Lee Decl, Exh. 1). The stipulation

stated:

The parties hereby agree that, in order to preserve the confidentiality required forcontinued effective treatment of Plaintiff’s depression, anxiety, insomnia, and emotionaldistress, Plaintiff’s treating psychiatrists/psychologists shall not be required to producetheir actual treatment notes, but instead shall produce a summary of their treatment of Plaintiff’s depression and emotional distress, including their diagnoses and prognoses,and the basis for their opinion, including raw data of any psychological testing. Plaintiff is willing to undergo psychological examination by Defendants’ qualified expert

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 35 subject to a stipulation regardingthe timing and scope of the examination, including the specific tests to be performed,and prompt production of the subsequent report and raw data supporting the report to allparties.(Lee Decl, Exh. 1, 14:-19).

On May 2, 2008, Defendants issued records subpoenas (“Records Subpoenas”) directing

Plaintiffs’ two treating psychiatrists to produce all patient medical records for Plaintiff. (Lee Decl., Exh

2). The Records Subpoenas were served on Plaintiff by regular U.S. mail. Plaintiff received no prior

notice of the Records Subpoenass. The Records Subpoenas evidenced defense counsel’s intention to

obtain “All patient records relating to [Plaintiff], regardless of date” from two of Plaintiff’s treating

psychiatrists, Dr. Paul M. Riskin and Dr. Anoshiravan Taheri-Tafreshi. (Exh. 2, 2-5). They set the

records production deadline as 10 a.m. on May 21, 2008.


8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME





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

On May 16, 2008, the parties entered into a stipulation (“Exam Stip”) pursuant to the order of

this Court whereby Plaintiff would submit to a mental and psychiatric examination by Dr. Robert

Burchuk for 4 hours on May 19, 2008, from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., and again for 4 hours on May 29, 2008

from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. in “Dr. Burchuk’s office at 23522 Califa Street, Woodland Hills, California.” (Lee

Decl., Exh. 3).

On May 19, 2008, at 10:40 a.m., Plaintiff phoned his attorneys to say that he had been waiting

since 10 a.m. outside the gate at Dr. Burchuk’s office at 23522 Califa Street, Woodland Hills, California

as he had been required to do pursuant to the stipulation, but no one was letting him in.

At 10:43 a.m., Plaintiff’s counsel called defense counsel but he was unavailable, upon which

Plaintiff’s counsel sent defense counsel an email apprising him of the situation. (Lee Decl., Exh. 4). At

10:58 a.m., defense counsel emailed Plaintiff’s counsel to say that Plaintiff should go to a different

address instead. (Lee Decl., Exh. 4).

Plaintiff’s counsel attempted to call Plaintiff but was unable to get through to him. Plaintiff’s

counsel later learned that he was driving his car and was on his way home.

Defense counsel and Plaintiff’s counsel then spoke by phone. Defense counsel explained that

there had been a miscommunication between him and Ms. Karen Barnes, Chief Deputy County Counsel

for the County of Kern and apologized for giving Plaintiff’s counsel the wrong address for Dr.

Burchuk’s office. He asked whether Plaintiff’s counsel would agree to extend the May 19 DME to make

up for the missed time. Plaintiff’s counsel said Plaintiff had other appointments that day and must leave

at 2 p.m. Plaintiff’s counsel then asked defense counsel to email him additional proposals for making up

the missed time and he would look at them.

After hanging up with defense counsel, Plaintiff’s counsel repeatedly called Plaintiff until he got

through. He told Plaintiff to turn his car around and proceed to the new address which defense counsel

had emailed him. Plaintiff estimated he would arrive at the new address by 11:45 or so due to traffic.

At 11:47 a.m., Plaintiff’s counsel emailed defense counsel to notify him Plaintiff’s counsel had

successfully gotten through to Plaintiff and that he would be arriving at the new address shortly. (Lee


8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME





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

Decl., Exh. 4).

Plaintiff arrived at the new address at approximately 12 p.m. upon which Dr. Burchuk began the

defense mental examination.

Around 2 p.m., as the examination was concluding, Dr. Burchuk presented Plaintiff with two

HIPPA authorization and release forms (“Releases”) permitting Dr. Burchuk to speak with and obtain

medical records from Plaintiff’s treating psychiatrists, Dr. Paul Riskin and Dr. Anosh Taheri-Tafreshi.

(Jadwin Decl., Exh. A). Plaintiff had been instructed that he was not to call his attorneys at any time

during the examination. He therefore complied with Dr. Burchuk's request and signed the releases.

After the examination concluded, Plaintiff spoke with my attorneys and was infonned that he

should not have signed the Releases because there was an agreement among the attorneys that his

treating psychiatrists were not to produce any documents to Defendants other than written summary

reports, which had already been provided to Defendants. Upon the advice of his attorneys, Plaintiff then

immediately revoked the HIPAA releases by calling and emailing Dr. Burchuk, Dr. Riskin and Dr.

Taheri-Tafreshi.

At 4:17 p.m., Plaintiff’s counsel sent an email to defense counsel. (Lee Decl., Exh. 5). In the

email, Plaintiff’s counsel objected to the above-referenced Records Subpoenas to be served on

Plaintiff’s treating psychiatrists as being in violation of the stipulation contained in the Scheduling

Order. He requested defense counsel meet and confer with him prior to filing a motion to quash

subpoena and for protective order.

Defense counsel sent Plaintiff’s counsel an email stating that he would comply with the

Scheduling Order only if Plaintiff were willing to agree to an additional 2 hours of defense mental

examination on May 29, 2008. (Lee Decl., Exh. 5).

Plaintiff’s counsel replied that the Records Subpoenas and the DME missed time issues were

separate and distinct and that defense counsel had issued the Records Subpoenas on May 2, 2008 in

violation of the Scheduling Order, long before the examination wrong address mixup had occurred.

Plaintiff’s counsel stated that Plaintiff’s counsel refused to “bargain” for Defendants’ compliance with


8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the Scheduling Order. (Lee Decl., Exh. 5).

II. ARGUMENT

The Stipulation states that Plaintiff will not be required to produce psychotherapy notes andDefendants shall instead receive treatment summary reports. Nevertheless, Defendants’ attempt to

breach the Stipulation through the use of the Records Subpoenas and by having Plaintiff sign the

Releases while cut off from contact with his attorneys. Plaintiff therefore brings this motion to quash

and for a protective order to enforce the Stipulation.

Moreover, pursuant to the Exam Stip, Plaintiff was ordered to submit to mental examinations on

May 19 from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. and May 29 from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. Defendants now seek yet another

variance to a Court order by requesting Plaintiff move the second session to June 2 and increase the

hours from 4 to 6. Defendants base this request on their own error in providing the wrong address to

Plaintiff, which resulted in the loss of 2 hours.

Defendants have sought and were granted relief from their stipulated obligation to restrict the

scope of their discovery to Plaintiff’s “depression, anxiety, insomnia, and emotional distress”, and are

now being allowed to conduct its Rule 35 examination of Plaintiff’s entire mental state without any

restriction in scope. Further, Defendants were granted relief from their failure to conduct their Rule 35

examination of Plaintiff within the time allowed and submit timely their Rule 26(a)(2)(b) expert reports.

This meant that Defendants were also granted the unusual benefit of knowing the contents of Plaintiff’s

26(a)(2)(B) forensic psychologist’s report before conducting their Rule 35 examination. Defendants

were also granted a full eight hours over two days, 10 days apart, for their Rule 35 examination even

though they will not conduct the customary four hours of psychometric testing, but will rely on the raw

data of the testing performed by Plaintiff’s forensic psychologist. In addition, Defendants’ have been

granted both a 45- and a 90-day continuance of the trial schedule to accommodate their own negligence

and needs.

This Court has thus far accommodated Defendants to a high degree. Plaintiff asks as a matter of

basic fairness that this Court now grant his motions to enforce the Stipulation and also reject


8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME





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’ request for an additional 2 hours of mental examination on June 2.

A. THE COURT MAY QUASH SUBPOENAS AND ISSUE A PROTECTIVE ORDERWITH GOOD CAUSE.

Rule 45(c)(3)(A)(iii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes a district court to quash a

subpoena that “requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter and no exception or waiver

applies.”

Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes a district court to issue a protective

order to limit disclosure or discovery. Folz v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance, 331 F.3d 1122, 1130

(9th Cir. 2003). The party seeking a protective order has the burden of showing that good cause exists to

justify the protection requested. Id . Generally, the moving party must show that specific prejudice

exists or that harm will result in the absence of a protective order.

B. THE COURT SHOULD ENFORCE THE STIPULATION AND ORDER OF MAY31, 2007, AND PROTECT PLAINTIFF’S PSYCHIATRIST’S ACTUALTREATING NOTES FROM DISCOVERY.

Defendants have twice attempted to breach the Stipulation. First, on May 2, Defendants issued

the Records Subpoenas seeking the psychotherapy notes of Dr. Jadwin’s treating psychiatrists. When

Plaintiff confronted Defendants about this attempted breach, Defendants opportunistically responded

that they would address Plaintiff’s demand for compliance with the Stipulation in consideration of

Plaintiff’s agreement to address the loss of 2 hours during the May 19 examination incurred due to

Defendants’ address error by agreeing to an additional 2 hours of examination at the second examination

session. Plaintiff refused to bargain for Defendants’ compliance with the Stipulation.

Second, Defendants’ forensic psychiatrist, Dr. Burchuk, directed Plaintiff to sign the Releases,

giving Dr. Burchuk access to the same psychotherapy notes. Dr. Burchuk did so knowing Plaintiff had

been ordered not to contact his attorneys at any time during the examination. It is not in the community

standard to have litigants sign HIPPA releases during defense mental examinations in the absence of

counsel. This was precisely the kind of conduct Plaintiff had sought to head off when previously

requesting that Plaintiff be permitted to contact his attorneys during the examination. Plaintiff’s request


8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME





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

was expressly denied however.

C. THE PARTIES HAD ENTERED INTO THE STIPULATION DUE TO THEABSENCE OF SETTLED FEDERAL LAW REGARDING THE SCOPE OF

PLAINTIFF’S WAIVER OF THE FEDERAL PSYCHOTHERAPIST-PATIENTPRIVILEGE.

There is an absence of settled federal law regarding the scope of Plaintiff’s waiver of the federal

psychotherapist-patient privilege. As a result, the parties had entered into the Stipulation providing that

Plaintiff had placed his “depression, anxiety, insomnia, and emotional distress” in controversy, but

agreed to limit the scope of disclosure and discovery regarding these mental conditions, and converted

the Stipulation into the Order of this Court of May 31, 2007. By this motion, Plaintiff seeks

enforcement of this stipulation.

1. Federal Law of Privileges Governs This Case.

Plaintiff requests judicial notice that Magistrate Judge Goldner has found herein that because this

is a federal question case, federal privilege law governs, even as to the supplemental state claims. See,

Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to Compel Production and Further Responses dated

May 9, 2008 at 3:7 – 4:2. This is consistent with the comments of the Advisory Committee who, in

enacting Fed.R.Evid. 501 (the federal law of privileges), stressed that federal common law, and not the

law of the states, governs federal privilege law.

2. Federal Law Recognizes a Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege.

In Jaffee v. Redmond , 518 U.S. 1 (1996), the Supreme Court found that, under Rule 501, there

exists a psychotherapist-patient privilege under the federal common law. See Id . at 15. The Supreme

Court observed that, “like the spousal and attorney-client privileges, the psychotherapist-patient

privilege is rooted in the imperative need for confidence and trust.” Id. at 10 (citation omitted). The

Supreme Court further noted: “The psychotherapist privilege serves the public interest by facilitating

the provision of appropriate treatment for individuals suffering the effects of a mental or emotional

problem. The mental health of our citizenry, no less than its physical health, is a public good of


8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME





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

transcendent importance.” Id . at 11. “Because the privilege will serve a public good transcending the

normally predominant principle of utilizing all rational means for ascertaining truth, we hold that

confidential communications between a licensed psychotherapist and her patients in the course of

diagnosis or treatment are protected from compelled disclosure under Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of

Evidence.” Id . at 15 (citation omitted).

3. Plaintiff Waived The Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege to the Extent that HePlaced His Mental State In Controversy.

Under Federal Rule of Evidence 504, a Plaintiff waives his psychotherapist-patient privilege to

the extent that he places his mental state in controversy. F.R.E. Rule 504. Further, a defendant is

entitled to a Rule 35 examination regarding Plaintiff’s mental state placed in controversy. F.R.C.P.

Rule 35.

Although the Supreme Court noted that the psychotherapist-patient privilege could be waived

(see Jaffee, supra, 518 U.S. at 15 n. 14), it did not discuss what exactly would constitute a waiver or the

scope of a waiver. Importantly, however, it rejected the “balancing” approach taken by some federal

and state courts to determine the applicability of the privilege. It stated: “Making the promise of

confidentiality contingent upon a trial judge’s later evaluation of the relative importance of the patient’s

interest in privacy and the evidentiary need for disclosure would eviscerate the effectiveness of the

privilege. . . if the purpose of the privilege is to be served, the participants in the confidential

conversation “must be able to predict with some degree of certainty whether particular discussions will

be protected. An uncertain privilege, or one which purports to be certain but results in widely varying

applications by the courts, is little better than no privilege at all.” Id . at 17-18.

4. Parties Stipulated As to the Scope of Plaintiff’s Waiver of His Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege.

There is no direct Ninth Circuit authority on what constitutes a waiver of the psychotherapist-

patient privilege under Rule 504, and district courts that have addressed the issue have not come to any

consensus. See Sarko v. Penn-Del Directory Co., 170 F.R.D. 127 (E.D. Penn. 1997); Fritsch v. City of


8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME





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

Chula Vista, 196 F.R.D. 562 (S.D. Cal. 1999) (simple allegation of emotional distress in a complaint

constitutes waiver); and Vanderbilt v. Town of Chilmark , 174 F.R.D. 225 (D. Mass. 1997); Hucko v. City

of Oak Forest , 185 F.R.D. 526 (N.D. Ill. 1999) (affirmative reliance on the psychotherapist-patient

communications required before the privilege will be deemed waived).

In the absence of federal law, California law provided the parties some guidance as to the scope

of Plaintiff’s waiver of his psychotherapist-patient privilege. Under California law, a Plaintiff waives

his right to privacy only as to the specific medical information that he has “tendered at issue,” and courts

must further restrict even this directly relevant information to a reasonable time frame. [Evid. Code §§

996, 1016; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 862, (physical injuries); In re Lifschutz (1970)

2 Cal. 3d 415, 431, 435, 85 Cal. Rptr. 829, 467 P.2d 557 (psychological injuries)]. In Britt v. Superior

Court, supra, 20 Cal.3d 844, the California Supreme Court held that “an implicit waiver of a party’s

constitutional rights encompasses only discovery directly relevant to the Plaintiff’s claim and essential

to the fair resolution of the lawsuit.” Id . at 859. Thus, “Plaintiffs are ‘not obligated to sacrifice all

privacy to seek redress for specific [physical,] mental or emotional injury,’” but “they are entitled to

retain the confidentiality of all unrelated medical or psychological treatment.” Id . The Britt court

provided a clarifying example of what it meant by “information relating to the medical condition in

question.” It explained that a Plaintiff who claims that airport operations have damaged to his

respiratory system must disclose only medical information relating to his respiratory condition.

However, Plaintiff could not limit discovery of his respiratory condition information to those airport-

related incidents that have allegedly impaired his respiratory condition. [ Id. at 864, fn. 9].

Alleging general damages does not tender a Plaintiff’s mental state at issue. San Diego Trolley,

Inc. v. Superior Court (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1083, 1093(“The patient/litigant exception is narrowly

construed so that patients are not deterred from instituting any general claim for mental suffering and

damage out of fear of opening up all past communications to discovery.” ) (emphasis added); Vinson v.

Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal. 3d 833, 840-42 (“We cannot agree that the mere initiation of a sexual

harassment suit, even with the rather extreme mental and emotional damage Plaintiff claims to have


8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME





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

suffered, functions to waive all her privacy interests…Plaintiff is not compelled, as a condition to

entering the courtroom to discard entirely her mantle of privacy.”).

Nor are fishing trips for other potential stressors that may have contributed to a Plaintiff’s

emotional distress permitted. Tylo v. Superior Court (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1388; Roberts v.

Superior Court of Butte County (West ) (1973) 9 Cal. 3d 330, 340, 508 P.2d 309, 107 Cal. Rptr. 309, 340

(“in every lawsuit involving personal injuries, a mental component may be said to be at issue, in that

limited sense at least. However, to allow discovery of past psychiatric treatment merely to ascertain

whether the patient’s past condition may have decreased his tolerance to pain or whether the patient may

have discussed with his psychotherapist complaints similar to those to be litigated, would defeat the

purpose of the privilege.”).

California courts recognize that the right of privacy is especially important when dealing with an

individual’s personal thoughts and psychological composition: “If there is a quintessential zone of

human privacy it is the mind. Our ability to exclude others from our mental processes is intrinsic to the

human personality.” Long Beach City Employees Assn. v. City of Long Beach (1986) 41 Cal.3d 937,

944. When a Plaintiff does tender part of his mental state at issue, disclosure of those aspects of a

Plaintiff’s personality that are not “directly relevant” is barred “even though they may, in some sense, be

“relevant” to the substantive issues of litigation.” In Re Lifshutz, supra, 2 Cal. 3d at 435; see also Lantz

v. Superior Court (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1839, 1855 (“if an intrusion on the right of privacy is deemed

necessary under the circumstances of a particular case, any such intrusion should be the minimum

intrusion necessary to achieve its objective.”). Just as alleging an injury to a knee does not tender all of

Plaintiff’s body parts at issue, so tendering a personality disorder does not place all of Plaintiff’s mental

condition at issue. In Re Lifshutz, supra, 2 Cal. 3d at 435 (“Under section 1016 disclosure can be

compelled only with respect to those mental conditions the patient-litigant has “disclose[d] ... by

bringing an action in which they are in issue” (City & County of San Francisco v. Superior Court, supra

37 Cal.2d 227, 232); communications which are not directly relevant to those specific conditions do not

fall within the terms of section 1016’s exception and therefore remain privileged. Disclosure cannot be


8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME





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

compelled with respect to other aspects of the patient-litigant’s personality even though they may, in

some sense, be “relevant” to the substantive issues of litigation.”); see also Davis v. Superior Court of

Kern County (Williams) (1992) 7 Cal. App. 4th 1008. 9 Cal. Rptr. 2d 331]. As the Lifschulz Court

illustrated, a Plaintiff’s aggressive tendencies are not “directly relevant” in an assault claim, although,

they are arguably “relevant” under section 210 of the Evidence Code. [ Id ., Evid. Code § 210].

D. THE COURT SHOULD ENFORCE THE STIPULATION AND ORDER REEXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF AND DENY DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FORAN 6 HOURS OF EXAMINATION ON JUNE 2, 2008.

The Stipulation and Order regarding the defense mental examination issued by this Court states:

PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF THE COURT, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED byand between the parties through their respective counsel that Plaintiff, David F. Jadwin,shall submit to a mental and psychiatric examination by Dr. Robert Burchuk on Monday,May 19, 2008 from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. and Thursday, May 29 from 1:00 p.m. to5:00 p.m. in Dr. Burchuk’s office at 23522 Califa Street, Woodland Hills, California.(Doc. 135)

Plaintiff fully complied with the Order. He arrived at Dr. Burchuk’s office at 23522 Califa Street

Woodland Hills, California, at 10 a.m. on May 19, 2008. He waited for 40 minutes waiting to be let into

the gate. As it turns out, defense counsel had provided Plaintiff with the wrong address. Plaintiff, under

instructions not to contact his attorneys at any time during the defense mental examination, finally called

his attorneys at 10:40 a.m. to inform them of the situation. Plaintiff’s counsel then called defense

counsel but defense counsel was unavailable. At 10:43 a.m., Plaintiff’s counsel sent an email to defense

counsel informing him of the situation. At 10:58 a.m., defense counsel emailed Plaintiff’s counsel with

the correct address. They then had a phone call where defense counsel explained that he had given

Plaintiff’s counsel the wrong address and then provided him with the correct address. After repeated

attempts, Plaintiff’s counsel finally reached Plaintiff, who was in his car on the freeway driving home.

He told Plaintiff to immediately turn his car around to proceed to the new address. Plaintiff did so,

arriving at the new address at around noon. Plaintiff’s counsel emailed defense counsel informing him

that Plaintiff was on his way to the new address. The defense medical examination promptly began at

noon and ended at 2 p.m., lasting 2 hours.


8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME





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 now request that the second day of the examination be moved from May 29 to June 2

and be increased from 4 hours to 6 hours in order to accommodate Defendants’ error.

There are several incontrovertible facts which Plaintiff submits for the Court’s consideration.

1. Plaintiff arrived at the appointed place at the appointed time and fully complied with the

Court’s Order.

2. Defendants, not Plaintiff, are responsible for the address error and the loss of 2 hours.

3. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel acted expediently to remedy the situation and minimize the

time loss due to the address error. Plaintiff spent 40 minutes waiting outside a gate at the

wrong address and then 80 minutes on the freeway driving to and then back from his house

and finding his way to the new address.

4. Defendants already have the unfair advantage of having all of Plaintiff’s Rule 26(a)(2)(b)

reports, including the report issued by Plaintiff’s forensic psychologist, prior to conducting

their mental examination (Plaintiff is still waiting for Defendants’ reports). This militates in

favor of having a shorter, not longer, mental examination since Defendant’s examiner can

now skip almost all of the preliminary discussions already covered by Plaintiff’s expert

report.

5. Despite being busy and overburdened with the demands attendant to starting and running a

new business venture, Plaintiff rearranged his travel and business schedule in order to fully

accommodate Defendant’s request to have, not one, but two days of examination of 4 hours

each held 10 days apart, on the specific dates requested by Defendants. Plaintiff had

requested 1 day of 8 hours to minimize the impact on his schedule but Defendants refused.

6. After Defendants’ failed to conduct the defense mental examination before the original

expert disclosure deadline of May 5, 2008 – an examination which the parties had discussed

on multiple occasions since January 22, 2008 – and to timely submit any Rule 26(a)(2)(b)

reports, Defendants obtained a 45-day continuance of pre-trial dates that the Court granted

over Plaintiff’s objections.


8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME





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

7. This 45-day continuance is in addition to the 90-day continuance of pre-trial and trial dates

which Defendants previously requested and the Court granted.

Plaintiff is ready, willing and able to comply with the Court Order and attend the examination on

May 29 from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. Plaintiff opposes the grant to Defendants’ of yet another variance in a

Court Order due to yet another error by Defendants. Plaintiff has already been forced to accommodate

Defendants’ many requests and errors and been prejudiced in the process. As a matter of basic fairness,

Plaintiff asks that the Court accommodate his schedule and deny Defendants’ request.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant the following relief:


Plaintiff’s psychiatrist’s actual treating notes in violation of the Scheduling Order dated May

31, 2007;

2. An order quashing Defendants’ record subpoena for Plaintiff’s psychiatric records kept by

Paul Riskin, M.D.;

3. An order quashing Defendants’ record subpoena for Plaintiff’s psychiatric records kept by



Plaintiff’s Rule 35 examination;

Plaintiff further requests any other relief that the Court deems proper.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED on May 22, 2008.

/s/ Eugene D. LeeLAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100Los Angeles, CA 90013

Phone: (213) 992-3299Fax: (213) 596-0487email: [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.


8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME


DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE re MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER re DEFENSEMENTAL EXAMINATION 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


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




Plaintiff,v.


Defendants.


DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE re

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER reDEFENSE MENTAL EXAMINATION

Date: May 27, 2008Time: 9:30 a.m.Place: U.S. District Court, Crtrm. 3

2500 Tulare St, Fresno, CA

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

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 May 31, 2007, the Court issued the Scheduling Order (Doc. 29). A true and correct

copy is attached as Exhibit 1. The Scheduling Order contained a stipulation of the parties stating as

follows:

The parties hereby agree that, in order to preserve the confidentiality required forcontinued effective treatment of Plaintiff’s depression, anxiety, insomnia, and emotional

distress, Plaintiff’s treating psychiatrists/psychologists shall not be required to producetheir actual treatment notes, but instead shall produce a summary of their treatment of Plaintiff’s depression and emotional distress, including their diagnoses and prognoses,and the basis for their opinion, including raw data of any psychological testing.(Exh. 1, 14:5-13).

3. On May 2, 2008, defense counsel issued records subpoenas, unsigned copies of which I

received for the first time on May 12, 2008. A true and correct copy is attached as Exhibit 2. The

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 140-2 Filed 05/22/2008 Page 1 of 50

8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME



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

subpoena were served on my office by regular U.S. mail. I received no prior notice of the records

subpoenas. The subpoena evidenced defense counsel’s intention to obtain “All patient records relating to

[Plaintiff], regardless of date” from two of Plaintiff’s treating psychiatrists, Dr. Paul M. Riskin and Dr.

Anoshiravan Taheri-Tafreshi. (Exh. 2, 2-5). They set the records production deadline as 10 a.m. on May

21, 2008.

4. On May 16, 2008, the parties entered into a stipulation pursuant to the order of this Court

whereby Plaintiff would submit to a mental and psychiatric examination by Dr. Robert Burchuk for 4

hours on May 19, 2008, from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., and again for 4 hours on May 29, 2008 from 1 p.m. to 5

p.m. in “Dr. Burchuk’s office at 23522 Califa Street, Woodland Hills, California.” A true and correct

copy of the stipulation is attached as Exhibit 3.

5. On May 19, 2008, at 10:40 a.m., Plaintiff phoned me to say that he had been waiting

since 10 a.m. outside the gate at Dr. Burchuk’s office at 23522 Califa Street, Woodland Hills, California

as he had been required to do pursuant to the stipulation, but no one was letting him in.

6. At 10:43 a.m., I called defense counsel but he was unavailable, upon which I sent defense

counsel an email apprising him of the situation. A true and correct copy of the email is attached as

Exhibit 4. At 10:58 a.m., defense counsel emailed me to say that Plaintiff should go to a different

address instead. See Exhibit 4.

7. I attempted to call Plaintiff but was unable to get through to him. I later learned that he

was driving his car and was on his way home.

8. Defense counsel and I then spoke by phone. Defense counsel explained to me that there

had been a miscommunication between him and Ms. Karen Barnes, Chief Deputy County Counsel for

the County of Kern and apologized for giving me the wrong address for Dr. Burchuk’s office. He asked

me whether I would agree to extend the May 19 DME to make up for the missed time. I said Plaintiff

told me he had other appointments that day and must leave at 2 p.m. I then asked defense counsel to

email me additional proposals for making up the missed time and I would look at them.

9. After hanging up with defense counsel, I repeatedly called Plaintiff until I got through. I

told him to turn his car around and proceed to the new address which defense counsel had emailed me.

Plaintiff estimated he would arrive at the new address by 11:45 or so due to traffic.


8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME



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

10. At 11:47 a.m., I emailed defense counsel to notify him I had successfully gotten through

to Plaintiff and that he would be arriving at the new address shortly. See Exhibit 4.

11. At 4:17 p.m., I sent an email to defense counsel. A true and correct copy is attached as

Exhibit 5. In the email, I objected to the above-referenced records subpoena to be served on Plaintiff’s

treating psychiatrists as being in violation of the stipulation contained in the Scheduling Order. I

requested defense counsel meet and confer with me prior to my filing a motion to quash subpoena and

for protective order.

12. Defense counsel sent me an stating that he would comply with the Scheduling Order only

if Plaintiff were willing to agree to an additional 2 hours of defense mental examination on May 29,

2008. See Exhibit 5. I replied that the records subpoena and the DME missed time issues were separate

and distinct and that defense counsel had issued the records subpoena on May 2, 2008 in violation of the

Scheduling Order, long before the DME wrong address mixup had occurred. I stated that I refused to

“bargain” for Defendants’ compliance with the Scheduling Order.

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: May 21, 2008

_________________________

EUGENE D. LEEDeclarant


8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

EXHIBITS TO JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT

EXHIBIT 1. Scheduling Order (Doc. 29)

EXHIBIT 2. Defendants’ Records Subpoena

EXHIBIT 3. Stipulation & Order re Defense Mental Examination

EXHIBIT 4. Emails between Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ counsel, 5/19/08

EXHIBIT 5. Emails between Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ counsel, 5/19/08


8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME



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


8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME


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

1




Plaintiff,

v.


Defendants.

))))

)))))))

1:07-cv-0026 OWW TAG

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER

Discovery Cut-Off: 4/4/08

Non-Dispositive MotionFiling Deadline: 4/21/08

Dispositive Motion FilingDeadline: 5/5/08

Settlement Conference Date:2/6/08 10:00 Ctrm. 8

Pre-Trial ConferenceDate: 7/14/08 11:00 Ctrm. 3

Trial Date: 8/26/08 9:00Ctrm. 3 (JT-14 days)

I. Date of Scheduling Conference.

May 31, 2007.

II. Appearances Of Counsel.

Eugene D. Lee, Esq., and Joan Harrington, Esq., appeared on

behalf of Plaintiff.

Mark A. Wasser, Esq., appeared on behalf of Defendants

County of Kern, Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher,

Jennifer Abraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smith and William Roy.


8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME


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

2

III. Summary of Pleadings.

1. This is an individual action brought by Plaintiff David

F. Jadwin, D.O., a whistleblowing physician with disabilities,

against his employer, (i) the County of Kern (“Defendant County”

or “the County”), owner and operator of Kern Medical Center

(“KMC”) the health facility at which Plaintiff was employed; (ii)

individual Defendants Peter Bryan (“Bryan”), Chief Executive

Officer of Kern Medical Center (“KMC”); Eugene Kercher, M.D.,

President of Medical Staff at KMC (“Kercher”); Jennifer Abraham,

M.D., Immediate Past President of Medical Staff at KMC

(“Abraham”); Scott Ragland, M.D., President-Elect of Medical

Staff at KMC (“Ragland”); and Toni Smith, Chief Nurse Executive

of KMC, (“Smith”), both personally and in their official

capacities; and (iii) individual Defendants Irwin Harris, M.D.,

Chief Medical Officer of KMC (“Harris”); William Roy, M.D., Chief

of the Division of Gynecologic Oncology at KMC (“Roy)”; and Does

1 through 10.

2. Plaintiff’s claims against his employer, Defendant

County, allege violations of section 1278.5 of the Health &

Safety Code which prohibits retaliation against a health care

provider who reports suspected unsafe care and conditions of

patients in a health care facility; section 1102.5 of the Labor

Code which prohibits retaliation against an employee or reporting

or refusing to participate in suspected violations of the law;

the California Family Rights Act (sections 12945.1, et seq., of

the Government Code) (“CFRA”) and the Family and Medical Leave

Act (sections 2601, et seq. of the United States Code) (“FMLA”)

which prohibit interference with an employee’s right to medical


8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME


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

3

leave and retaliation for an employee’s exercise of the right to

medical leave; and the Fair Employment and Housing Act

[subdivisions (a), (m) & (n) of Section 12940 of the Government

Code] (“FEHA”) which prohibits discrimination against an employee

with a disability, failure to provide reasonable accommodation,

and failure to engage in an interactive process; and recovery of

wrongfully deducted wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (29

U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq.) (“FLSA”).

3. Plaintiff sues Defendants County, Roy, Harris and Does

1 through 10, for defamation; and also sues each of the

individual Defendants except for Roy and Harris, both in their

personal capacity and in their official capacity as members of

the KMC Joint Conference Committee (“JCC”), for violation of

Plaintiff’s 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution

right to procedural due process pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

(“Due Process”).

4. Plaintiff brings this action for general, compensatory,

and punitive damages; prejudgment interest, costs and attorneys’

fees; injunctive and declaratory relief; and other appropriate

and just relief resulting from Defendants’ unlawful conduct.

5. Plaintiff is not a whistleblower and is not disabled.

He was employed by the County of Kern as a staff pathologist at

Kern Medical Center, pursuant to a written agreement, and

assigned to the position of Chair of the Pathology Department.

6. During his tenure at Kern Medical Center, Plaintiff’s

behavior caused several pathologists, technicians and support

personnel whom he criticized, intimidated, harassed and

retaliated against to quit and seek employment elsewhere. He


8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME


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

4

alienated many of the physicians at Kern Medical Center through

criticism, disruptive behavior, disrespect, anger, arrogance and

retaliation. Plaintiff complained about procedures and policies

at Kern Medical Center and interfered with patient care through

obstructionist behavior and secretive practices. His pathology

reports were characterized by frequent mistakes, changes in

opinion and untimely service, all of which compromised patient

care. Disagreements arose between Plaintiff and many of the

other physicians at Kern Medical Center regarding Plaintiff’s

behavior, his anger and confrontational personal style, his

inaccurate and untimely diagnoses, his disruptive behavior, his

complaints about medical procedures, his refusal to follow even

his own rules, his intimidation of staff and patient management.

7. As a result of the stresses and disagreements that

Plaintiff brought into the workplace, his injuries and illnesses,

family health issues and outside business interests, Plaintiff

requested and received a reduced work schedule and multiple

leaves of absence. He frequently worked only one or two days a

week and was absent from the hospital for long periods of time.

Because he was neither working full-time nor present in the

hospital, he was removed from the position of Chair of the

Pathology Department and his compensation was adjusted to that of

a staff pathologist without departmental administrative

responsibilities.

8. Management at Kern Medical Center counseled Plaintiff

about his anger and confrontational style but Plaintiff was not

receptive to the counseling and the work environment continued to

deteriorate. Plaintiff was finally placed on paid administrative


8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME


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

5

leave in an effort to allow the work environment to stabilize.

IV. Orders Re Amendments To Pleadings.

1. Plaintiff intends to file a Second Supplemental

Complaint to include allegations of continuing discrimination and

retaliation that occurred after April 24, 2007. Plaintiff will

insert the following: On May 1, 2007, Defendant County notified

Plaintiff that he will remain on paid administrative leave until

his contract expires on October 4, 2007; and that, contrary to

its prior and customary practice, Defendant County does not

intend to renew his employment contract. Although Plaintiff is

no longer restricted to the confines of his home during working

hours, he still may not enter KMC’s premises or access his office

without prior written permission. The numbering of the following

paragraphs will be adjusted accordingly. Plaintiff has already

provided Defendants with the draft Second Supplemental Complaint

in the form in which Plaintiff intends to file it for Defendants’

prior review. Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to file any

supplemental complaint on or before June 14, 2007.

2. Defendants intend to file an Amended Answer that (i)

with regard to the third affirmative defense, alleges the

specific privileges and immunities relied on with greater

particularity, (ii) with regard to the fourth affirmative

defense, alleges the specific provisions of Cal. Civ. Code § 47

relied on with greater particularity, and (iii) alleges the ninth

affirmative defense (qualified immunity) with greater

particularity, as well as additional non-material changes.

Defendants have already provided Plaintiff with the draft Amended

Answer in the form in which Defendants intend to file it for


8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME


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

6

Plaintiff’s prior review. Defendants are hereby ORDERED to file

their response to the supplemental complaint on or before June

24, 2007.

3. Based on the foregoing, each of the parties hereby

stipulates to the filing of the other’s supplemented/amended

pleadings and hereby respectfully request the order of the Court

granting the parties leave to file their respective

amended/supplemented pleadings.

4. It should be noted that Plaintiff intends to file a

motion to strike certain of Defendants’ affirmative defenses

contained in the Amended Answer proposed to be filed as having

insufficient bases in law. The parties have already met and

conferred regarding the affirmative defenses at issue but have

not been able to reach a resolution.

5. Defendants wish to assert, based upon a new Supreme

Court decision issued May 30, 2007, the defense of the statute of

limitations, if applicable.

V. Factual Summary.

A. Admitted Facts Which Are Deemed Proven Without Further

Proceedings.

1. At all material times, Defendant Kern County was a

local public entity within the meaning of sections 811.2 and

900.4 of the Government Code and is operating in Kern County,

California.

2. During the entire course of Plaintiff’s

employment, Defendant Kern County has continuously been an

employer within the meaning of FMLA [29 C.F.R. § 825.105(C)],

CFRA [Gov’t Code § 12945.2(b)(2)] FEHA (Gov’t Code § 12926(d)],


8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME


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

7

and FLSA [29 U.S.C. § 203] engaged in interstate commerce, and

regularly employing more than fifty employees within seventy-five

miles of Plaintiff’s workplace.

3. Defendant Bryan was Chief Executive Officer of KMC

and a resident of California during most of the time alleged in

the Complaint.

4. At all material times, Defendant Eugene Kercher

was a citizen of California, a resident of Kern County,

California, and President of KMC Medical Staff, and a member of

the KMC Joint Conference Committee (“JCC”).

5. At all material times, Defendant Irwin Harris was

a citizen of California, and a resident of Kern County,

California, and Chief Medical Officer at KMC, and a non-voting

member of the JCC.

6. At all material times, Defendant Jennifer Abraham

was a citizen of California, and a resident of Kern County,

California and Immediate Past President of KMC Medical Staff.

7. At all material times, Defendant Scott Ragland was

a citizen of California, and a resident of Kern County,

California, President-Elect of KMC Medical Staff, and a member of

the JCC.

8. At all material times, Defendant Toni Smith was a

citizen of California, and a resident of Kern County, California,

and Chief Nurse Executive of KMC, and a member of the JCC.

9. At all material times, Defendant William Roy was a

citizen of California, and a resident of Kern County, California

and Chief of the division of Gynecologic Oncology at KMC.

10. Plaintiff has continuously been an employee of


8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME


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

8

Defendant Kern County since October 24, 2000.

11. Plaintiff is a pathologist whom Defendant County

hired as a pathologist at KMC and appointed to the position of

Chair of the Pathology Department.

12. Plaintiff was compensated and provided with

certain benefits pursuant to a written employment agreement, the

terms of which speak for themselves.

13. Defendant Kern County placed Plaintiff’s initial

salary level at Step C.

14. Defendant expected Plaintiff to be an effective

member of the physicians’ staff at KMC and to contribute to the

overall improvement of the hospital.

15. Plaintiff requested and received leaves of absence

and reduced work schedules, the terms and conditions of and

reasons for which are memorialized in writings that speak for

themselves.

16. Plaintiff’s former attorney sent a letter to Kern

County Counsel Bernard Barmann and Mr. Barmann met with Plaintiff

on or about February 9, 2006.

17. Defendant Bryan and Plaintiff exchanged written

communications regarding Plaintiff’s reduced work schedule and

requests for leaves of absence. Plaintiff met with Defendant

Bryan and others to discuss those subjects.

18. Defendant Bryan and Plaintiff exchanged written

correspondence regarding Plaintiff’s tenure and performance as

Chair of the Pathology Department at KMC. All the writings speak

for themselves.

19. On or about July 10, 2006, the JCC voted to remove


8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME


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

9

Plaintiff from his position as Chair of the Pathology Department

at Kern Medical Center.

20. Plaintiff was removed from his position as Chair

of the Pathology Department in part because he was neither

working full-time nor present in the hospital.

21. Defendant County subsequently amended Plaintiff’s

employment agreement to reduce Plaintiff’s base compensation.

22. Defendant County appointed Dr. Philip Dutt Acting

Chair of the Pathology Department.

23. Plaintiff returned to work as a staff pathologist

at KMC on October 4, 2006.

24. Plaintiff exchanged written correspondence with

KMC Interim CEO David Culberson and those writings speak for

themselves.

25. Defendant Kern County placed Plaintiff on paid

administrative leave, which continues to this date.

26. Defendant County has provided Plaintiff with the

information he requested from the computer that had been

previously assigned to him.

27. Plaintiff filed a claim with Defendant Kern County

and the claim was rejected.

28. Any acts or omissions of the individual Defendants

were under color of law.

B. Contested Facts.

1. Defendants contest all allegations and averments

in the First Supplemented Complaint other than those enumerated

in Section A, Uncontested Facts.

2. Plaintiff contests Defendants’ averment that


8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME


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

10

Plaintiff disrupted the October, 2005, Monthly Oncology

Conference and prevented appropriate discussion of case

management and that other physicians at Kern Medical Center,

including some of the Defendants, were concerned about

Plaintiff’s conduct and with his interference with patient care.

3. Plaintiff contests all averments contained in the

Anser to the First Supplemented Complaint other than those stated

in Section A, Uncontested Facts.

VI. Legal Issues.

A. Uncontested.

1. Jurisdiction is disputed.

2. Venue, if jurisdiction exists, is proper under 28

U.S.C. § 1392.

3. If jurisdiction is present, the parties agree that

the substantive law of the State of California provides the rule

of decision for supplemental claims.

B. Contested.

1. Whether this Court has or should exercise

supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state claims pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

2. Whether Defendant Kern County violated Cal. Health

& Safety Code § 1278.5, entitling Plaintiff to damages for

retaliation for reporting his concerns about the health and

safety of patients.

3. Whether Defendant Kern County violated Cal. Lab.

Code § 1102.5, entitling Plaintiff to damages for retaliation

against him for reporting suspected illegal acts.

4. Whether Defendant Kern County violated Cal. Gov’t


8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME


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

11

Code §§ 12945.1, et seq., and 2 C.C.R. § 7297.7(a), entitling

Plaintiff to damages for retaliation for exercising his right to

CFRA medical leave.

5. Whether Defendants Kern County and Bryan violated

29 U.S.C. §§ 2601, et seq., entitling Plaintiff to damages for

interference with his FMLA rights.


Code §§ 12945.1, et seq., entitling Plaintiff to damages for

violation of CFRA rights.


Code § 12940(a) entitling Plaintiff to damages for disability

discrimination.


Code § 12940(m) entitling Plaintiff to damages for failure to

provide reasonable accommodation, and an injunction requiring

compliance.


Code § 12940(n) entitling Plaintiff to damages and injunctive

relief for failure to engage in good faith in an interactive

process, and an injunction requiring compliance.

10. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, whether Defendants

Bryan, Kercher, Ragland, Abraham, and Smith, both personally and

in their respective official capacities, violated the 14th

Amendment of the U.S. Constitution entitling Plaintiff to damages

and injunctive relief for procedural due process violations.

11. Whether Defendants Kern County, Roy, and Harris

violated Cal. Civ. Code §§ 45-47 entitling Plaintiff for damages

for defamation.


8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME


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

12

12. Whether Defendant Kern County violated 29 U.S.C.

§ 201 et seq., entitling Plaintiff to damages for wages lost

during periods when he was ready, willing, and able to work, but

was denied reduced scheduled medical leave, and forced to take

full time leave; and an injunction requiring compliance.

VII. Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction.

1. The parties have not consented to transfer the

case to the Magistrate Judge for all purposes, including trial.

VIII. Corporate Identification Statement.

1. Any nongovernmental corporate party to any action in

this court shall file a statement identifying all its parent

corporations and listing any entity that owns 10% or more of the

party's equity securities. A party shall file the statement with

its initial pleading filed in this court and shall supplement the

statement within a reasonable time of any change in the

information.

IX. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date.

1. The parties are ordered to file their Rule 26(a)(1)

initial disclosures on or before August 6, 2007.

2. The parties are ordered to complete all discovery on

or before April 4, 2008.

3. The parties are directed to disclose all expert

witnesses, in writing, on or before February 4, 2008. Any

rebuttal or supplemental expert disclosures will be made on or

before March 4, 2008. The parties will comply with the

provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) regarding

their expert designations. Local Rule 16-240(a) notwithstanding,

the written designation of experts shall be made pursuant to F.


8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME


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

13

R. Civ. P. Rule 26(a)(2), (A) and (B) and shall include all

information required thereunder. Failure to designate experts in

compliance with this order may result in the Court excluding the

testimony or other evidence offered through such experts that are

not disclosed pursuant to this order.

4. The provisions of F. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4) shall

apply to all discovery relating to experts and their opinions.

Experts may be fully prepared to be examined on all subjects and

opinions included in the designation. Failure to comply will

result in the imposition of sanctions.

5. Confidentiality Orders. Documents to be produced

include patient medical records that contain confidential patient

health care information, medical peer review records that are

confidential pursuant to California Evidence Code § 1157, some

documents that are protected by the attorney/client privilege and

some documents that include attorney work-product and trial

preparation materials. The Defendants are required to redact all

confidential patient information before producing any patient

records and will do so. The parties hereby agree that

Defendants’ production of certain specified peer review records

without redaction shall not be construed as a waiver of the peer

review privilege in general or a waiver with regard to any other

documents or person. The parties hereby agree that Defendants’

production of certain specified relevant memos and e-mails that

were sent to legal counsel for the County of Kern, as well as

other, non-lawyer, County employees, shall not be construed as a

waiver of the attorney/client privilege. The parties hereby

agree that Defendants’ production of certain specified documents


8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME


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

14

that include attorney work-product and trial preparation

materials shall not constitute a waiver of either the work-

product or trial preparation materials privileges as to any other

materials.

6. The parties hereby agree that, in order to preserve the

confidentiality required for continued effective treatment of

Plaintiff’s depression, anxiety, insomnia, and emotional

distress, Plaintiff’s treating psychiatrists/psychologists shall

not be required to produce their actual treatment notes, but

instead shall produce a summary of their treatment of Plaintiff’s

depression and emotional distress, including their diagnoses and

prognoses, and the basis for their opinion, including raw data of

any psychological testing. Plaintiff is willing to undergo

psychological examination by Defendants’ qualified expert

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 34 subject to a

stipulation regarding the timing and scope of the examination,

including the specific tests to be performed, and prompt

production of the subsequent report and raw data supporting the

report to all parties.

7. The parties are not presently aware of any other issues

relating to claims of privilege or of protection as trial-

preparation material.

8. Changes in Limitations on Discovery. Given the number

of Defendants and witnesses and the number and complexity of the

issues, Plaintiff anticipates needing relief from the discovery

limitations of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2)(A) (10

depositions per side) and Rule 33(a) (no more than 25

interrogatories per party). Defendants do not object to granting


8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME


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

15

Plaintiff relief from that limitation. Defendants anticipate

that the deposition of the Plaintiff will take up to 21 hours

because of the quantity of material that needs to be covered.

Defendants therefore request relief from FRCP 30(d)(2), (one day

of 7 hours per deposition). Plaintiff does not object to

Defendants’ request; provided, however, that no single day of

Plaintiff’s deposition shall exceed 7 hours. The parties are not

presently aware of a need to change any other limitations on

discovery.

X. Pre-Trial Motion Schedule.

1. All Non-Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions, including any

discovery motions, will be filed on or before April 21, 2008, and

heard on May 23, 2008, at 9:00 a.m. before Magistrate Judge

Theresa A. Goldner in Courtroom 8.

2. In scheduling such motions, the Magistrate

Judge may grant applications for an order shortening time

pursuant to Local Rule 142(d). However, if counsel does not

obtain an order shortening time, the notice of motion must comply

with Local Rule 251.

3. All Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions are to be

filed no later than May 5, 2008, and will be heard on June 9,

2008, at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United

States District Judge, in Courtroom 3, 7th Floor. In scheduling

such motions, counsel shall comply with Local Rule 230.

XI. Pre-Trial Conference Date.

1. July 14, 2008, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3, 7th Floor,

before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United States District

Judge.


8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME


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

16

2. The parties are ordered to file a Joint Pre-

Trial Statement pursuant to Local Rule 281(a)(2).

3. Counsel's attention is directed to Rules 281

and 282 of the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District

of California, as to the obligations of counsel in preparing for

the pre-trial conference. The Court will insist upon strict

compliance with those rules.

XII. Trial Date.

1. August 26, 2008, at the hour of 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom

3, 7th Floor, before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United

States District Judge.

2. This is a jury trial.

3. Counsels' Estimate Of Trial Time:

a. 14 days.

4. Counsels' attention is directed to Local Rules

of Practice for the Eastern District of California, Rule 285.

XIII. Settlement Conference.

1. A Settlement Conference is scheduled for February 6,

2008, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 8 before the Honorable Theresa

A. Goldner, United States Magistrate Judge.

2. Unless otherwise permitted in advance by the

Court, the attorneys who will try the case shall appear at the

Settlement Conference with the parties and the person or persons

having full authority to negotiate and settle the case on any

terms at the conference.

3. Permission for a party [not attorney] to attend

by telephone may be granted upon request, by letter, with a copy

to the other parties, if the party [not attorney] lives and works


8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME


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

17

outside the Eastern District of California, and attendance in

person would constitute a hardship. If telephone attendance is

allowed, the party must be immediately available throughout the

conference until excused regardless of time zone differences.

Any other special arrangements desired in cases where settlement

authority rests with a governing body, shall also be proposed in

advance by letter copied to all other parties.

4. Confidential Settlement Conference Statement.

At least five (5) days prior to the Settlement Conference the

parties shall submit, directly to the Magistrate Judge's

chambers, a confidential settlement conference statement. The

statement should not be filed with the Clerk of the Court nor

served on any other party. Each statement shall be clearly

marked "confidential" with the date and time of the Settlement

Conference indicated prominently thereon. Counsel are urged to

request the return of their statements if settlement is not

achieved and if such a request is not made the Court will dispose

of the statement.

5. The Confidential Settlement Conference

Statement shall include the following:

a. A brief statement of the facts of the

case.

b. A brief statement of the claims and

defenses, i.e., statutory or other grounds upon which the claims

are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties' likelihood

of prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of

the major issues in dispute.

c. A summary of the proceedings to date.


8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME


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

18

d. An estimate of the cost and time to be

expended for further discovery, pre-trial and trial.

e. The relief sought.

f. The parties' position on settlement,

including present demands and offers and a history of past

settlement discussions, offers and demands.

XIV. Request For Bifurcation, Appointment Of Special Master,

Or Other Techniques To Shorten Trial.

1. None.

XV. Related Matters Pending.

1. There are no related matters.

XVI. Compliance With Federal Procedure.

1. The Court requires compliance with the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice for the

Eastern District of California. To aid the court in the

efficient administration of this case, all counsel are directed

to familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice of the Eastern District

of California, and keep abreast of any amendments thereto.

XVII. Effect Of This Order.

1. The foregoing order represents the best

estimate of the court and counsel as to the agenda most suitable

to bring this case to resolution. The trial date reserved is

specifically reserved for this case. If the parties determine at

any time that the schedule outlined in this order cannot be met,

counsel are ordered to notify the court immediately of that fact

so that adjustments may be made, either by stipulation or by

subsequent scheduling conference.


8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME


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

19

2. Stipulations extending the deadlines contained

herein will not be considered unless they are accompanied by

affidavits or declarations, and where appropriate attached

exhibits, which establish good cause for granting the relief

requested.

3. Failure to comply with this order may result in

the imposition of sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 31, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wangeremm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME



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


8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME


CopyPage Records Retrieval Systems20809 Higgins Court

Torrance, CA 90501

Phone: 424-201-4440

Fax: 424-201-4358

Notification of Subpoenaed Records

Eugene D. LeeLaw Office of Eugene Lee555W. 5th St., Ste 3100Los Angeles, CA 90013

ToWhom ItMay Concern:

Records Subject: David F. Jadwin

Case Number: 1:07-cv00026-0WW-TAG

Case Name: David F. Jadwin, D.O. vs. County of Kern, et al.

CopyPage Records Retrieval Systems is a Professional Photocopying Service and has been chosen byMark A. Wasser of Law Officof Mark A. Wasser to obtain records pertaining to David F. Jadwin in the case of David F. Jadwin, D.O. vs. County of Kern, et al..

Any party to this action is entitled to these records. Please mark the box nextto the location(s) of records from where you wish to receive a

duplicate set and sign your name in the designated space at the bottom of this page. Ifthis form is returned with no boxes marked, it will be

assumed that you wish to receive records from all locations.

Sincerely,

CopyPage Records Retrieval Systems

Paul M. Riskin, M.D. Anoshiravan Taheri-Tafreshi, M.D.Cecilia Kaesler, D.O., Verdugo

o Santa Monica, CA 90401 D Los Angeles, CA 90024D Internal Medicine, Inc.

85773 85774Glendale, CA 91208

85775

Vincent Fortanasce, M.D., NeurologyCasa Colina Centers for Rehab

Christopher J. Charbonnet, M.D., The Footh

o Consultants D Pomona, CA 91767D Center for Wellness & Pain Management

Arcadia, CA 9100785777

Glendale, CA 91206

85776 85778

Michael Cann, M.D.

Glendale, CA 9120885779

EugeneD.

LeePrinted Name of Additional Party Signed Name of Attorney Date

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 140-2 Filed 05/22/2008 Page 26 of 50opyPage Records Retrieval Systems20809 Higgins Court

Torrance, CA 90501

Phone: 424-201-4440

Fax: 424-201-4358

Notification of Subpoenaed Records

Eugene D. LeeLaw Office of Eugene Lee555W. 5th St., Ste 3100Los Angeles, CA 90013

ToWhom ItMay Concern:

Records Subject: David F. Jadwin

Case Number: 1:07-cv00026-0WW-TAG

Case Name: David F. Jadwin, D.O. vs. County of Kern, et al.

CopyPage Records Retrieval Systems is a Professional Photocopying Service and has been chosen byMark A. Wasser of Law Officof Mark A. Wasser to obtain records pertaining to David F. Jadwin in the case of David F. Jadwin, D.O. vs. County of Kern, et al..

Any party to this action is entitled to these records. Please mark the box nextto the location(s) of records from where you wish to receive a

duplicate set and sign your name in the designated space at the bottom of this page. Ifthis form is returned with no boxes marked, it will be

assumed that you wish to receive records from all locations.

Sincerely,

CopyPage Records Retrieval Systems

Paul M. Riskin, M.D. Anoshiravan Taheri-Tafreshi, M.D.Cecilia Kaesler, D.O., Verdugo

o Santa Monica, CA 90401 D Los Angeles, CA 90024D Internal Medicine, Inc.

85773 85774Glendale, CA 91208

85775

Vincent Fortanasce, M.D., NeurologyCasa Colina Centers for Rehab

Christopher J. Charbonnet, M.D., The Footh

o Consultants D Pomona, CA 91767D Center for Wellness & Pain Management

Arcadia, CA 9100785777

Glendale, CA 91206

85776 85778

Michael Cann, M.D.

Glendale, CA 9120885779

EugeneD.

LeePrinted Name of Additional Party Signed Name of Attorney Date

8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME


A088 ~ R e v . 12/07) Subpoena in a Civil Case

Issued by the


_______E_a_s_t_e_r_n DISTRICT OF C_a_l_l._·f_o_r_n_l._'_a _

Dav id F. Jadw in , D.O.

v.

County o f Kern , e t al.

To Custodian of Records of:

SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE

1CASE NUMBER: 1: 07-cv00026-0WW-TAG

Pau l M. R i s k i n , M.D.

530 W i ls h i r e B lv d . , S te 306

Santa Monica , CA 90401

DYOU ARE COMMANDED to appear in the United States District Court at the place. date, and time specified below to

testify in the above case.

PLACE OF TESTIMONY COURTROOM

DATE AND TIME

D YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear at the place, date. and time specified below to testify at the taking of a deposition in

the above case

'L<C' 0 ' "'OSmoN I_DA_T_E_A_ND_T_IM_E _

Q YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce and permit inspection and copying of the following documents or objects at the

place, date, and time specified below (list documents or objects):

All p a t i e n t r e c o r d s r e l a t i n g to th e above named r eco r ds s u b j e c t , r ega r d l ess o f

da t e . P e r t a i n i n g to Dav id F. Jadwin

PLACECopyPage Records R e t r i e v a l Sys tems

20809 H i gg i ns C o u r t

To r rance , CA 90501

DATE AND TIME

5/21 /2008

10:00 AM

D YOU ARE COMMANDED to permit inspection of the following premises at the date and time specified below.

"'""" IOA" '"0""

Any organization not a party to this suit that is SUbpoenaed for the taking of a deposition shall designate one or more officers,

directors, or managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf, and may set forth, for each persondesignated, the matters on which the person will testify. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 30(b)(6)

ISSUING OFFICER SIGNATURE AND TITLE (INDICATE IF ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT)

Attorney for Counsel for Defendant,

ISSUING OFFICER'S NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER

Law Of f i c es o f Mark A. W asser / A t t e n t i o n : Mark A.

Wasser

40 0 C a p i t o l M a l l , Ste . 1100, Sacramento , CA 95814

(See Rule 45. Federel Rules of Civil Procedure 45 (C), (d), & (e) on NextPege)

Waction is pending in district other than district of issuance, state district undercase number.

DATE

May 2, 2008

(916) 444-6400

Ref#: 85773



Issued by the


_______E_a_s_t_e_r_n DISTRICT OF C_a_l_l._·f_o_r_n_l._'_a _

Dav id F. Jadw in , D.O.

v.

County o f Kern , e t al.




Pau l M. R i s k i n , M.D.

530 W i ls h i r e B lv d . , S te 306

Santa Monica , CA 90401

DYOU ARE COMMANDED to appear in the United States District Court at the place. date, and time specified below to



DATE AND TIME

D YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear at the place, date. and time specified below to testify at the taking of a deposition in

the above case

'L<C' 0 ' "'OSmoN I_DA_T_E_A_ND_T_IM_E _

Q YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce and permit inspection and copying of the following documents or objects at the


All p a t i e n t r e c o r d s r e l a t i n g to th e above named r eco r ds s u b j e c t , r ega r d l ess o f

da t e . P e r t a i n i n g to Dav id F. Jadwin

PLACECopyPage Records R e t r i e v a l Sys tems

20809 H i gg i ns C o u r t

To r rance , CA 90501

DATE AND TIME

5/21 /2008

10:00 AM


"'""" IOA" '"0""

Any organization not a party to this suit that is SUbpoenaed for the taking of a deposition shall designate one or more officers,





Law Of f i c es o f Mark A. W asser / A t t e n t i o n : Mark A.

Wasser

40 0 C a p i t o l M a l l , Ste . 1100, Sacramento , CA 95814

(See Rule 45. Federel Rules of Civil Procedure 45 (C), (d), & (e) on NextPege)

Waction is pending in district other than district of issuance, state district undercase number.

DATE

May 2, 2008

(916) 444-6400

Ref#: 85773

8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME


A088 (Rev. 12107) Subpoena in aCivil Case (page 2)

PROOF OF SERVICE

DATE

SERVED

SERVED ON (PRINT NAME)

SERVED BY (PRINT NAME)

PLACE

DECLARATION OF SERVER

Personal Service

MANNER OF SERVICE

Process Server

TITLE

I declare under penalty of p e ~ u r y under the laws of the United States ofAmerica that the foregoing information contained in the Prooof Service is true and correct.

Executed on

--------------ate Signature of Server

20809 Higgins Court

Address of Server

Torrance, CA 90501

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (c), (d), and (e), as amended on December 1, 2007:

(cl PROTECTING A PERSON SUBJECT TO A SUBPOENA.(1) Avoiding Undue BUfden or Expenlle; Sanctions. A party or attornay

rasponsible for issuing and sarving a subpoena must taka raasonable staps to avoidimposing undue burden or expensa on a person subject to the subpoena. The issuing courtmust enforce this duly and impose an appropriate sanction -which may include lostearnings and reasonable attorney's fees - ona party or attorney who fails to comply.

l2) Command to Produce Materials or P a r m ~ Inspection.A) Appea,ance Not ReqUired. A person commanded to produce documents,

electronically stored information, or tangible things, or to p e r m ~ the inspection of premises,need not appear in person at the place of production or inspection unless also commandedto appearfor a d e p o s ~ i o n , hearing, or trial.

(B) Objections. A person commanded to produce documentsor tangiblethings or to p e r m ~ inspectionmay serve on the party or Btlorney designated in thesubpoena awritten objection to inspecting, copying, testing or sampling any or all of thematerials orto inspecting the premISes - orto producing electronically stored information intile form or forms requested. The objectionmustbe servedbefore the earlierof the timespecified for compliance or 14 days alter the subpoena is served. If an objection is mede,the following rules apply:( i) At any lime, on notice to the commanded person, the serving partymaymove the issuingcourt for an order compelling production or inspection.(ii) These acts maybe required onlyas directed in the order, and the ordermustprotect aperson who is neither a party nora party's officer from signifICant expense resulting fromcompliance.

(3) QuaShing orModifying a SUbpoena.(A) When Required. On timely motion, the issuing courtmustquash ormodify

a subpoena that:(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply;(il) requires a person who is n e ~ h e r a party nor a party's officer to travel more than 100miles from where that person resides, is employed, or regUlarly transacts business in person- except that, subject to Rule 45(c)(3)(B)(iii), tha person may be commanded to attend a

trial by traveling from any such placawtlhin the stale where the trial is held;(iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protectedmatter, if no exception or waiverapplies; or(iv) subjects a person to undue bUrden.

(B) Vvhen Permitted. To protect a person SUbject to or affected by asubpoena, the iaauing court may, on motion, quash ormodifythe sUbpoena if requires:(i) disclosing a trade secret or otherconfidential research, development, or commercialinformation;(ii) disclosing an unretainedexpert'sopinion or informationthat dossnot describe specifICoccurrences in dispute and results from the axpert's study that was not requested by aparty; or(iii) a person who is neither a party nora party's officer to incur substantial expense to travelmore than 100 miles to attendtrial

(C) Specifying C o r i d ~ i o n s as an Alternative. In the circumstances described in Rule 45(c)(3)(B),the courlmay, insteed of quashing or modifying a subpoena, order appearance or production unspecified conditions if the serving party:(i) shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met w ~ h o u tundue hardship; and

li) ensures thet the sUbpoeneed person will be raasonably compensated.d DUTIES IN RESPONDING TO A SUBPOENA.II Producing Documents or Electronically Stored Information. These procedures apply toproducingdocumentsor electronically stored information:(A) Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents mustprodtham as they are kept in the ordinary coursa ofbusiness or must organize and label them tocorrespond to the categories in the demand.(B) Form for Producing Electronically Stored InformationNot Specified. If a subpoenadoes not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, the person responding mproduce in a form or forms in which is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usabla form orforms.(C) Electronically Stored InformationProduced in Only One Form. The person responding neednot producethe same electronically stored information in more thanone form.(D) Inaccessible Electronically Stored Information. The person responding need not providediscovery.of electronicelly stored information from sources that the person identifieS as notreasonably accassible because of undueburden or cost. Onmotion to compel discoveryor for aprotective order, the person respondingmustshow that the information is not reasonablyaccessible because of undue burdenor cost. If that showing is made, the court may nonethelesorder discovery from such sources if the requestirlQ party shows good cause, considering thelimitations of Rule 26(b)(2)(C). The court may specify c o n d ~ i o n s for tha discovery.(2) Claiming PriVilege or Protection.(A) InformationWithheld, A person w ~ h h o l d i n g subpoenaed information under a claimthat is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation materialmust:(i) expressly make theclaim; and(il) describe the nature of the withheld documents, communications,or tangible things in amann

that, without revealing information itseW privileged or protected, will enable the parties to assessclaim.(B) InformationProduced. If information produced in response to a subpoena is subjea claim of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation material, the person making the claim manotify any party that received the information of the claim arid the basis for it. After being notifiedparty mustpromptlyretum, sequester, or destroy the specified information andany copies hasmust not use or disclose the information until the claim is resolved; musttake reasonable steps tretrleva the information if the partydisclosed before being notified; and may promptly present tinformation to the court under seal for a determination of the claim. The person who produced thinformationmustpreserve the information until the claim is resolved.(e) CONTEMPT.The Issuing courtmay hold in c o n t e m p ~ a rson who, having been served, fails w ~ o u t adequaexcuse to obeythe subpoena. Anonpa sfailure to obey must be excused if the SUbpoenapurports to reqUire thenonparty to atle orproduce at a place outside the I i m ~ s of Rule 45(c)(3(A)(ii).


A088 (Rev. 12107) Subpoena in aCivil Case (page 2)

PROOF OF SERVICE

DATE

SERVED



PLACE


Personal Service

MANNER OF SERVICE

Process Server

TITLE


Executed on


20809 Higgins Court

Address of Server

Torrance, CA 90501


(cl PROTECTING A PERSON SUBJECT TO A SUBPOENA.(1) Avoiding Undue BUfden or Expenlle; Sanctions. A party or attornay

rasponsible for issuing and sarving a subpoena must taka raasonable staps to avoidimposing undue burden or expensa on a person subject to the subpoena. The issuing courtmust enforce this duly and impose an appropriate sanction -which may include lostearnings and reasonable attorney's fees - ona party or attorney who fails to comply.

l2) Command to Produce Materials or P a r m ~ Inspection.A) Appea,ance Not ReqUired. A person commanded to produce documents,

electronically stored information, or tangible things, or to p e r m ~ the inspection of premises,need not appear in person at the place of production or inspection unless also commandedto appearfor a d e p o s ~ i o n , hearing, or trial.

(B) Objections. A person commanded to produce documentsor tangiblethings or to p e r m ~ inspectionmay serve on the party or Btlorney designated in thesubpoena awritten objection to inspecting, copying, testing or sampling any or all of thematerials orto inspecting the premISes - orto producing electronically stored information intile form or forms requested. The objectionmustbe servedbefore the earlierof the timespecified for compliance or 14 days alter the subpoena is served. If an objection is mede,the following rules apply:( i) A tany l ime, on notice to the commanded person, the serving partymaymove the issuingcourt for an order compelling production or inspection.(ii) These acts maybe required onlyas directed in the order, and the ordermustprotect aperson who is neither a party nora party's officer from signifICant expense resulting fromcompliance.

(3) QuaShing orModifying a SUbpoena.(A) When Required. On timely motion, the issuing courtmust quash ormodify

a subpoena that:(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply;(il) requires a person who is n e ~ h e r a party nor a party's officer to travel more than 100miles from where that person resides, is employed, or regUlarly transacts business in person- except that, subject to Rule 45(c)(3)(B)(iii), tha person may be commanded to attend a

trial by traveling from any such placawtlhin the stale where the trial is held;(iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protectedmatter, if no exception or waiverapplies; or(iv) subjects a person to undue bUrden.

(B) Vvhen Permitted. To protect a person SUbject to or affected by asubpoena, the iaauing court may, on motion, quash ormodifythe sUbpoena if requires:(i) disclosing a trade secret or otherconfidential research, development, or commercialinformation;(ii) disclosing an unretainedexpert'sopinion or informationthat dossnot describe specifICoccurrences in dispute and results from the axpert's study that was not requested by aparty; or(iii) a person who is neither a party nora party's officer to incur substantial expense to travelmore than 100 miles to attendtrial

(C) Specifying C o r i d ~ i o n s as an Alternative. In the circumstances described in Rule 45(c)(3)(B),the courlmay, insteed of quashing or modifying a subpoena, order appearance or production unspecified conditions if the serving party:(i) shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met w ~ h o u tundue hardship; and

li) ensures thet the sUbpoeneed person will be raasonably compensated.d DUTIES IN RESPONDING TO A SUBPOENA.II Producing Documents or Electronically Stored Information. These procedures apply toproducingdocumentsor electronically stored information:(A) Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents mustprodtham as they are kept in the ordinary coursa ofbusiness or must organize and label them tocorrespond to the categories in the demand.(B) Form for Producing Electronically Stored InformationNot Specified. If a subpoenadoes not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, the person responding mproduce in a form or forms in which is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usabla form orforms.(C) Electronically Stored InformationProduced in Only One Form. The person responding neednot producethe same electronically stored information in more thanone form.(D) Inaccessible Electronically Stored Information. The person responding need not providediscovery.of electronicelly stored information from sources that the person identifieS as notreasonably accassible because of undueburden or cost. Onmotion to compel discoveryor for aprotective order, the person respondingmustshow that the information is not reasonablyaccessible because of undue burdenor cost. If that showing is made, the court may nonethelesorder discovery from such sources if the requestirlQ party shows good cause, considering thelimitations of Rule 26(b)(2)(C). The court may specify c o n d ~ i o n s for tha discovery.(2) Claiming PriVilege or Protection.(A) InformationWithheld, A person w ~ h h o l d i n g subpoenaed information under a claimthat is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation materialmust:(i) expressly make theclaim; and(il) describe the nature of the withheld documents, communications,or tangible things in amann

that, without revealing information itseW privileged or protected, will enable the parties to assessclaim.(B) InformationProduced. If information produced in response to a subpoena is subjea claim of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation material, the person making the claim manotify any party that received the information of the claim arid the basis for it. After being notifiedparty mustpromptlyretum, sequester, or destroy the specified information andany copies hasmust not use or disclose the information until the claim is resolved; must take reasonable steps tretrleva the information if the partydisclosed before being notified; and may promptly present tinformation to the court under seal for a determination of the claim. The person who produced thinformationmustpreserve the information until the claim is resolved.(e) CONTEMPT.The Issuing courtmay hold in c o n t e m p ~ a rson who, having been served, fails w ~ o u t adequaexcuse to obeythe subpoena. Anonpa sfailure to obey must be excused if the SUbpoenapurports to reqUire thenonparty to atle orproduce at a place outside the I i m ~ s of Rule 45(c)(3(A)(ii).

8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME


A088 (Rev. 12/07) Subpoena in a Civil Case

Issued by the


_______E_a_s_t_e_r_n DISTRICT OF C_a_l_i_f_o_r_n_l_·a _

David F. Jadwin, D.O.

V.

County of Kern, e t a l .




Anoshiravan Taher i-Tafreshi , M.D.

921 Westwood Blvd., Ste 232

Los Angeles, CA 90024

D YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear in the United States District Court at the place, date, and time specified below to



DATE AND TIME

D YOU ARE COMMANDED to appearat the place, date, and time specified below to testify at the taking of a deposition in

the above case

"'" '" """"m,," I"''''NID "'"

YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce and permit inspection and copying of the following documents or objects at the


All pat ient records r e la t ing to the above named records subjec t , regardless of

date . Pertaining to David F. Jadwin

PLACECopyPage Records Retr ieval Systems

20809 Higgins Cou rt

Torrance, CA 90501

DATE AND TIME

5/21/2008

10:00 AM


,,,",,., I"''''NID"'"

Any organization not a party to this suit that is subpoenaed for the taking of a deposition shall designate one or more officers,

directors, or managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf, and may set forth, for each persondesignated, the matters on which the person will testify. Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure, 30{b){6)

ISSUING OFFICER SIGNATURE AND TITLE (INDICATE IF ATIORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT)



Law Offices of Mark A. Wasser / Attention: Mark A.

Wasser

400 Capitol Mall, Ste. 1100, Sacramento, CA 95814

(See Rule 45. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 45 (e), (d), & (e) on NextPage)

action is pending in district other than district of issuance, state district under case number.

DATE

May 2, 2008

(916) 444-6400

Ref#: 85774



Issued by the




V.

County of Kern, e t a l .




Anoshiravan Taher i-Tafreshi , M.D.

921 Westwood Blvd., Ste 232

Los Angeles, CA 90024




DATE AND TIME

D YOU ARE COMMANDED to appearat the place, date, and time specified below to testify at the taking of a deposition in

the above case

"'" '" """"m,," I"''''NID "'"



All pat ient records r e la t ing to the above named records subjec t , regardless of




Torrance, CA 90501

DATE AND TIME

5/21/2008

10:00 AM


,,,",,., I"''''NID"'"


directors, or managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf, and may set forth, for each persondesignated, the matters on which the person will testify. Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure, 30{b){6)





Wasser


(See Rule 45. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 45 (e), (d), & (e) on NextPage)

action is pending in district other than district of issuance, state district under case number.

DATE

May 2, 2008

(916) 444-6400

Ref#: 85774

8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME


A088 (Rev. 12/(7) Subpoena in a Civil Case (page 2)

PROOF OF SERVICE

DATE

SERVED



PLACE

DECLARATION OFSERVER

Personal Service

MANNER OF SERVICE

Process Server

TITLE

I declare under penalty of p e ~ u r y under the laws of the United States ofAmerica that the foregoing information contained in the ProoofService is true and correct.

Executed on


20809 Higgins Court

Address ofServer

Torrance, CA 90501


(c) PROTECTING A PERSON SUBJECT TO A SUBPOENA.(1) Avoiding Undue Burden orExpense; Sanctions. A perty or attomey

responsible for Issuing and serving a subpoenamust take reasonable steps to avoidimposing undue burdenor axpense on a parson subject to the subpoena. The issuing courtmust anforce this duty and imposean appropriate sanction ~ i c h mayinclude losteamings and reasonable attorney's fees - on a partyor attorney who fails to comply.

(2) Command to Produce Materials or P e r m ~ Inspection.(A) A p ~ a r e n c e Not Required. A person commanded to produce documents.

electronically storedInformation, or tengible things, or to p e r m ~ the inspection of premises,need not appear in person at the place of production or inspection unless also commandedto appearfor a d e p o s ~ i o n , hearing, or trial.

(B) Objections. A person commanded to produce documentsor tangiblethings or to p e r m ~ inspection mayserve on the party or attorneydesignated in thesubpoena a writtenobjection to inspecting, copying, testing or sampling any ora l l of thematerials or to inspecting the premIses - or to producingalectronically stored information intile form or forms requested. The objectionmust be served befora the earlier of the timaspecified for compliance or 14 deys aKer the subpoena is served. If an objection is made,the following rules apply:(i) At any lime, on notica to the commanded person, the serving partymaymove the issuingcourt for an ordercompelling production or inspection.(Ii) These acts may be required only as directed in theordet, and the ordermust protect aperson who is neither a party nor a party's offICer from signiflC8nt expense resuKing fromcompliance.

(3) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena.(A) When ReqUired. On timalymotion, the issuing court must quash ormodify

a subpoena that:

ll feils to allow a reasonable time to comply;iI) requires a person whois neither a partynor a party'sofficer to traval more than 100miles from where that person resides, is employed, or regUlarly transacts business in person- except thet, subject to Rule 45{c){3)(B)(iil), the person may be commanded to attend a

trial by traveling from anysuch placa within the stale where the trial is held;(iii) requires disclosure of privilegad or other protected matter, If no exceptionorwaiverapplies; or(iv) subjects a person to undue burden.

(B) When Permitted. To protect a person subject to or affected by asubpoena, the issuing courtmay, on motion, quash or modify the subpoena If requires:(i) disclosing a trede secretor other confidential research, development, or commercialinformation;(iiI disclosing an unretainad expert's opinion or informationthat does notdescribe specificoccurrences in dispute and resuKs from theexpert'sstudy that was not requested by aparty; or(iii) a person who is neither e party nor a party's officer to incursubstantial expense to travelmore than 100miles to attendtrial

(C) Specifying C o n d ~ i o n s as an AKernative. In the circumstances described in Rule 45{c)(3)(B)the court may, instead of quashing or modifying a subpoena, order appearance or production unspecified conditions If the serving party:(i) shows a substantial need for the testimony ormaterial thet cannot be otherwise met w ~ h o u tundue hardship; and

i i ensures that the subpoeneedpersonwill be reasonably compensated.d DUTIES IN RESPONDING TO A SUBPOENA.1 Producing Oocumentsor Electronically Stored Information. These procedures apply toproducingdocumentsor electronically stored information:(A) Documents. A personresponding to e subpoena to produce documents must prodthem es they are kept in the ordinary course of business or mustorganize and label them tocorrespond to the categories in thedemand.(B) Form forProducing Electronically Stored Information Not Specified. If a subpoenedoesnot specifya form for producing electronically stored informetion, theperson responding mproduce In a form or forms in which i t i s ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form oforms.(C) Electronically Stored Information Produced in Only One Form. The person responding neednot produce the same alectronically stored information in morethan one form.(0) Inaccessible Electronically Stored Information. The person responding naad not providediscovery of electronically stored information from sources that the person identifies as notreasonably accessible bacause of undue burdenor cos t. On motion to compel discovery or forprotective ordet, the person responding mustshow that the information is not reasonablyaccessible bacause of undue burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court maynonethelesorder discovery from such sources If the requestillQ party shows good cause, considering theI i m ~ a t i o n s of Rule 26{b)(2)(C). The court may specify c o n d ~ i o n s for the discovery.(2) Claiming Privilege or Protection.(A) Informalion Vv1Ihheld, A person withholding subpoeneed information under a claimthat is privilegad or subject to protection as trial-pteparation material must:(il expresslymake theclaim; and(iI) describe the natureof the w ~ h h e l d documants, communications, or tangible things in amann

that, without revaaling information "self privileged orprotected,will enable the parties to assessclaim.(B) Information Produced. If informationproduced in response to a subpoena is subjea claim of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation material, the person making the cla im manotify any party that received the informationof the claim and the basis f o r ~ . After being notifiepartymust promptlyretum, sequestar, or destroy the specified information and any copies hasmust notuse or disclose the informationuntil the claim is resolved; must take reasonable stepsretrieve the Information If the party disclosed before being notified; and may promptlyprasenttinformation to the court under seal for a determination of the claim. The person whoproduced thinformationmust preserve the informationuntil the claim is rasolved.(e)CONTEMPT.tlie issuing courtmay hold in c o n t e m p t ~ r s o n who, having been served, fails without adequaexcuse to obey the subpoena. A nonpa sfailure to obey must be excused If the subpoenapurports to require the nonparty to atten or produce at apiece outside the I i m ~ s of Rule 45(c)(3(A)(i1).


A088 (Rev. 12/(7) Subpoena in a Civil Case (page 2)

PROOF OF SERVICE

DATE

SERVED



PLACE


Personal Service

MANNER OF SERVICE

Process Server

TITLE

I declare under penalty of p e ~ u r y under the laws of the United States ofAmerica that the foregoing information contained in the ProoofService is true and correct.

Executed on


20809 Higgins Court

Address ofServer

Torrance, CA 90501


(c) PROTECTING A PERSON SUBJECT TO A SUBPOENA.(1) Avoiding Undue Burden orExpense; Sanctions. A perty or attomey

responsible for Issuing and serving a subpoenamust take reasonable steps to avoidimposing undue burdenor axpense on a parson subject to the subpoena. The issuing courtmust anforce this duty and imposean appropriate sanction ~ i c h mayinclude losteamings and reasonable attorney's fees - on a partyor attorney who fails to comply.

(2) Command to Produce Materials or P e r m ~ Inspection.(A) A p ~ a r e n c e Not Required. A person commanded to produce documents.

electronically storedInformation, or tengible things, or to p e r m ~ the inspection of premises,need not appear in person at the place of production or inspection unless also commandedto appearfor a d e p o s ~ i o n , hearing, or trial.

(B) Objections. A person commanded to produce documentsor tangiblethings or to p e r m ~ inspection mayserve on the party or attorneydesignated in thesubpoena a writtenobjection to inspecting, copying, testing or sampling any ora l l of thematerials or to inspecting the premIses - or to producingalectronically stored information intile form or forms requested. The objectionmust be served befora the earlier of the timaspecified for compliance or 14 deys aKer the subpoena is served. If an objection is made,the following rules apply:(i) At any l ime, on notica to the commanded person, the serving partymaymove the issuingcourt for an ordercompelling production or inspection.(Ii) These acts may be required only as directed in theordet, and the ordermust protect aperson who is neither a party nor a party's offICer from signiflC8nt expense resuKing fromcompliance.

(3) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena.(A) When ReqUired. On timalymotion, the issuing court must quash or modify

a subpoena that:

ll feils to allow a reasonable time to comply;iI) requires a person whois neither a partynor a party's officer to traval more than 100miles from where that person resides, is employed, or regUlarly transacts business in person- except thet, subject to Rule 45{c){3)(B)(iil), the person may be commanded to attend a

trial by traveling from anysuch placa within the stale where the trial is held;(iii) requires disclosure of privilegad or other protected matter, If no exceptionorwaiverapplies; or(iv) subjects a person to undue burden.

(B) When Permitted. To protect a person subject to or affected by asubpoena, the issuing courtmay, on motion, quash or modify the subpoena If requires:(i) disclosing a trede secretor other confidential research, development, or commercialinformation;(iiI disclosing an unretainad expert's opinion or informationthat does notdescribe specificoccurrences in dispute and resuKs from theexpert'sstudy that was not requested by aparty; or(iii) a person who is neither e party nor a party's officer to incursubstantial expense to travelmore than 100miles to attendtrial

(C) Specifying C o n d ~ i o n s as an AKernative. In the circumstances described in Rule 45{c)(3)(B)the court may, instead of quashing or modifying a subpoena, order appearance or production unspecified conditions If the serving party:(i) shows a substantial need for the testimony ormaterial thet cannot be otherwise met w ~ h o u tundue hardship; and

i i ensures that the subpoeneed personwill be reasonably compensated.d DUTIES IN RESPONDING TO A SUBPOENA.1 Producing Oocumentsor Electronically Stored Information. These procedures apply toproducingdocumentsor electronically stored information:(A) Documents. A personresponding to e subpoena to produce documents must prodthem es they are kept in the ordinary course of business or mustorganize and label them tocorrespond to the categories in thedemand.(B) Form forProducing Electronically Stored Information Not Specified. If a subpoenedoesnot specifya form for producing electronically stored informetion, theperson responding mproduce In a form or forms in which i t i s ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form oforms.(C) Electronically Stored Information Produced in Only One Form. The person responding neednot produce the same alectronically stored information in morethan one form.(0) Inaccessible Electronically Stored Information. The person responding naad not providediscovery of electronically stored information from sources that the person identifies as notreasonably accessible bacause of undue burdenor cos t. On motion to compel discovery or forprotective ordet, the person responding mustshow that the information is not reasonablyaccessible bacause of undue burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court maynonethelesorder discovery from such sources If the requestillQ party shows good cause, considering theI i m ~ a t i o n s of Rule 26{b)(2)(C). The court may specify c o n d ~ i o n s for the discovery.(2) Claiming Privilege or Protection.(A) Informalion Vv1Ihheld, A person withholding subpoeneed information under a claimthat is privilegad or subject to protection as trial-pteparation material must:(il expresslymake theclaim; and(iI) describe the natureof the w ~ h h e l d documants, communications, or tangible things in amann

that, without revaaling information "self privileged orprotected,will enable the parties to assessclaim.(B) Information Produced. If informationproduced in response to a subpoena is subjea claim of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation material, the person making the claim manotify any party that received the informationof the claim and the basis f o r ~ . After being notifiepartymust promptlyretum, sequestar, or destroy the specified information and any copies hasmust notuse or disclose the informationuntil the claim is resolved; must take reasonable stepsretrieve the Information If the party disclosed before being notified; and maypromptlyprasenttinformation to the court under seal for a determination of the claim. The person whoproduced thinformationmust preserve the informationuntil the claim is rasolved.(e)CONTEMPT.tlie issuing courtmay hold in c o n t e m p t ~ r s o n who, having been served, fails without adequaexcuse to obey the subpoena. A nonpa sfailure to obey must be excused If the subpoenapurports to require the nonparty to atten or produce at apiece outside the I i m ~ s of Rule 45(c)(3(A)(i1).

8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME


A088 (Rev. 12/07) Subpoena in aCivil Case

Issued by the


________a_s_t_e_r_n DISTRICT OF C _ a _ l _ ~ _ · f_o_r_n_i_a _


v.County of Kern, e t a l .




Ceci l ia Kaesler , D.O., Verdugo In ternal Medicine, Inc.

1890 Verdugo Blvd., Ste 200

Glendale, CA 91208




DATE AND TIME

D YO U AR E COMMANDED to appear at the place, date, and time specified below to testify at the taking of a deposition in

the above case

,CAl:, O,""OSmoN I,."",,,,.,YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce and permit inspection and copying of the following documents or objects at the


All pat ient records r e la t ing to the above named records subject , regardless of

date . Per ta in in g t o David F. Jadwin


20809 Higgins Court

Torrance, CA 90501

DATE AND TIME

5/21/2008

10:00 AM


Any organization not a party to this suit that is subpoenaed for the taking of a deposition shall designate one ormore officers,directors, or managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf, and may set forth, for each persondesignated, the matters on which the person will testify. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 30(b)(6)




Law O ffices of Mark A. Wasser / Attent ion: Mark A.

Wasser


(See Rule 45. FederalRules of Civil Procedura 45 (c). (d), & ( e) o n NextPage)

action is pending in district other then district of issuance, state district undar casa number.

DATE

May 2, 2008

(916) 444-6400

Ref#: 85775


A088 (Rev. 12/07) Subpoena in aCivil Case

Issued by the


________a_s_t_e_r_n DISTRICT OF C _ a _ l _ ~ _ · f_o_r_n_i_a _


v.

County of Kern,e t a l .




Ceci l ia Kaesler , D.O., Verdugo In ternal Medicine, Inc.


Glendale, CA 91208




DATE AND TIME

D YO U AR E COMMANDED to appear at the place, date, and time specified below to testify at the taking of a deposition in

the above case

,CAl:, O,""OSmoN I,."",,,,.,YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce and permit inspection and copying of the following documents or objects at the



date . Per ta in in g t o David F. Jadwin



Torrance, CA 90501

DATE AND TIME

5/21/2008

10:00 AM


Any organization not a party to this suit that is subpoenaed for the taking of a deposition shall designate one ormore officers,directors, or managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf, and may set forth, for each persondesignated, the matters on which the person will testify. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 30(b)(6)




Law O ffices of Mark A. Wasser / Attent ion: Mark A.

Wasser


(See Rule 45. FederalRules of Civil Procedura 45 (c). (d), & ( e) o n NextPage)

action is pending in district other then district of issuance, state district undar casa number.

DATE

May 2, 2008

(916) 444-6400

Ref#: 85775

8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME


A088 (Rev. 12/07) Subpoena in a Civil Case (page 2)

PROOF OF SERVICE

DATE

SERVED



PLACE


Per sona l Servi ce

MANNER OF SERVICE

Process Server

TITLE

I declare under penalty of p e ~ u r y under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing information contained in the Prooof Service is true and correct.

Executed on------------ate Signature of Server

20809 Higgin s Cou rt

Address of Server

Torrance, CA 90501


(c)PROTECTING A PERSON SUBJECT TO A SUBPOENA.(1' Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions. A partyor attorney

responsible for Issuing andserving a subpoena musttake reasonable steps to evoidimposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena. The iSluing courtmustenforce this duty and impose an eppropriate sanction ~ i c h may include lost

eamings and reasonable attomey's fees - on a party or attorney whofeils to comply.(2) Command to Produce Materials or Perm" Inspection.(A) AppearenceNot Required. A person commended to produce documents,

electronicelly stored information, or tangible things, or to permit the inspection of premises,need not appeer in person at thepiece of production or inspection unless also commandedto eppear for a depos"ion. hearing, or trial.

(B) Objections. A person commanded to produce documentsor tangiblethings or to perm" inspectionmey serve on the party or attorney designated in thesubpoena awrittenobjection to inspecting. copying, testing or sampling any or all of thematerials or to inspecting the premISes - or to producing electronically stored information intile form orforms requested. The objectionmustbe servedbefore the earlier of the timespecified for complianceor 14 days allerthe sUbpoene is served. If an objection is mede,the following rules apply:(i) At any lime, on notice to the commended person, the serving partymeymove the issuingcourt for an order compellingproduction or inspection.(ii) These scts may be required only as directed in the order, and the ordermust protect aperson who is ne"hera partynor a party's officer from signiflC8nt expense resulling fromcompliance.

(3) Quashing or Modifying s Subpoena.(A) When Required. On timely motion, the issuing court must quash ormodify

a subpoena that:(i) fails to allow a raasonable time to comply;(ii) requires a person who is ne"her a partynor e party's offlC8r to trevel morethan 100miles from where that person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person- except that, subject to Rule 45(c)(3)(B)(iil), the person maybe commandedto attende

trial by traveling from any such placew"hin the stale where the trial is held;(iii) requires disclosura of privileged or otherprotectedmatter, Ifno exceptionorwaiverapplies; or(iv) subjects a person to undue burden.

(B) When Permitted. To protect a person SUbject too r affected by asubpoene, the issuing court may, on motion, quash or modify the subpoena If it requires:(i) disclosing a trade secretor other confidential research, development, or commercialinformation;(ii) disclosing en unretained expert's opinion or informetion thet does not describe specificoccurrences in disputeand resulls from theexpert'sstudy thet was not requested by aperty; or(iii) e person who is ne"her s party nor aparty's offlC8r to incur substantial expense to travelmore than 100 miles to attend trial

(C) Specifying Cond"ions esan Allemetive. In the circumstances described in Rule 45(c)(3)(B),the court may, insteed of quashing ormodifying a subpoena, order appearance or productIOn unspecified cond"ions If the serving party:(i) shows a sUbslantial need for the testimony ormaterielthet cannotbe otherwise metwithoutundue hardship; and

Ii) ensures that the subpoeneed person wil l be reasonably compensated.dl DUTIES IN RESPONDING TO A SUBPOENA.1l Producing Documentsor Electronically Stored Information. These procedures apply toproducing documentsor electronically stored information:(A) Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce documentsmust prodthem as they arekept in the ordinary courseof business or must organize and label them tocorrespond to the cetegories in the demand.(B) Form for Producing Electronicelly Stored Information Not Specified. If a subpoenadoes not specifya form for producingelectronically stored information, the person responding mproduce it 'in a form or forms in which it is ordinarilymaintained or in a reasonably usable form orforms.(C) Electronically Stored InformationProduced in OnlyOne Form. The person responding neednot produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form.(D) InecceSlible Electronically Stored Information. The person responding need not providediscovery of electronically stored information from sources that theperson identiftes as notreasonably eccessible because of undue burdenor cosl. Onmotion to compel discovery or for aprotective order, the person respondingmustshow that the information is not reasonablyaccessible because of undueburdenor cosl. If that showing is mede, the court maynonethelessorder discovery from such sources If the requesting party shows good ceuse, considering theIimllations of Rule 26(b)(2)(C). The courtmay specify cond"ions for the discovery.

1) Claiming Privilege or Protection.A) InformationWithheld, A personw"hholding subpoenaed informationunder a claimthet " is privileged or subjectto protection as trial-preparetionmaterialmust:

I, expresslymake theclaim; andi1) describe the natureof thew"hheld documents, communications, or tangible things in amannthat, wnhoul

revealing information "self privileged or protected,will enable

the partiesto assess t

cleim.(B) Information Produced. If informationproduced in response to e SUbpoena is subjeca claim of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation material, the person meking the claim manotify any party that received the informationof the claim and the basis for il. Aller being notifiedparty must promptly retum, sequester, or destroy the specified information and any copies it hasmustnot use or disclose the information until the claim is resolved; must take reasonable steps tretrieve the informetion If theparty disclosed it before beingnotified; and maypromptly present tinformation to the court under seal for e determinetionof the cla im. The person who produced thinformation mustpreserve the informationuntil the claim is resolved.(e)CONTEMPT.the issuing courtmay hold in contempt ~ r s o n who, having been served, fails without adequatexcuseto obey the subpoena. A nonpart sfailure to obey must be excused Ifthe SUbpoenapurports to require thenonparty to attan orproduce at a piece outside the limits of Rule 45(c)(3(A)(ii).



PROOF OF SERVICE

DATE

SERVED



PLACE


Per sona l Servi ce

MANNER OF SERVICE

Process Server

TITLE


Executed on------------ate Signature of Server

20809 Higgins Court

Address of Server

Torrance, CA 90501


(c)PROTECTING A PERSON SUBJECT TO A SUBPOENA.(1' Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions. A partyor attorney

responsible for Issuing andserving a subpoena musttake reasonable steps to evoidimposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena. The iSluing courtmustenforce this duty and impose an eppropriate sanction ~ i c h may include lost

eamings and reasonable attomey's fees - on a party or attorney whofeils to comply.(2) Command to Produce Materials or Perm" Inspection.(A) AppearenceNot Required. A person commended to produce documents,

electronicelly stored information, or tangible things, or to permit the inspection of premises,need not appeer in person at thepiece of production or inspection unless also commandedto eppear for a depos"ion. hearing, or trial.

(B) Objections. A person commanded to produce documentsor tangiblethings or to perm" inspectionmey serve on the party or attorney designated in thesubpoena awrittenobjection to inspecting. copying, testing or sampling any or all of thematerials or to inspecting the premISes - or to producing electronically stored information intile form orforms requested. The objectionmustbe servedbefore the earlier of the timespecified for complianceor 14 days allerthe sUbpoene is served. If an objection is mede,the following rules apply:(i) At any lime, on notice to the commended person, the serving partymey move the issuingcourt for an order compellingproduction or inspection.(ii) These scts maybe required only as directed in the order, and the ordermust protect aperson who is ne"hera partynor a party's officer from signiflC8nt expense resulling fromcompliance.

(3) Quashing or Modifying s Subpoena.(A) When Required. On timely motion, the issuing court must quash ormodify

a subpoena that:(i) fails to allow a raasonable time to comply;(ii) requires a person who is ne"her a partynor e party's offlC8r to trevel more than 100miles from where that person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person- except that, subject to Rule 45(c)(3)(B)(iil), the person maybe commandedto attende

trial by traveling from any such placew"hin the stale where the trial is held;(iii) requires disclosura of privileged or otherprotectedmatter, Ifno exceptionorwaiverapplies; or(iv) subjects a person to undue burden.

(B) When Permitted. To protect a person SUbject to or affected by asubpoene, the issuing court may, on motion, quash ormodify the subpoena If it requires:(i) disclosing a trade secretor other confidential research, development, or commercialinformation;(ii) disclosing en unretained expert's opinion or informetion thet does not describe specificoccurrences in disputeand resulls from theexpert'sstudy thet was not requested by aperty; or(iii) e person who is ne"her s party nor aparty's offlC8r to incur substantial expense to travelmore than 100 miles to attend trial

(C) Specifying Cond"ions esan Allemetive. In the circumstances described in Rule 45(c)(3)(B),the court may, insteed of quashing ormodifying a subpoena, order appearance or productIOn unspecified cond"ions If the serving party:(i) shows a sUbslantial need for the testimony ormaterielthet cannotbe otherwise metwithoutundue hardship; and

Ii) ensures that the subpoeneed person will be reasonably compensated.dl DUTIES IN RESPONDING TO A SUBPOENA.1l Producing Documentsor Electronically Stored Information. These procedures apply toproducing documentsor electronically stored information:(A) Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce documentsmust prodthem as they arekept in the ordinary courseof business or must organize and label them tocorrespond to the cetegories in the demand.(B) Form for Producing Electronicelly Stored Information Not Specified. If a subpoenadoes not specifya form for producingelectronically stored information, the person responding mproduce it 'in a form or forms in which it is ordinarilymaintained or in a reasonably usable form orforms.(C) Electronically Stored InformationProduced in OnlyOne Form. The person responding neednot produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form.(D) InecceSlible Electronically Stored Information. The person responding need not providediscovery of electronically stored information from sources that theperson identiftes as notreasonably eccessible because of undue burdenor cosl. Onmotion to compel discovery or for aprotective order, the person respondingmustshow that the information is not reasonablyaccessible because of undueburdenor cosl. If that showing is mede, thecourt maynonethelessorder discovery from such sources If the requesting party shows good ceuse, considering theIimllations of Rule 26(b)(2)(C). The courtmay specify cond"ions for the discovery.

1) Claiming Privilege or Protection.A) InformationWithheld, A personw"hholding subpoenaed informationunder a claimthet " is privileged or subjectto protection as trial-preparetionmaterialmust:

I, expresslymake theclaim; andi1) describe the natureof thew"hheld documents, communications, or tangible things in amann

that, wnhoul revealing information "self privileged or protected,will enable the parties to assess tcleim.(B) Information Produced. If informationproduced in response to e SUbpoena is subjeca claim of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation material, the person meking the claim manotify any party that received the informationof the claim and the basis for il. Aller being notifiedparty must promptly retum, sequester, or destroy the specified information and any copies it hasmustnot use or disclose the information until the claim is resolved; must take reasonable steps tretrieve the informetion If theparty disclosed it before beingnotified; and maypromptly present tinformation to the court under seal for e determinetionof the cla im. The person who produced thinformation mustpreserve the informationuntil the claim is resolved.(e)CONTEMPT.the issuing courtmay hold in contempt ~ r s o n who, having been served, fails without adequatexcuseto obey the subpoena. A nonpart sfailure to obey must be excused Ifthe SUbpoenapurports to require thenonparty to attan orproduce at a piece outside the limits of Rule 45(c)(3(A)(ii).

8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME



Issued by the


_______E_a_s_t_e_r_n DISTRICT OF C_a_l_i_f_o_r_n_l_'a _






Vincent Fortanasce, M.D., Neurology Consultants

655 W. Naomi Ave., Ste 201

Arcadia, CA 91007




DATE AND TIME

D YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear at the place, date, and time specified below to testify at the taking of a deposition in

the above case



All pat i en t records r e la t ing to the above named records subject , regardless of

date . Perta in in g to David F. Jadwin


20809 Higgins Court

Torrance, CA 90501

DATE AND TIME

5/21/2008

10:00 AM


",."" I"",,,,.,,TIM'







Wasser


(See Rule 45. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 45 (e), (d), & (e) on Next Page)

If action is pending in district other than district of issuance, state district under case number.

DATE

May 2, 2008

(916) 444-6400

Ref#: 85776



Issued by the








Vincent Fortanasce, M.D., Neurology Consultants

655 W. Naomi Ave., Ste 201

Arcadia, CA 91007




DATE AND TIME


the above case



All pat i en t records r e la t ing to the above named records subject , regardless of

date . Perta in in g to David F. Jadwin


20809 Higgins Court

Torrance, CA 90501

DATE AND TIME

5/21/2008

10:00 AM


",."" I"",,,,.,,TIM'







Wasser


(See Rule 45. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 45 (e), (d), & (e) on Next Page)


DATE

May 2, 2008

(916) 444-6400

Ref#: 85776

8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME



PROOF OF SERVICE

DATE

SERVED



PLACE


Personal Service

MANNER OF SERVICE

Process Server

TITLE

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States ofAmerica that the foregoing information contained in the Prooof Service is true and correct.

Executed on

Date Signature of Server


Address of Server

Torrance, CA 90501


(3)Quashing orModifying a Subpoena.(A) When Required. On timely motion, the illuing court must quash or modify

a subpoena that:(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply:(ii) requires a personwho is nellher a party nora party's officer to travelmore than 100miles from where that person resides, is emp.loyed, or regularly transac18 businell in person- except that, subject to Rule 45(c)(3)(B)(iil), the person maybe commanded to attenda

trial by traveling from any such placeWithin the stale where the triel is held;(iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protectedmetter, Wno exception or waiverapplies; or(iv) subjectsa person to undue burden.

(B) When Permilled. To protect a person sui?ject toor effected by aSUbpoena, the illuing court may, on motion, quash ormodifythe subpoene if II requires:(i) disclosing a trade secretor other confidential research, development, or commarcialinformation;(ii) disclosing an unratained expert's opinion or information thet does notdescribe specificoccurrences in dispute and resulls from the expert's stUdy that was not requested by aparty; or(iii) a personwho is nellher a party nora party's officer to incur substantial expense to travelmore than 100miles to attend trial

(c) PROTECTING A PERSON SUBJECT TO A SUBPOENA.(1) Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions, A party or attomey

responsible for ISsuing and serving a subpoenamust take reasonable steps to avoidimposingundue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena, The illuing courtmust enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanction_hich may include lost

eamings and reasonable attomey's fees - ona party orattorney whofails to comply.

l2) Command toProduceMaterials or Perm"Inspection.A) Appearance NotRequired. A person commanded to produce documants,electronically stored information, ortangible things, or to perm"the inspection of premises,need not appear in person at theplace of productionor inspection unlell also commandedto appear fora depos"ion, heering, ortrial.

(B) Objections. A person commanded toproduce documentsor tangiblethings orto permitinspection may serve on the party or attomeydesignated in thesubpoenaawrillan objection to inspecting, copying, testing or sampling any or all of thematerials or to inspecting the premISes - or to producing alectronically stored information intile fo rm or forms requested. The objectionmust be served before the earliet of the timespecified for compliance or 14 days aller the subpoena is served. If an objection is made,the following rules apply:(i) At any lime, on notice to the commandedperson, the serving pertymay move the illulngcourt for an order compelling production or inspection.(ii) These acts may be required only as directed in the order, andthe ordermust protect aperson who is neither a party nora party's officer from significant expense resulting fromcompliance.

(C) Specifying Condllions as an Allemative. In the circumstances described in Rule 45(c)(3)(B),the court may, instead of queshing ormodifying a subpoena, order appearance or production unspacifled cond"ionsWhe serving party:(i) shows a substantial need for thetestimony ormaterial that cannot be otherwise metwithoutunduehardship; and

Ii) ensures that the subpoeneed personwill be reasonably compensated.d DUTIES IN RESPONDING TO A SUBPOENA.1l Producing Documents or Electronically Stored Information. These procedures apply toproducingdocumentsor electronically stored information:(A) Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce documentsmust prodthem as they are kept inthe ordinary course of buSinell or mustorganize and label them tocorrespond to the categories in the demand.

(B) Form for Producing Electronically Stored Information Not Specified. If e subpoenadoes not specify e form for producing electronically stored information, the person responding mproduce I I in e form orforms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form orforms.(C) Electronically Stored Information Produced in Only One Form. The person responding neednotproduce the seme electronically stored information in more than one form.(D) Ineccellible Electronically Stored Information.The personresponding neednot providediscovery of electronically storedinformation from sourcas that theperson identifies as notreasonably accanible because of undue burdenor cos t. Onmotionto compel discovery orfor aprotective order, thepersonresponding must show that the information is not reasonablyaccessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court maynonethelessorderdiscovery from such sourcesWhe requesti"l! party shows good cause, considering theIIm"ations of Rule26(b)(2)(C). The court may specify condllions forthe discovery.

l2) Claiming l'irivllege orProtection.A) InformationWithheld, A personwllhholding subpoenaed information undera claimthat" is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation materialmust:

l1expresslymake theclaim; andi1) describe the natureof thewllhheld documents, communications, ortangible things in amann

that, wllhout revealing information "self privileged or protected, will enable the parties to assellclaim.(B) Information Produced. If information produced in response to a subpoena is subjeca claim of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation material, the person making the claim manotify any party thet received the informationof theclaim and the basis for it. After being notifiedpartymust promptly retum, sequester, or destroy the specified information and any copies" hasmust notuse or disclose the information until the claim is resolved; must take reasonable steps tretrieve the informationWhe party disclosed" beforebeingnotified; and maypromptlypresent tinformation to the court under seal for a determination of the claim. The person who produced thinformation mustpreserve the informationuntil the claim is resolved.(e) CONTEMPT.the illuing courtmayhold in c o n t e m P t ~ s o n who, having been served, fails w"hout adequatexcuseto obey the subpoena. A nonpa sfailure to obey must be excused Whe subpoenapurports to require the nonparty to atten or produce at a place outside the lim lis of Rule 45(c)(3)(A)(ii).



PROOF OF SERVICE

DATE

SERVED



PLACE


Personal Service

MANNER OF SERVICE

Process Server

TITLE

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States ofAmerica that the foregoing information contained in the Prooof Service is true and correct.

Executed on



Address of Server

Torrance, CA 90501


(3)Quashing orModifying a Subpoena.(A) When Required. On timely motion, the illuing court must quash or modify

a subpoena that:(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply:(ii) requires a personwho is nellher a party nora party's officer to travelmore than 100miles from where that person resides, is emp.loyed, or regularly transac18 businell in person- except that, subject to Rule 45(c)(3)(B)(iil), the person maybe commanded to attenda

trial by traveling from any such placeWithin the stale where the triel is held;(iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protectedmetter, Wno exception or waiverapplies; or(iv) subjectsa person to undue burden.

(B) When Permilled. To protect a person sui?ject toor effected by aSUbpoena, the illuing court may, on motion, quash ormodifythe subpoene if II requires:(i) disclosing a trade secretor other confidential research, development, or commarcialinformation;(ii) disclosing an unratained expert's opinion or information thet does notdescribe specificoccurrences in dispute and resulls from the expert's stUdy that was not requested by aparty; or(iii) a personwho is nellher a party nora party's officer to incur substantial expense to travelmore than 100miles to attend trial

(c) PROTECTING A PERSON SUBJECT TO A SUBPOENA.(1) Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions, A party or attomey

responsible for ISsuing and serving a subpoenamust take reasonable steps to avoidimposingundue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena, The illuing courtmust enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanction_hich may include lost

eamings and reasonable attomey's fees - ona party orattorneywhofails to comply.

l2) Command toProduceMaterials or Perm" Inspection.A) Appearance NotRequired. A person commanded to produce documants,electronically stored information, ortangible things, or to perm"the inspection of premises,need not appear in person at theplace of productionor inspection unlell also commandedto appear fora depos"ion, heering, ortrial.

(B) Objections. A person commanded toproduce documentsor tangiblethings orto permitinspection may serve on the party or attomeydesignated in thesubpoenaawrillan objection to inspecting, copying, testing or sampling any or all of thematerials or to inspecting the premISes - or to producing alectronically stored information intile fo rm or forms requested. The objectionmust be served before the earliet of the timespecified for compliance or 14 days aller the subpoena is served. If an objection is made,the following rules apply:(i) At any lime, on notice to the commandedperson, the serving pertymay move the illulngcourt for an order compelling production or inspection.(ii) These acts may be required only as directed in the order, andthe ordermust protect aperson who is neither a party nora party's officer from significant expense resulting fromcompliance.

(C) Specifying Condllions as an Allemative. In the circumstances described in Rule 45(c)(3)(B),the court may, instead of queshing ormodifying a subpoena, order appearance or production unspacifled cond"ionsWhe serving party:(i) shows a substantial need for thetestimony ormaterial that cannot be otherwise metwithoutunduehardship; and

Ii) ensures that the subpoeneed personwill be reasonably compensated.d DUTIES IN RESPONDING TO A SUBPOENA.1l Producing Documents or Electronically Stored Information. These procedures apply toproducingdocumentsor electronically stored information:(A) Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce documentsmust prodthem as they are kept inthe ordinary course of buSinell ormustorganize and label them tocorrespond to the categories in the demand.

(B) Form for Producing Electronically Stored Information Not Specified. If e subpoenadoes not specify e form for producing electronically stored information, the person responding mproduce I I in e form orforms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form orforms.(C) Electronically Stored Information Produced in Only One Form. The person responding neednotproduce the seme electronically stored information in more than one form.(D) Ineccellible Electronically Stored Information.The personresponding neednot providediscovery of electronically storedinformation from sourcas that theperson identifies as notreasonably accanible because of undue burdenor cos t. Onmotionto compel discovery orfor aprotective order, thepersonresponding must show that the information is not reasonablyaccessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court maynonethelessorderdiscovery from such sourcesWhe requesti"l! party shows good cause, considering theIIm"ations of Rule26(b)(2)(C). The court may specifycondllions forthe discovery.

l2) Claiming l'irivllege orProtection.A) InformationWithheld, A personwllhholding subpoenaed information undera claimthat" is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation materialmust:

l1expresslymake the claim; andi1) describe the natureof thewllhheld documents, communications, ortangible things in amann

that, wllhout revealing information "self privileged or protected, will enable the parties to assellclaim.(B) Information Produced. If information produced in response to a subpoena is subjeca claim of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation material, the person making the claim manotify any party thet received the informationof theclaim and the basis for it. After being notifiedpartymust promptly retum, sequester, or destroy the specified information and any copies" hasmust notuse or disclose the information until the claim is resolved; must take reasonable steps tretrieve the informationWhe party disclosed" beforebeingnotified; and maypromptlypresent tinformation to the court under seal for a determination of the claim. The person who produced thinformation mustpreserve the informationuntil the claim is resolved.(e) CONTEMPT.the illuing courtmayhold in c o n t e m P t ~ s o n who, having been served, fails w"hout adequatexcuseto obey the subpoena. A nonpa sfailure to obey must be excused Whe subpoenapurports to require the nonparty to atten or produce at a place outside the lim lis of Rule 45(c)(3)(A)(ii).

8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME



Issued by the


_______E_a_s_t_e_r_n DISTRICT OF C_a_l_i_f_o_r_n_l_'_a _






Casa Col in a Cen te rs for Rehab

255 E. Bonita Ave.

Pomona, CA 91767


testify in the above case,


DATE AND TIME


the above case

' ' ' ' ' ' 'O""O"TION I,..",.,"'"YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce and permit inspection and copying of the following documents or objects at the


All pa t ien t records r e la t ing to the above named records subject , regardless of




Torrance, CA 90501

DATE AND TIME

5/21/2008

10:00 AM


Any organization not a party to this suit that is subpoenaed for the taking of a deposition shall designate one ormore officers,directors, or managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf, and may set forth, for each persondesignated, the matters on which the person will testify, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 30(b)(6)




Law Offices of Mark A. Wasser / Attent ion: Mark A.

Wasser


(See Rule 45. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 45 (c), (d), & <e) on NextPage)


DATE

May 2, 2008

(916) 444-6400

Ref#: 85777



Issued by the


_______E_a_s_t_e_r_n DISTRICT OF C_a_l_i_f_o_r_n_l_'_a _






Casa Col in a Cen te rs for Rehab

255 E. Bonita Ave.

Pomona, CA 91767


testify in the above case,


DATE AND TIME


the above case

' ' ' ' ' ' 'O""O"TION I,..",.,"'"YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce and permit inspection and copying of the following documents or objects at the






Torrance, CA 90501

DATE AND TIME

5/21/2008

10:00 AM


Any organization not a party to this suit that is subpoenaed for the taking of a deposition shall designate one ormore officers,directors, or managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf, and may set forth, for each persondesignated, the matters on which the person will testify, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 30(b)(6)





Wasser


(See Rule 45. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 45 (c), (d), & <e) on NextPage)


DATE

May 2, 2008

(916) 444-6400

Ref#: 85777

8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME



PROOF OF SERVICE

DATE

SERVED



PLACE


Per sona l Servi ce

MANNER OF SERVICE

Process Server

TITLE


Executed on


20809 Higgi ns Cou rt

Address of Server

Torrance, CA 90501


(c) PROTECTING A PERSON SUBJECT TO A SUBPOENA.(1) Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions. A party or attorney

responsible for Issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoidimposing undue burden or expenseon a person subject to the subpoena. The issuing courtmustenforce this duty and imposean appropriate sanction -which may include lost

earnings and reasonable attorney's fees - on a party or attorneywho fails to comply.

l2) Command to ProduceMaterials or Permit Inspection.A) Appearance Not Required. A person commanded to produce documents,electronically stored information, or tangible things, or to permil the inspection of premises,neednot appear in person at the place of production or inspection unless also commandedto appear for a deposilion, hearing, or trial.

(B) Objections. A person commanded to produce documentsor tangiblethings or to permit inspectionmayserve on the party or attorney designated in thesubpoena a written objection to inspecting, copying, testing or sampling any or all of thematerials or to inspecting the premises- or to producing electronically stored information intile form orforms requested. The objectionmustbe served before the earlier of the timespecified for compliance or 14 days ailer the subpoena is served. If an objection is made,the following rules apply:(i) At any lime, on notice to the commanded person, the serving party maymove the issuingcourt for an order compellinll production or inspection.(ii) These acts maybe required only ss directed in the order, and the ordermust protect aperson who is neither a party nor a party's officer from significant expense resuiling fromcompliance.

(3) Quashing orModifying a SUbpoena.(A) When Required. On timelymotion, the issuing court must quashor modify

a SUbpoena thal:

I) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply;il) requires a person who is neilher a party nora party's officer to travel more than 100miles from where that person resides, is employed, or regularty transacts business in person- except that, subject to Rule 45(c)(3)(B)(iil), the person maybe commanded to attendatrial by traveling from any such place wilhin the stale where the trial is held;(iii) requires disclosure ofprivileged or other protected matter, If noexception orwaiverepplies; or(iv) subjects a person to undue burden.

(B) When Permitted. To protect a person subject to or affectedby asubpoena, the issuing court may, on motion, quash ormodifythe subpoena If iI requires:(i) disclosing a trade secretor otherconfidential research, development, or commercialinformation;(ii) disclosing an unretainedexpert's opinion or information thet does notdescribe specificoccurrences in dispute and resuils from theexpert's study that was not requested by aparty; or(iii) a person who is neilher a perty nor a party's officer to incursubstantial expense to travelmore than 100miles to attend trial

(C) Specifying Condilions as an Ailemative. In the circumstances described in Rule 45(c)(3)(B),the court may, instead of quashing or modifying a subpoena, order appearance or production unspecifIed condilions If the lerving party:(i) shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met wilhoutundue hardship; and

Ii) enlures that the subpoenaedperson will be reasonably compensated.dl DUTIES IN RESPONDING TO A SUBPOENA.11 Producing Documents or Electronically Stored Information. These procedures apply toproducingdocumentsor electronically Itored information:(A) Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents mustprodthem as they are kept in the ordinary course of business or mustorganize and label them tocorrespond to the categories in the demand.(B) Form forProducing Electronically Stored Information Not Specified. If a subpoenadoes not specifya form for producing electronically stored information, thaperson responding mproduce it In a form orforml in which iI is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form oforms.(C) Electronically Stored InformationProduced in Only One Form. The person responding neednot produce the same electronically stored information in morethan one form.(D) InaccessibleElectronically Stored Information. The person responding need not prOVidedilcovery of electronically stored information from lources that the person identifies as notreasonably acceslible becaule of undue burden or cos t. On motion to compel discovery or forprotective order, theperson respondingmustshow that the information il not reasonablyaccessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court may nonethelesordar discovery from such sources If the requestinll party showsgood cause, considering theIimilations ofRule 26(b)(2)(C). The court mayspecify condilions for tha discovery.(2) Claiming PriVilege or Protection.(A) Information \lVithheld, A person wilhholding subpoenaed information under a claimthat iI is privileged or subject to protection as trial-praparation material musl:(i) expresslymake theclaim; and(iI) deacribe thenature of tha withheld documants, communications, or tangible things in amannthat, wilhout revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable the parties to assessclaim.(B) Information Produced. If informationproduced in response to a subpoena is SUbjea claim of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation material, theperson making the claim manotify any party that received the information of the claim and the basis for it. After being notifiedpartymustpromptly retum, sequester, or destroy the specifl8d informationand any copies i I hasmust notusa or disclose the informationuntil the claim is resolved; must take reasonable stepsretrieve the informationIf theparty disclosed it before being notified; and may promptly present tinformation to thecourt under seal for a determination of the claim. The person who produced thinformation must presarve the informationuntil the claim is resolved.(e) CONTEMPT.the issuing courtmay hold in c o n t e m P t ~ r s o n who, having been served, feils wilhout adequaexcule to obey the subpoene. Anonpa sfailure to obeymust be excused If the subpoenepurports to require the nonparty to atten orproduce at a place outside the limils of Rule 45(c)(3(A)(ii).



PROOF OF SERVICE

DATE

SERVED



PLACE


Per sona l Servi ce

MANNER OF SERVICE

Process Server

TITLE


Executed on


20809 Higgins Court

Address of Server

Torrance, CA 90501


(c) PROTECTING A PERSON SUBJECT TO A SUBPOENA.(1) Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions. A party or attorney

responsible for Issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoidimposing undue burden or expenseon a person subject to the subpoena. The issuing courtmustenforce this duty and imposean appropriate sanction -which may include lost

earnings and reasonable attorney's fees - on a party or attorneywho fails to comply.

l2) Command toProduceMaterials or Permit Inspection.A) Appearance Not Required. A person commanded to produce documents,electronically stored information, or tangible things, or to permil the inspection of premises,neednot appear in person at the place of production or inspection unless also commandedto appear for a deposilion, hearing, or trial.

(B) Objections. A person commanded to produce documentsor tangiblethings orto permit inspectionmayserve on the party or attorney designated in thesubpoena a written objection to inspecting, copying, testing or sampling any or all of thematerials or to inspecting the premises- or to producing electronically stored information intile form orforms requested. The objectionmustbe served before the earlier of the timespecified for compliance or 14 days ailer the subpoena is served. If an objection is made,the following rules apply:(i) At any lime, on notice to the commanded person, the serving party maymove the issuingcourt for an order compellinll production or inspection.(ii) These acts maybe required only ss directed in the order, and the ordermust protect aperson who is neither a party nor a party's officer from significant expense resuiling fromcompliance.

(3) Quashing orModifying a SUbpoena.(A) When Required. On timelymotion, the issuing court must quashor modify

a SUbpoena thal:

I) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply;il) requires a person who is neilher a party nora party's officer to travel more than 100miles from where that person resides, is employed, or regularty transacts business in person- except that, subject to Rule 45(c)(3)(B)(iil), the person maybe commanded to attendatrial by traveling from any such place wilhin the stale where the trial is held;(iii) requires disclosure ofprivileged or other protected matter, Ifnoexception orwaiverepplies; or(iv) subjects a person to undue burden.

(B) When Permitted. To protect a person subject to or affectedby asubpoena, the issuing court may, on motion, quash ormodifythe subpoena If iI requires:(i) disclosing a trade secretor otherconfidential research, development, or commercialinformation;(ii) disclosing an unretainedexpert's opinion or information thet does notdescribe specificoccurrences in dispute and resuils from theexpert's study that was not requested by aparty; or(iii) a person who is neilher a perty nor a party's officer to incursubstantial expense to travelmore than 100miles to attend trial

(C) Specifying Condilions as anAilemative. In the circumstances described in Rule 45(c)(3)(B),the court may, instead of quashing or modifying a subpoena, order appearance or production unspecifIed condilions Ifthe lerving party:(i) shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met wilhoutundue hardship; and

Ii) enlures that the subpoenaedperson will be reasonably compensated.dl DUTIES IN RESPONDING TO A SUBPOENA.11 Producing Documents or Electronically Stored Information. These procedures apply toproducingdocumentsor electronically Itored information:(A) Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents mustprodthem as they are kept in the ordinary course of business or mustorganize and label them tocorrespond to the categories in the demand.(B) Form forProducing Electronically Stored Information Not Specified. If a subpoenadoes not specifya form for producing electronically stored information, thaperson responding mproduce it In a form orforml in which iI is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form oforms.(C) Electronically Stored InformationProduced in Only One Form. The person responding neednot produce the same electronically stored information in morethan one form.(D) InaccessibleElectronically Stored Information. The person responding need not prOVidedilcovery of electronically stored information from lources that the person identifies as notreasonably acceslible becaule of undue burden or cos t. On motion to compel discovery or forprotective order, theperson respondingmustshow that the information il not reasonablyaccessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court may nonethelesordar discovery from such sources If the requestinll party showsgood cause, considering theIimilations ofRule 26(b)(2)(C). The court mayspecify condilions for tha discovery.(2) Claiming PriVilege or Protection.(A) Information \lVithheld, A person wilhholding subpoenaed information under a claimthat iI is privileged or subject to protection as trial-praparation material musl:(i) expresslymake theclaim; and(iI) deacribe thenature of tha withheld documants, communications, or tangible things in amannthat, wilhout revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable the parties to assessclaim.(B) Information Produced. If informationproduced in response to a subpoena is SUbjea claim of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation material, theperson making the claim manotify any party that received the information of the claim and the basis for it. After being notifiedpartymustpromptly retum, sequester, or destroy the specifl8d informationand any copies i I hasmust notusa or disclose the informationuntil the claim is resolved; must take reasonable stepsretrieve the informationIf theparty disclosed it before being notified; and may promptly present tinformation to thecourt under seal for a determination of the claim. The person who produced thinformation must presarve the informationuntil the claim is resolved.(e) CONTEMPT.the issuing courtmay hold in c o n t e m P t ~ r s o n who, having been served, feils wilhout adequaexcule to obey the subpoene. Anonpa sfailure to obeymust be excused If the subpoenepurports to require the nonparty to atten orproduce at a place outside the limils of Rule 45(c)(3(A)(ii).

8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME


A088 (Rev, 12/07) Subpoena in a Civil Case

Issued by the








Christopher J. Charbonnet, M.D., The Foothill Center fo r Wellness & Pain Manageme

1505 Wilson Terrace, Ste 240Glendale, CA 91206




DATE AND TIME


the above case




d at e. P er ta in in g to David F. Jadwin



Torrance, CA 90501

DATE AND TIME

5/21/2008

10:00 AM


' "" ' ' ' ' ' I-DA-T-E-AN-D-T-IM-E-----------

organization not a party to this suit that is subpoenaed for the taking of a deposition shall designate one ormore officers,ormanaging agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf, and may set forth, for each person

the matters on which the person will testify. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 30(b)(6)


for Counsel for Defendant,

OFFICER'S NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER


Wasser


(See Rule 45, Federal Rules of Civil Prooedure 45 (e), (d), & (e) on Next Page)

action is pending in district other than district of issuance, state district under case number,

DATE

May 2, 2008

(916) 444-6400

Ref#: 85778


A088 (Rev, 12/07) Subpoena in a Civil Case

Issued by the








Christopher J. Charbonnet, M.D., The Foothill Center fo r Wellness & Pain Manageme

1505 Wilson Terrace, Ste 240Glendale, CA 91206




DATE AND TIME


the above case







Torrance, CA 90501

DATE AND TIME

5/21/2008

10:00 AM


' "" ' ' ' ' ' I-DA-T-E-AN-D-T-IM-E-----------

organization not a party to this suit that is subpoenaed for the taking of a deposition shall designate one ormore officers,ormanaging agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf, and may set forth, for each person

the matters on which the person will testify. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 30(b)(6)


for Counsel for Defendant,

OFFICER'S NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER


Wasser


(See Rule 45, Federal Rules of Civil Prooedure 45 (e), (d), & (e) on Next Page)

action is pending in district other than district of issuance, state district under case number,

DATE

May 2, 2008

(916) 444-6400

Ref#: 85778

8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME


A088 (Rev. 12/07) Subpoena in aCivil Case (page 2)

PROOF OF SERVICE

DATE

SERVED



PLACE


Personal Service

MANNER OF SERVICE

Process Server

TITLE


Executed on


20809 Higgins Court

Address of Server

Torrance, CA 90501

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (c), (d), and (e), as amended on December 1,2007:

(c) PROTECTING A PERSON SUBJECT TO A SUBPOENA.(1 )Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions. Aperty or attorney

responsible for issuing and serving a subpoenamust laka raasonable steps to avoidimposing undue burden or expense on a person subjac:t to the subpoena. The issuing courtmust enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanction -whichmay include lost

earnings and reasonable attorney's fees - on a partyor attorney who fails to comply.(2) Command to Produce Materials or Permij Inspac:tion.(A) Appearance Not Required. A person commanded to produce documents,

electronically stored information, or tangible things, or to permit the inspac:tion ofpremises,need not appear in person at the place of production or inspac:tion unless also commandedto appear for a deposition, hearing, or trial.

(B) Objections. A person commanded to produce documents or tangiblethings or to permit inspection may serve on the party or attorney designated in thesubpoena awritten objac:tion to inspec:ling, copying, testing or sampling any or all of thematerials or to inspac:tlng the premises - or to producing elec:lronically stored information intile fo rm or forms requested. The objac:tion must be servedbefore the eartiar of the timaspecified for compliance or 14 days aller the subpoena is served. If an objac:tion is made,the following rules epply;(i) At any lime. on notic:a to the commanded person, the serving party maymove the issuingcourt for an ordercompelling production or inspac:tion.(ii) These acts maybe required only as dirac:ted in theorder, and the order must protectaperson who is neijher a party nora party's otrJC8f' from signiflC8nt expense resulling fromcompliance.

1) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena.A) 'MIen Required. On timelymotion, the issuing court must quash ormodify

a subpoena that(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply;(i1) requires a person who is neither aparty nora party's officer to travel more than 100miles from whare that person resides. is amployed, or regularty transac:ts business in person- except that, subjec:l to Rule 45(c)(3)(B)(iil), the person maybe commanded to attendatrial by traveling from any such place Within the stala where the trial is held;

(iii) requires disclosure of privileged or otherprotactedmatter, if no exceptionor waiverapplias; or(iv) subjects a person to undue burden.

(B) 'MIan Permitted. To protecta person subject to or affected by asubpoena, the issuing court may, on motion, quash or modify the subpoena if it requires:(i) disclosing a trade secret or otherconfidantial research, development, or commercialinformation;(ii) disclosing an unretained expert's opinion or informationthat does not describe specificoc:c:urrances in dispute and results from the expert's study that was not requested by aparty; or(iii) a person who is neijher a party nor a party's officer to incur substantial expense to travelmore than 100miles to attand trial

(C) Specifying Condijions as an Allemative. In the circumstances described in Rule 45(c)(3)(B),the court may, instead of quashing or modifying a subpoena, order appearance or production unspecified conditions if the serving party;(i) shows a substantial need for the tastimony or material that cannot be otherwise met withoutunduehardship; and

(Ii) ensures thet the subpoeneed person will be raasonably compensated.(d) DUTIES IN RESPONDING TO A SUBPOENA.(1) Producing Documents or Elec:tronic:ally Stored Information. These procedures apply toproducingdocumentsor elec:tronic:ally stored information;(A) Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents mustprodthem as they are kept in the ordinary courseof businass or mustorganize and label them tocorrespond to the categories in the demand.(B) Form for Producing EIec:tronic:a11y Stored Information Not Spec:ifl9d. If a subpoenadoes not specify a form for producing elec:tronic:ally stored information, the person responding mproduce i t in a (orm or forms in which" is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form oforms.(C) Elec:lronically Stored Information Produced i n Only One Form. The person responding neednot produce the same elec:tronically stored information in more then one form.(D) Inecc:essible Elec:tronic:ally Stored Information. The person responding need not providediscovery of elec:tronically stored information from sources that the person identifies as notreasonablyeccessible because of undue burdenor cos t. On motion to compel diac:overy or for aprotectiveorder, the person respondingmustshow thet the information is not reasonablyaccessible because of undue burdenor cost. If thet showing il made, the court may nonethelesorder dilcovery from luch SOUrcel if the requestinqparty shows good cause, considering theIImijations of Rule 26(b)(2)(C). The court may specify condijions (or the dilcovery.(2) CleimingPrivilege orProtac:tion.(A) InformationWithheld, A person withholding subpoenaedinformationundera claimthat it is privileged or subject to protection al trial..preperation material must(il expresslymake theclaim; and(il) deacribe thenature of thewithheld documents, communications, or tangible things in amannthat, w"hout revealing information ijself privileged or protec:led, will enable the parties to assess

claim.(B) Information Produced. If information produced in relponse to a subpoena is subjea claim of privilege or of protectional trial-preparation material, the person making the claim manotify any party that received the informationof the claim andthe basis for it. After being notifl9dparty mUltpromptly return, sequelter, or destroy the lpecified informationand any copies it hasmust not use or diaclose the informetionuntil the claim is relolved; must take reasonable steplretrieve tha informetion if the partydi lcloled ij before being notified; and maypromptly present tinformation to the court under seal for a determination of the claim. The person who produced thinformationmust preserve the informationuntil the claim il relolved.(e) CONTEMPT.TIie ilsuing court mey hold in c o n t e m P t ~ r s o n who, having been served, fails w ~ o u t adequaexcuse to obey the subpoena. Anonpa sfailure to obey must be excused if the subpoenapurports to require the nonparty to atten orproduce at a place outside the limits ofRule 45(c)(3(A)(ii).



PROOF OF SERVICE

DATE

SERVED



PLACE


Personal Service

MANNER OF SERVICE

Process Server

TITLE


Executed on


20809 Higgins Court

Address of Server

Torrance, CA 90501

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (c), (d), and (e), as amended on December 1,2007:

(c) PROTECTING A PERSON SUBJECT TO A SUBPOENA.(1 )Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions. Aperty or attorney

responsible for issuing and serving a subpoenamust laka raasonable steps to avoidimposing undue burden or expense on a person subjac:t to the subpoena. The issuing courtmust enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanction -whichmay include lost

earnings and reasonable attorney's fees - on a partyor attorneywho fails to comply.(2) Command to Produce Materials or Permij Inspac:tion.(A) Appearance Not Required. A person commanded to produce documents,

electronically stored information, or tangible things, or to permit the inspac:tion ofpremises,need not appear in person at the place of production or inspac:tion unless also commandedto appear for a deposition, hearing, or trial.

(B) Objections. A person commanded to produce documents or tangiblethings or to permit inspection mayserve on the party or attorney designated in thesubpoena awritten objac:tion to inspec:ling, copying, testing or sampling any or all of thematerials or to inspac:tlng the premises - or to producing elec:lronically stored information intile fo rm or forms requested. The objac:tion must be servedbefore the eartiar of the timaspecified for compliance or 14 days aller thesubpoena is served. If an objac:tion is made,the following rules epply;(i) At any l ime. on notic:a to the commanded person, the serving party maymove the issuingcourt for an ordercompelling production or inspac:tion.(ii) These acts maybe required only as dirac:ted in theorder, and the order must protectaperson who is neijher a party nora party's otrJC8f' from signiflC8nt expense resulling fromcompliance.

1) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena.A) 'MIen Required. On timelymotion, the issuing court must quash ormodify

a subpoena that(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply;(i1) requires a person who is neither aparty nora party's officer to travel more than 100miles from whare that person resides. is amployed, or regularty transac:ts business in person- except that, subjec:l to Rule 45(c)(3)(B)(iil), the person maybe commanded to attendatrial by traveling from any such place Within the stala where the trial is held;(iii) requires disclosure of privileged or otherprotactedmatter, if no exceptionor waiverapplias; or(iv) subjects a person to undue burden.

(B) 'MIan Permitted. To protecta person subject to or affected by asubpoena, the issuing court may, on motion, quash or modify the subpoena if it requires:(i) disclosing a trade secret or otherconfidantial research, development, or commercialinformation;(ii) disclosing an unretained expert's opinion or informationthat does not describe specificoc:c:urrances in dispute and results from the expert's study that was not requested by aparty; or(iii) a person who is neijher a party nor a party's officer to incur substantial expense to travelmore than 100miles to attand trial

(C) Specifying Condijions as an Allemative. In the circumstances described in Rule 45(c)(3)(B),the court may, instead of quashing or modifying a subpoena, order appearance or production unspecified conditions if the serving party;(i) shows a substantial need for the tastimony or material that cannot be otherwise met withoutunduehardship; and

(Ii) ensures thet the subpoeneed person will be raasonably compensated.(d) DUTIES IN RESPONDING TO A SUBPOENA.(1) Producing Documents or Elec:tronic:ally Stored Information. These procedures apply toproducingdocumentsor elec:tronic:ally stored information;(A) Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents must prodthem as they are kept in the ordinary courseof businass ormustorganize and label them tocorrespond to the categories in the demand.(B) Form for Producing EIec:tronic:a11y Stored Information Not Spec:ifl9d. If a subpoenadoes not specify a form for producing elec:tronic:ally stored information, the person responding mproduce it in a (orm or forms in which" is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form oforms.(C) Elec:lronically Stored Information Produced in Only One Form. The person responding neednot produce the same elec:tronically stored information in more then one form.(D) Inecc:essible Elec:tronic:ally Stored Information. The person responding need not providediscovery of elec:tronically stored information from sources that the person identifies as notreasonablyeccessible because of undue burdenor cos t. On motion to compel diac:overy or for aprotectiveorder, the person respondingmustshow thet the information is not reasonablyaccessible because of undue burdenor cost. If thet showing il made, the court may nonethelesorder dilcovery from luch SOUrcel if the requestinqparty shows good cause, considering theIImijations of Rule 26(b)(2)(C). The court may specify condijions (or the dilcovery.(2) CleimingPrivilege orProtac:tion.(A) InformationWithheld, A person withholding subpoenaedinformationundera claimthat it is privileged or subject to protection al trial..preperation material must(il expresslymake theclaim; and(il) deacribe thenature of thewithheld documents, communications, or tangible things in amannthat, w"hout revealing information ijself privileged or protec:led, will enable the parties to assess

claim.(B) Information Produced. If information produced in relponse to a subpoena is subjea claim of privilege or of protectional trial-preparation material, the person making the cla im manotify any party that received the informationof the claim andthe basis for it. After being notifl9dparty mUltpromptly return, sequelter, or destroy the lpecified informationand any copies i t hasmust not use or diaclose the informetionuntil the claim is relolved; must take reasonable steplretrieve tha informetion if the partydi lcloled ij before being notified; and may promptly present tinformation to the court under seal for a determination of the claim. The person who produced thinformationmust preserve the informationuntil the claim il relolved.(e) CONTEMPT.TIie ilsuing court mey hold in c o n t e m P t ~ r s o n who, having been served, fails w ~ o u t adequaexcuse to obey the subpoena. Anonpa sfailure to obey must be excused if the subpoenapurports to require the nonparty to atten orproduce at a place outside the limits ofRule 45(c)(3(A)(ii).

8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME



Issued by theUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT







Michael Cann, M.D.


Glendale, CA 91208




DATE AND TIME


the above case

"" ' ' ' 0 ' "'o,mo' I_DA_T_E_A_ND_T_IM_E _






20809 Higgins Court

Torrance, CA 90501

DATE AND TIME

5/21/2008

10:00 AM


"' ' '" ' ' ' ' ;-DA-T-E-A-ND-T-IM-E-----------

Any organization not a party to this suit that is subpoenaed for the taking of a deposition shall designate one ormore officers,directors, or managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf, and may set forth, for each person

designated, the matters on which the person will testify. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 30(b)(6)ISSUING OFFICER SIGNATURE AND TITLE (INDICATE IF ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT)




Wasser


(See Rule 45. FederalRules of Civil Procedure 45 (e), (d), & (e) on Neld Page)

If action is pending in district other than district of issuance, stetedistrict under case number.

DATE

May 2, 2008

(916) 444-6400

Ref#: 85779



Issued by theUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT







Michael Cann, M.D.


Glendale, CA 91208




DATE AND TIME


the above case

"" ' ' ' 0 ' ",o,mo, I_DA_T_E_A_ND_T_IM_E _






20809 Higgins Court

Torrance, CA 90501

DATE AND TIME

5/21/2008

10:00 AM


"' ' '" ' ' ' ' ;-DA-T-E-A-ND-T-IM-E-----------

Any organization not a party to this suit that is subpoenaed for the taking of a deposition shall designate one ormore officers,directors, or managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf, and may set forth, for each person

designated, the matters on which the person will testify. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 30(b)(6)ISSUING OFFICER SIGNATURE AND TITLE (INDICATE IF ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT)




Wasser


(See Rule 45. FederalRules of Civil Procedure 45 (e), (d), & (e) on Neld Page)

If action is pending in district other than district of issuance, stetedistrict under case number.

DATE

May 2, 2008

(916) 444-6400

Ref#: 85779

8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME


•


PROOF OF SERVICE

DATE

SERVED



PLACE


Personal Service

MANNER OF SERVICE

Process Server

TITLE

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing information contained in the Prooof Service is true and correct.

Executed on


20809 Higgins Court

Address of Server

Torrance, CA 90501


(c) PROTECTING A PERSON SUBJECT TO A SUBPOENA.(1) Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions. A party or attomey

responsible for Issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable staps to avoidimposing undue burden or expenseon a person subject to the subpoena. The issuing courtmust enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanction -which may include losteamings and reasonable attorney's fees- on a party or attorneywho fails to comply.

(2) Command to Produce Materials or Permillnspection.(A) Appearance Not Required. A person commanded toproduce documents,

electronicelly stored information, or tangible things, or to permil the inspection of premises.need not appear in person at the place of production or inspection unless also commandedto appear for a deposition, hearing, or trial.

(B) Objections. A person commended to produce documents or tangiblethings or to permit inspection may serve on the party or attorneydesignated in thesubpoena awrillen objection to inspecting, copying, testing or sampling any or all of thematerials or to inspecting the premises - orto producing electronically stored information intile form orforms requested. The objectionmustbe served before the earlier of the timespecified for compliance or 14 daysatter the subpoena is served. Wan objection is made,the following rules apply:( i) At any l ime. on notice to the commanded person.the serving perty maymove the issuingcourt for an order compellinp production or inspection.(ii) These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and the ordermustprotect aperson who is neilher a party nora party's offlC8r from signifICant expense resutting fromcompliance.

l3) Quashing orModifying a SUbpoena.A) When Required. On timely motion, the issuing court mustquash ormodifya subpoena that:(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply;(ii) requires a person who is neilher a party nor a party's officer to travel more than 100miles from where that person resides, is employed, or regularty transacts business in person- except that, subject to Rule 45(c)(3)(B)(ii'), the person maybe commandedto attend atrial by traveling from any such place Within the stale where the trial is held;

(iii) requires disclosureof

privileged or other protectedmatter, no exception or waiverapplies; or(iv) subjects a person to undue burden.

(B) When Permitted. To protect a person subject to or affected by asubpoena, the issuing court may, on motion, quash or modify the subpoena it requires:(i) disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercielinformetion;(ii) disclosing an unretainedexpert's opinion Or information that does not describe specificoccurrences in dispute and resutts from theexpert's study that was not requested by aparty; or(iii) a person who is neither a perty nore party's officer to incur substential expense to travelmore than 100 miles to attend trial

(C) Specifying Condilions asan AAemative. In the circumstances described in Rule 45(c)(3)(B),the court mey, insteed of quashing or modifying a subpoena, order appearance or production unspecified condilionsnthe serving party:(i) shows a substantial need for the testimonyor material that cannot be otherwise metwilhoutundue hardship; and(i1) ensures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably compensated.(d) DUTIES IN RESPONDING TO A SUBPOENA.(1) Producing Documants or Electronically Stored Information. These procedures apply toproducing documentsor electronically stored information:(A) Documents. A person responding to a subpoene to produce documents must prodthem es they are kapt in the ordinary course of business or must organize and label them tocorrespond to the categories in the demand.(B) Form forProducing Electronically Stored InformationNot Specified. Wa subpoenadoes not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, the person responding mproduce i1,n a form or forms in which i t is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form orforms.(C) Electronically Stored InformationProduced in Only One Form. The person responding neednot produce the same electronically stored information in more thanone form.(D) Inaccessible Electronically Stored Information. The person responding need not providediscovery ofelectronically stored information from sources that theperson identifl8s as notreasonably accessible because of undueburden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or for aprotective order, the person responding mustshow that the information is not reasonablyaccessible because of undue burden or cost. What showing is made, the court may nonethelessorder discovery from such sources nthe requestinll partyshows good cause, considering thelimitations of Rule 26(b)(2)(C). The court may specify conditions for the discovery.

1) ClaimingPrivilege or Protection.A) InformationWithheld, A person wilhholding subpoenaed informationunder a claimthat i t is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation materialmust:(i) expressly make theclaim; and(i1) describe the nature of thewilhheld documents, communications, or tangible things in amannthat, without revealing information itaeW privileged or protected. will enable the parties to assess

claim.(B) InformationProduced. Wnformation produced in response to a subpoena is subjeca claim of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation material, the person making the claim manotify any party that received the information of the claim andthe basis for it. After being notifiedparty must promptly retum, sequester, or destroy the specified information and any copies it hasmust not use or disclose the information until theclaim is resolved; must take reasonable steps tretrieve the informationnthe party disclosed iI before being notified; end maypromptly present tinformation to the court under seal for e determination of the claim. The person who produced thinformationmustpreserve the information until the claim is resolved.(e) CONTEMPT.The issuing court may hold in contempt a nWho, having been served, fails wilhout adequeexcuse to obey the subpoena. Anonpa • failure to obey must be excused the subpoenepurport. to require thenonparty to alten or produce et a place outside the limils of Rule 45(c)(3(A)(ii).



PROOF OF SERVICE

DATE

SERVED



PLACE


Personal Service

MANNER OF SERVICE

Process Server

TITLE

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing information contained in the Prooof Service is true and correct.

Executed on


20809 Higgins Court

Address of Server

Torrance, CA 90501


(c) PROTECTING A PERSON SUBJECT TO A SUBPOENA.(1) Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions. A party or attomey

responsible for Issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable staps to avoidimposing undue burden or expenseon a person subject to the subpoena. The issuing courtmust enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanction -which may include losteamings and reasonable attorney's fees- on a party or attorneywho fails to comply.

(2) Command to Produce Materials or Permillnspection.(A) Appearance Not Required. A person commanded toproduce documents,

electronicelly stored information, or tangible things, or to permil the inspection of premises.need not appear in person at the place of production or inspection unless also commandedto appear for a deposition, hearing, or trial.

(B) Objections. A person commended to produce documents or tangiblethings or to permit inspection may serve on the party or attorneydesignated in thesubpoena awrillen objection to inspecting, copying, testing or sampling any or all of thematerials or to inspecting the premises - orto producing electronically stored information intile form orforms requested. The objectionmustbe served before the earlier of the timespecified for compliance or 14 daysatter the subpoena is served. Wan objection is made,the following rules apply:( i) At any l ime. on notice to the commanded person.the serving perty maymove the issuingcourt for an order compellinp production or inspection.(ii) These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and the ordermustprotect aperson who is neilher a party nora party's offlC8r from signifICant expense resutting fromcompliance.

l3) Quashing orModifying a SUbpoena.A) When Required. On timely motion, the issuing court mustquash ormodifya subpoena that:(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply;(ii) requires a person who is neilher a party nor a party's officer to travel more than 100miles from where that person resides, is employed, or regularty transacts business in person- except that, subject to Rule 45(c)(3)(B)(ii'), the person maybe commandedto attend atrial by traveling from any such place Within the stale where the trial is held;

(iii) requires disclosureof

privileged or other protectedmatter, no exception or waiverapplies; or(iv) subjects a person to undue burden.

(B) When Permitted. To protect a person subject to or affected by asubpoena, the issuing court may, on motion, quash or modify the subpoena it requires:(i) disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercielinformetion;(ii) disclosing an unretainedexpert's opinion Or information that does not describe specificoccurrences in dispute and resutts from theexpert's study that was not requested by aparty; or(iii) a person who is neither a perty nore party's officer to incur substential expense to travelmore than 100 miles to attend trial

(C) Specifying Condilions asan AAemative. In the circumstances described in Rule 45(c)(3)(B),the court mey, insteed of quashing or modifying a subpoena, order appearance or production unspecified condilionsnthe serving party:(i) shows a substantial need for the testimonyor material that cannot be otherwise metwilhoutundue hardship; and(i1) ensures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably compensated.(d) DUTIES IN RESPONDING TO A SUBPOENA.(1) Producing Documants or Electronically Stored Information. These procedures apply toproducing documentsor electronically stored information:(A) Documents. A person responding to a subpoene to produce documents must prodthem es they are kapt in the ordinary course of business or must organize and label them tocorrespond to the categories in the demand.(B) Form forProducing Electronically Stored InformationNot Specified. Wa subpoenadoes not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, the person responding mproduce i1,n a form or forms in which i t is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form orforms.(C) Electronically Stored InformationProduced in Only One Form. The person responding neednot produce the same electronically stored information in more thanone form.(D) Inaccessible Electronically Stored Information. The person responding need not providediscovery ofelectronically stored information from sources that theperson identifl8s as notreasonably accessible because of undueburden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or for aprotective order, the person responding mustshow that the information is not reasonablyaccessible because of undue burden or cost. What showing is made, the court may nonethelessorder discovery from such sources nthe requestinll partyshows good cause, considering thelimitations of Rule 26(b)(2)(C). The court may specify conditions for the discovery.

1) ClaimingPrivilege or Protection.A) InformationWithheld, A person wilhholding subpoenaed informationunder a claimthat i t is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation materialmust:(i) expressly make theclaim; and(i1) describe the nature of thewilhheld documents, communications, or tangible things in amannthat, without revealing information itaeW privileged or protected. will enable the parties to assess

claim.(B) InformationProduced. Wnformation produced in response to a subpoena is subjeca claim of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation material, the person making the claim manotify any party that received the information of the claim andthe basis for it. After being notifiedparty must promptly retum, sequester, or destroy the specified information and any copies it hasmust not use or disclose the information until theclaim is resolved; must take reasonable steps tretrieve the informationnthe party disclosed iI before being notified; end maypromptly present tinformation to the court under seal for e determination of the claim. The person who produced thinformationmustpreserve the information until the claim is resolved.(e) CONTEMPT.The issuing court may hold in contempt a nWho, having been served, fails wilhout adequeexcuse to obey the subpoena. Anonpa • failure to obey must be excused the subpoenepurport. to require thenonparty to alten or produce et a place outside the limils of Rule 45(c)(3(A)(ii).

8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME



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


8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME


Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 132 Filed 05/16/2008 Page 1 of 3Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 140-2 Filed 05/22/2008 Page 42 of 50

Mark A. Wasser CA SB #060160LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER

2 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100Sacramento, CA 95814

3 Phone: 16) 444-6400444-6405

PLAINTIFF AND ORDER

21 vs.

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

24

25 PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF THE COURT, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by

22 COUNTY OF KERN, et aI.,

26 and between the parties through their respective counsel that Plaintiff, David F. Jadwin, shall

27 submit to a mental and psychiatric examination by Dr. Robert Burchuk on Monday, May 19,

28 2008 from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. and Thursday, May 29 from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. in Dr.

1

STIPULATION RE EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF AND ORDER

8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME



1 Burchuk's office at 23522 Califa Street, Woodland Hills, California. Dr. Burchuk's telephone is

2 818-922-4900. The examination shall consist of an oral interview and evaluation and the

3 one Memory Mallmgermg test orocedlure

a.m.

dIsclosed to PlaJllltltt

on Wednesday, May 28, 2008 at 1

raw test scores,

Rick ~ a r K a s l a n ,valua1:ion to be conldm;ted

4

2122

23 Dated: May 16, 2008

Mark A. WasserAttorney for Defendants, County ofKern, et al.

LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE

24

25

26

27

28

By: lsi Eugene D. Lee (as authorized on 5/16/08)

Eugene D. LeeAttorney for Plaintiff, David F. Jadwin, D.O.

2


8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME



1 ORDER

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

3

2122

23

24

25

26

27

28

3


8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME



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


8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME


1

Eugene D. Lee

From: Eugene D. Lee [[email protected]]Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 11:47 AMTo: '[email protected]'Subject: RE: DME

I got

through

to

Dr.

Jadwin.

He

was

on

his

way

home.

He

turned

his

car

around

and

he

should

be

arriving

at

Dr.

Burchuk’s office right about now. You mentioned on the phone that the wrong address was due to a miscommunication between you and Karen Barnes and that you would email me some kind of proposal for making up the lost time. I’ll be happy to take a look at it. 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 W5 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.

From: Mark Wasser [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 10:58 AMTo: [email protected]: RE: DME

Gene,

Dr. Jadwin should be at 6320 Canoga Ave, Suite 1500, Woodland Hills.

Mark

From: Eugene D. Lee [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 10:43 AMTo: [email protected]: DME

Mark,


8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME


2

I just tried calling you but you weren’t available. Dr. Jadwin called to tell me that he is at Dr. Burchuk’s office at 23522 Califa St., Woodland Hills, California. He’s been waiting outside the gate for over 30 minutes now but no one seems to be letting him in. Please advise. Sincerely,

Gene Lee

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


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]


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

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.


8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME



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


8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME


1

Eugene D. Lee

From: Eugene D. Lee [[email protected]]Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 4:17 PMTo: '[email protected]'Subject: RE: Subpoena of Drs. Taheri/Riskin

Mark,

You served the subpoenas (in violation of the Court’s Scheduling Order) prior to the mishap at today’s DME. That is

separate and distinct from the fact that the DME was only 2 hours long today because defendants mistakenly gave

plaintiff the wrong address for the DME. Plaintiff will not bargain to gain your compliance with the Order of the Court.

We will be filing a motion to quash and for protective order.

I also note that Dr. Burchuk had Dr. Jadwin execute HIPAA releases at the DME authorizing his treating therapists to

disclose all patient information to him. Because his attorneys were not present and he was not allowed to contact his

attorneys during the DME, Dr. Jadwin signed the authorizations without the advice of counsel. I have since informed Dr.

Jadwin of the existence of the Scheduling Order (prohibiting disclosure of treater psychotherapy notes, etc.) and he has

revoked the HIPAA releases. It is precisely this kind of conduct that plaintiff sought to prevent in requesting Dr. Jadwin

be permitted

to

ask

his

attorneys

questions

during

the

DME.

Sincerely,

Gene Lee

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







From: Mark Wasser [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 3:09 PM

To: [email protected]

Subject: RE: Subpoena of Drs. Taheri/Riskin

Gene,

Dr. Jadwin saw Dr. Burchuk, I understand, for about 2 hours today. We propose the May 29 session be moved to June 2and expanded to 6 hours. That will limit the exam to two sessions and allow Dr. Burchuk to complete it. If we can do that


8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME


2

then the language in the Scheduling Order that you quote in this e-mail will be satisfied and the subpoenas can be limitedaccordingly.

Let me know.

Mark

From: Eugene D. Lee [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 2:34 PMTo: [email protected]: Subpoena of Drs. Taheri/RiskinImportance: High

Mark,

I’ve received your subpoena of medical records from Drs. Taheri and Riskin (plaintiff’s therapists).

I am writing to object to your subpoena. As you recall, in the Scheduling Order (Doc. 29), the parties stipulated as

follows:

“The parties

hereby

agree

that,

in

order

to

preserve

the

confidentiality

required

for

continued

effective

treatment

of

Plaintiff’s depression, anxiety, insomnia, and emotional distress, Plaintiff’s treating psychiatrists/psychologists shall not

be required to produce their actual treatment notes, but instead shall produce a summary of their treatment of

Plaintiff’s depression and emotional distress, including their diagnoses and prognoses, and the basis for their opinion,

including raw data of any psychological testing. Plaintiff is willing to undergo psychological examination by Defendants’

qualified expert pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 34 subject to a stipulation regarding the timing and

scope of the examination, including the specific tests to be performed, and prompt production of the subsequent report

and raw data supporting the report to all parties.” (Scheduling Order, 14:5‐19).

I understand that the subpoena asks for production by 5/21/08. We intend to file a motion to quash subpoena. If you

wish to meet and confer, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Gene Lee

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





W e b s i t e : www.LOEL.com

B l o g : www.CaLaborLaw.com



8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME


DECLARATION OF DAVID F. JADWIN re MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER re DEFENSEMENTAL EXAMINATION 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


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




Plaintiff,v.


Defendants.


DECLARATION OF DAVID F. JADWIN,

D.O. re MOTION FOR PROTECTIVEORDER re DEFENSE MENTALEXAMINATION

Date: April 28, 2008Time: 9:30 a.m.Place: U.S. District Court, Crtrm. 3

2500 Tulare St, Fresno, CA

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

I, David F. Jadwin, D.O., declare and say as follows:

1. I am the Plaintiff in the above-captioned action.

2. I am making this declaration in support of Plaintiff’s motion for protective order re

defense mental examination. 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.

3. On May 19, 2008, I drove the address provided to me by my attorney, Eugene Lee, and

arrived at 10 a.m. I waited outside a gate at the address until 10:40 a.m., but no one let me in.

4. At 10:40 a.m., I called Mr. Lee to tell him of the situation and ask for further instructions.

5. After hanging up the phone, I got back into my car and proceeded to drive home.

6. When I had nearly arrived home, I received a call from Mr. Lee informing me that

defense counsel had provided the incorrect address. He instructed me to turn around and drive to a new

address. I estimated I would arrive there by 11:45 a.m. or so due to traffic.


8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME


OS/21/2008 04.55 FAX 141 00 1/0 0 1

7. I arrived at the new address at approximately 12 p.m. upon which Dr. Burchuk began the

2 defense mental examination.

3 8. Around 2 p.m., as the examination was concluding, Dr. Burchuk presented me with two4 HIPAA authorization and release [OImS permitting Dr. Burchuk to speak with and obtain medical

5 records [rom my treating psychiatrists, Dr. Paul Riskin and Dr. Anosh Taheri-Tafresh i. A true and

6 correct copy of the fOIms which Dr. Burchuk gave to me are attached as Exhibit A. I had been instructed

7 that I was not to call my attorneys at any time during the examination. I therefore complied with Dr.

8 Burchuk 's request and signed the releases.

9 9. I tape recorded the examination. A true and correct written transcript of a portion of the

10 oral examination and the oral statements made by me and by Dr. Burehuk is attached hereto as Exhibit

1J B.12 10. After the examination concluded, I spoke with my attorneys and was infonned that I

13 should not have signed the HIPAA releases because there was an agreement among the attorneys that

14 my treating psychiatrists were not to produce any documents to Defendants other than written summary

15 reports, which had already been provided to Defendants. Upon the advice of my attorneys, I then

16 immediately revoked the HIPAA releases by calling and emailing Dr. Burchuk, Dr. Riskin and Dr.

17 Taheri-Tafreshi.

18

19 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe State ofCalifornia and the United States

20 that the foregoing is true and correct.

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Executed on: May 21, 2008

DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.Declarant

DECLARATION OF DAVID F. JADWIN re MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER re DEFENSE

MENTAL EXAMINATION 2


OS/21/2008 04.55 FAX 141 00 1/0 0 1

7. I arrived at the new address at approximately 12 p.m. upon which Dr. Burchuk began the

2 defense mental examination.

3 8.Around 2 p.m., as

theexwnination was concluding, Dr. Burchuk presented me with two

4 HIPAA authorization and release [onns permitting Dr. Burchuk to speak with and obtain medical

5 records from my treating psychiatrists, Dr. Paul Riskin and Dr. Anosh Taheri-Tafreshi. A true and

6 correct copy of the fonns which Dr. Burchuk gave to me are attached as Exhibit A. I had been instructed

7 that I was not to call my attorneys at any time during the examination. Jtherefore complied with Dr.

8 Burohuk's request and signed the releases.

9 9. Ttape recorded the examination. A true and correct written transcript of a portion of the

10 oral ex.amination and the oral statements made by me and by Dr. Burchuk is attached hereto as Exhibit

1) B.

12 10. After the examination concluded, I spoke with my attorneys and was infonned that I

13 should not have signed the HIPAA releases because there was an agreement among the attorneys that

14 my treat ing psychiatrists were not to produce any documents to Defendants other than written summary

15 reports, which had already been provided to Defendants. Upon the advice ofmy attorneys, I then

16 immediately revoked the HIPAA releases by calling and cmailing Dr. Burchuk, Dr. Riskin and Dr.

17 Taheri-Tafreshi .

18

19 I declare under penalty of perjury underthe laws of the State ofCalifomia and the United States

20 that the foregoing is true and correct.

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Executed on: May 21,2008

DAVID F. JADVIIN. D.o.Declarant .

DECLARATION OF DAVID F. JADWIN re MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER re DEFENSE

MENTAL EXAMINATION 2

8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

EXHIBITS TO JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT

EXHIBIT A. HIPAA Releases

EXHIBIT B. DME Transcript Excerpt


8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME



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 A


8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME


Robert Burchuk, MD Diplomate, American Board of

Psychiatry and Neurology

6320 Canoga Avenue

Suite 1500Woodland Hills, California 91367

(818) 340-0821

Request fo r Release of Outpatient Psychotherapy Medical Information

Requesting Individual or Entity: Robert Burchuk, MD

I hereby request that ( ) ; . 1I..,'ski '"?

(Name of the provider of healthcare, the heath care service plan, or contractor)

furnish written and/or verbal out-patient psychotherapy medical information concerning:

David Jadwin, MD to the Requesting Individual or Entity.

(Patient's name)

This Request includes the release of any and all information pertaining to: _

Past psychiatric treatment including diagnosis(es), nature and frequency of treatment.

knowledge of additional past psychiatric treatment.

The information requested will be used for the limited purpose of:

Preparation of Forensic Psychiatry Report

Check one: ! A copy of this Request was provided to the patient on May 19,2008

o A copy of this Request was NOT sent to the patient, becausehe/she has signed a written waiver of the form in a signed letter to

the Requesting Individual or Entity.

Date: _

Signed: _

Print Name: _




6320 Canoga Avenue

Suite 1500Woodland Hills, California 91367

(818) 340-0821


Requesting Individual or Entity: Robert Burchuk, MD

I hereby request that ( ) ; . 1I..,'ski '"?

(Name of the provider of healthcare, the heath care service plan, or contractor)


David Jadwin, MDto the Requesting Individual or Entity.

(Patient's name)






Check one: ! A copy of this Request was provided to the patient on May 19,2008

o A copy of this Request was NOT sent to the patient, becausehe/she has signed a written waiver of the form in a signed letter to


Date: _

Signed: _

Print Name: _

8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME




6320 Canoga Avenue

Suite 1500Woodland Hills, California 91367(818) 340-0821


Requesting Individual or Enti: t{0bert Burchuk, MD

I hereby request that , n t&1 .(Name of the provider of healthcare, the heath care service plan, or contractor)


David Jadwin, MD to the Requesting Individual or Entity.(Patient's name)






Check one: ! A copy of this Request was provided to the patient on May 19,

2008

o A copy of this Request was NOT sent to the patient, because

he/she has signed a written waiver of the form in a signed letter to


Date: _

Signed: _

Print Name: _




6320 Canoga Avenue

Suite 1500Woodland Hills, California 91367(818) 340-0821


Requesting Individual or Enti: t{0bert Burchuk, MD

I hereby request that , n t&1 .(Name of the provider of healthcare, the heath care service plan, or contractor)


David Jadwin, MD to the Requesting Individual or Entity.(Patient's name)






Check one: ! A copy of this Request was provided to the patient on May 19,

2008

o A copy of this Request was NOT sent to the patient, because

he/she has signed a written waiver of the form in a signed letter to


Date: _

Signed: _

Print Name: _

8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME



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 B


8/14/2019 140 DFJ MPO DME


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

DR. BURCHUCK: Okay.

EXAMINEE: But yes I was very depressed and the same type of symptoms only it was, you know,there, there just didn’t seem to be anyone around that seemed to care about any of these issues.

DR. BURCHUCK: Okay. I want to get your permission to contact Dr. Taheri?

EXAMINEE: Taheri, yeah.

DR. BURCHUCK: Taheri. And I, and I know Dr. Riskin has retired.

EXAMINEE: No, no he’s –

DR. BURCHUCK: Or he’s, is he, well he had closed his office?

EXAMINEE: He’s a young man, no he’s a young man. He at the University or the VA and he had asmall practice on the side.

DR. BURCHUCK: I see.

EXAMINEE: And his father became quite ill.

DR. BURCHUCK: Uh huh.

EXAMINEE: And he said he had to close his practice –

DR. BURCHUCK: Okay.

EXAMINEE: – to take care of his father. So I, I know that he’s working, he’s just not working inprivate practice.

DR. BURCHUCK: I see.

EXAMINEE: Dr. Taheri had mentioned that he had seen him. He, he’s gotta be like 40 or somethinglike that –

DR. BURCHUCK: Oh, okay.

EXAMINEE: – so he’s really ****.

DR. BURCHUCK: So these are release of information forms and I’m gonna just give you –

EXAMINEE: And what’s the date today, I’m sorry?

DR BURCHUCK: copies of the forms Today’s the 19th
