227 p Mtc Docs Rpd1-3 - p Jt Stmt

8/14/2019 227 p Mtc Docs Rpd1-3 - p Jt Stmt

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/227-p-mtc-docs-rpd1-3-p-jt-stmt 1/201

DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE re: INABILITY TO SECURE COOPERATION OFDEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL TO PREPARE AND EXECUTE JOINT STATEMENT re: MOTION TOCOMPEL PRODUCTION 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

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

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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.,

Plaintiff,v.

COUNTY OF KERN, et al.,

Defendants.

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

DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE re:INABILITY TO SECURE COOPERATIONOF DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL TOPREPARE AND EXECUTE JOINTSTATEMENT re: MOTION TO COMPELPRODUCTION

Date: September 26, 2008Time: 9:30 a.m.Place: U.S. District Court, Bankruptcy Courtroom

1300 18th St., Bakersfield, CA

Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007Date Set for Trial: December 2, 2008

Plaintiff submits this Declaration of Eugene D. Lee pursuant to Local Rule 37-251(d) in lieu of a

joint statement re discovery disagreement.

I, Eugene D. Lee, declare as follows:

1. I am counsel of record for Plaintiff. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth

below and I could and would competently testify thereto if called as a witness in this matter.

2. Pursuant to Local Rule 37-251, I attempted to secure the cooperation of Defendants’

counsel, Mark Wasser, to prepare and execute a joint statement re discovery disagreement. On

September 23, 2008, I faxed Mr. Wasser a draft version of the Joint Statement re: Discovery

Disagreement, requesting his input. I explained that the draft was a work in progress and remained

subject to change.

3. Attached hereto as Attachment A is a true and correct copy of the draft Joint Statement

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 227 Filed 09/23/2008 Page 1 of 19




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

which I served.

4. To date, I have not received any response from Mr. Wasser regarding the draft Joint

Statement.

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: September 23, 2008

/s/ Eugene D. Lee

EUGENE D. LEEDeclarant





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ATTACHMENT A




JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION 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




Mark A. Wasser CA SB #06160LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100Sacramento, CA 95814Phone: (916) 444-6400Fax: (916) 444-6405Email: [email protected]

Bernard C. Barmann, Sr.KERN COUNTY COUNSELMark Nations, Chief Deputy1115 Truxton Avenue, Fourth FloorBakersfield, CA 93301Phone: (661) 868-3800Fax: (661) 868-3805Email: [email protected]

Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern, Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher, JenniferAbraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smith, and William Roy.




Plaintiff,v.


Defendants.


JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERYDISAGREEMENT re: MOTION TOCOMPEL PRODUCTION



Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007Date Set for Trial: December 2 2008





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

This joint statement re: discovery disagreement is submitted pursuant to Local Rule 37-251(a) in

advance of the September 26, 2008 hearing on Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to interrogatories

and for sanctions.

I. DETAILS OF THE PARTIES’ DISCOVERY CONFERENCES

On October 11, 2007, Plaintiff served Requests for Production, Set One (“RPD1”) on Defendant

County of Kern. On July 18, 2008, Plaintiff served Requests for Production, Set Three (“RPD3”) on

Defendant County of Kern. On January 18, 2008, Defendants served a privilege log on Plaintiff. On

January 25, they served a supplemented privilege log on Plaintiff. Defendants have produced documents

responsive to the requests in general in multiple installments. However, to date, Defendants have failed

to produce documents which they stated they would produce in response to the specific requests detailed

below. Moreover, Defendants have withheld documents as indicated in their privilege logs which they

should have produced but, to date, have not.

The parties met and conferred extensively in person and in writing on the Requests which are at

issue in this motion. Defendant initially agreed to produce the documents at various times but ultimately

failed to do so. Plaintiff was left no choice but to bring a motion to compel.

II. A STATEMENT OF THE NATURE OF THE CASE AND FACTUAL DISPUTES

Plaintiff David F. Jadwin, D.O., F.C.A.P., former Chair of Pathology at Kern Medical Center

(“KMC”) and senior pathologist from October 24, 2000 to October 4, 2007, filed a Complaint with this

Court on January 6, 2007. Plaintiff contends that various defendants retaliated against and defamed him

for reporting his concerns about patient care quality issues and regulatory violations at KMC. As a

result, Plaintiff was forced to take medical and recuperative leave for disabling chronic clinical

depression in early 2006. While Plaintiff was on leave, Defendants demoted him in June 2006 to a staff

pathologist for “unavailability” and refused to reinstate him upon his return to work on October 4, 2006.

On December 7, 2006, he was placed on involuntary administrative leave and restricted to his home

during working hours until May 1, 2007. Around May 1, 2007, Defendant informed Plaintiff of its

decision to either “buy out” the remaining term of his contract (due to expire on October 4, 2007) or





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

simply let the contract “run out”. On October 4, 2007, Defendants did not renew Plaintiff’s employment

contract.

Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges whistleblower retaliation, disability discrimination, medical leave

interference and retaliation, defamation and deprivation of compensation and professional fees without

procedural due process.

Defendants contend that the dispute arose out of Plaintiff’s tenure as a pathologist at Kern

Medical Center. Plaintiff’s relationship with other members of the medical staff deteriorated to the point

of intimidation, hostility and antagonism. Defendants contend, to the extent that any hostile work

environment existed, it was caused by Plaintiff.

III. THE CONTENTION OF EACH PARTY AS TO EACH CONTESTED ISSUE

A. PRIVILEGE LOG

Defendants’ privilege log indicates that the following documents were withheld.

BATESBEG

BATESEND

DATE TO FROM CC DOCUMENTTYPE

REASON FORWITHOLDING/ REDACTING

9336 9337 2003 DisciplinaryActions andInvoluntaryTerminations

Privileged PeerReview andConfidentialPersonnel, Evid.Code 1040 and1157

10925 10926 3/3/2003 Peter H.Parra

Peter K.Bryan

MarvinKolb

Memorandumre PersonnelItem – AdamLang, M.D.

PrivilegedConfidentialPersonnel, Evid.Code 1040

BarbaraPatrick

14793 15315 9/06 –12/06

SurgicalPathology

Reports

ConfidentialMedical

Records(HIPAA)

16683 16894 Nov-02 PerformanceEvaluations –PathologyDepartment

Peer Review,Evid Code 1157





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

16897 16900 7/25/2006 David Hill GilbertMartinez

Emailrelating toChange of LaboratoryDirector

Peer Review,Evid Code 1157Irwin

Harris

Philip Dutt

16902 16905 7/20/2006 LaboratoryPersonnelReport reGilbertMartinez

Peer Review,Evid Code 1157

15934 15934 1/6/2003 MedicalExecutiveCommittee

PeterBryan

PeteParra

Memorandum ConfidentialPersonnel Evid.Code 1040

15935 15935 6/10/2003 MedicineSearch

Committee

MaureenMartin

NavinAmin

Memorandum ConfidentialPersonnel Evid.

Code 1040MarvinKolb

PeterBryan

EugeneKercher

SamanRatnayaki

Tai Yoo

15936 15936 1/6/2003 EugeneKercher

NavinAmin

Memorandum ConfidentialPersonnel Evid.Code 1040Marvin

Kolb

Peter

BryanMaureenMartin

Tai Yoo

PLAINTIFF’S POSITION

These documents should have been produced long ago.

Regarding peer review privilege, this Court has already ruled that there is no peer review

privilege in federal law per Agster v. Maricopa County, 422 F.3d 836 (9

th

Cir. 2005) and that state law

based privileges do not apply to this federal action per Boyd v. City and County of San Francisco, 2006

WL 1390423 *3 (N.D. Cal. 2006). See Doc. 124, 3:3 - 4:2.

Defendants’ privacy objections do not comply with the Stipulation & Order re Privacy (Doc.

137). Doc. 137 states in pertinent part:





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

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto through theirrespective counsel that, with regard to balancing the privacy interests of the Defendantsagainst the Plaintiff's need for disclosure, the Plaintiff's need for disclosure prevails as todocuments that reveal the nature of interpersonal work relationships at KMC betweencore physicians and others, on-the-job behavior towards other members of KMC staff by

core physicians, complaints against core physicians regarding their behavior at KMCand the County's actions in response.

As for the HIPAA concern stated with respect to surgical pathology reports, that is baseless.

Defendants have had no difficulty producing hundreds of pages of surgical pathology reports in this

action with patient identifying information redacted.

Plaintiff requests an in camera review by the Court of the above withheld documents to

determine whether Defendants’ asserted grounds for withholding them have merit.

DEFENDANT’S POSITION

[INSERT HERE]

B. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 65

Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO case send-out logs for Kern Medical Center’s

Pathology Department from January 1, 1999 to the present, including but not limited to corresponding

Kern Medical Center pathology reports and reports from outside consultants.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 65

Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request on March 11, 2008.


The vast majority of documents requested have not been produced and should have been

produced long ago. There should be about 800 or more cases, probably 5 boxes full. These are located in

files in the pathology office, and some in pathology storage. These are logs of cases that were sent out to

outside facilities, both slides and KMC reports. Most will have a report from the outside facility when

the slides were returned to KMC after review.DEFENDANT’S POSITION

[INSERT HERE]

C. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 66

Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO monthly turn-around-time reports and logs – by





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

pathologist – for pathology reports processed at Kern Medical Center, including but not limited to

Pathology Department Semi-annual Reports to the Medical Staff, for the time period from January 1,

1999 to the present.


Defendants previously produced documents responsive to this request for years 2001 to 2005.

Those documents are bates numbered 0014575 – 0014595. Defendants are continuing to search for

documents for years 1999, 2000 and 2006 but have not been able to find them yet.


Bates numbers 0014575 – 0014595 are Pathology Department Semi-Annual Reports authored by

Plaintiff. They do NOT include the information requested, nor have semi-annual reports authored by

pathologists OTHER THAN Plaintiff been produced. The vast majority of documents requested have

not been produced and should have been produced long ago.

The TAT reports should be printed by pathologist for monthly (or quarterly) periods using the

HBO reporting system. Ms. Kathy Griffith should know how to generate these reports. Reports should

be generated for all pathologists including Drs. Freedman, Ang, Lang, Liu, Jadwin, Dutt, Shertudke, and

Yakhoub. Reports can be generated for Surgical Cases (S99- through S08-), Fine Needle Aspiration

(F01- through F08-), Non-Gynecologic Cytology (N01- through N08-) and Bone Marrows (B01-

through B08-).


[INSERT HERE]

D. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 67

Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO monthly or semi-monthly turn-around-time reports

and logs – for Kern Medical Center’s Pathology Department as a whole – for pathology reportsprocessed at Kern Medical Center including but not limited to surgical pathology, cytology and bone

marrow reports, for the time period from January 1, 1999 to the present.







1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Defendants have produced such documents, but only for a subset of pathology reports and for

only a restricted time period. The vast majority of documents requested have not been produced and

should have been produced long ago.


[INSERT HERE]

E. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 70

Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO peer review RELATING TO Kern Medical

Center’s Pathology Department during the time period from January 1, 1995 to the present, including

but not limited to computer-generated data, monthly peer review records completed by pathologists, and

peer review comment sheets that are completed by pathologists upon discovery of a discrepancy.


Defendants previously produced documents responsive to this request for 2006. The documents

are bates numbered 0014504 - 0014569. Defendants are continuing to search for documents for the other

years requested but have not found them yet.


Bates numbers 0014504 – 0014569 are just peer review logs, a miniscule subset of the

documents requested. The vast majority of documents requested have not been produced and should

have been produced long ago.

The request includes peer review data contained in the peer review Access File maintained by

the department secretary (Tracy Lindsey). This should be printed out by year for each and every

pathologist in the system (anyone that worked from 2001 onwards). This report should print out case

numbers with an associated original pathologist, reviewing pathologist and review code (letter-number):A-C and 0 or 1. This data should be provided in paper and electronic formats.

The request also includes corresponding peer review logs that are filled out each month by each

and every pathologist. These are also maintained in the pathology office.

The request also includes all corresponding peer review sheets containing comments related to





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

review that are filled out by hand by the reviewing pathologist. There should be a review sheet for any

consultation (A) and any case scored (“1”). There are about 20 four inch binders in the pathology

department containing these sheets completed by the reviewer. Some may be in pathology storage

behind the hospital.


[INSERT HERE]

F. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 71

Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO exceptional event logs for histology and pathology

on Kern Medical Center’s Pathology Department from January 1, 2006 to the present.




Only a tiny subset of the documents covered by this request has been produced. The vast

majority of documents requested have not been produced and should have been produced long ago.

There should be exceptional event sheets filled out by pathologist and the histology section each

month from 2001 to present. Typically there are 5 to 10 sheets generated each month. They are

maintained in the pathology office and/or in pathology storage.


[INSERT HERE]

G. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 72

Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO paper accession logs at Kern Medical Center’s

Pathology Department from January 1, 2006 to present.




The accession logs produced are a miniscule subset of the documents covered by this request.

The vast majority of documents requested have not been produced and should have been produced long





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

ago.

These are specimen accession logs in which Ms. Vangie Gallegos or other persons in histology

record all incoming specimens that are received each day by the pathology department. It lists the case

number, the number of specimens and the labeling of each container


[INSERT HERE]

H. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 73

Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO tissue disposal records for skull-flaps from January

1, 2006 to the present.


Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain information that

is confidential under HIPAA. Defendants also object to the extent that it requests documents that contain

privileged peer review information. Without waiving these objections Defendants will produce all

documents responsive to this request by December 7, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential and

privileged information as appropriate.


These documents have not been produced. They should have been produced long ago.

The request includes all tissue destruction and/or disposal logs for tissue disposed by the

pathology department that included skull flaps removed during surgery.


privilege in federal law per Agster v. Maricopa County, 422 F.3d 836 (9th Cir. 2005) and that state law


WL 1390423 *3 (N.D. Cal. 2006). See Doc. 124, 3:3 - 4:2.DEFENDANT’S POSITION

[INSERT HERE]

I. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 74

Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO audits of Kern Medical Center’s Pathology







1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


[INSERT HERE]

K.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 77Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO dictation transcription logs for Dr. Philip Dutt from

June 14, 2006 to the present.





The request includes reports generated by the transcription department, which are generated on a

daily basis and stored in the pathology office in binders. If there are missing reports, then the

transcription department can print the reports by day listing the dictation of each pathologist, the case

number, the type of dictation, the length of dictation, etc.


[INSERT HERE]

L. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 78

Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO placental evaluations conducted by Plaintiff from

June 14, 2006 to the present.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 78





[INSERT HERE]

M. REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 102

Any and all consultation reports issued by John Hopkins Hospital or John Hopkins University of





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

their affiliates RELATING TO the following KMC medical record numbers:

S06-37

806-495

806-3511

806-4619


The numbers listed in this request are not KMC medical record numbers. Nevertheless,

Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request.


Some but not all documents were produced.


[INSERT HERE]

N. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 103

Any and all PATHOLOGY REPORTS RELATING TO the patient(s) corresponding to the

following KMC medical record numbers:

S06-4131

S06-5229


The numbers listed in this request are not KMC medical record numbers. Nevertheless,



Some but not all documents were produced.


[INSERT HERE]

O. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 104.

Any and all handwritten notes in this action which were authored by Marvin Kolb during his

tenure at KMC RELATING TO complaints, investigations, corrective action, discipline, demotion,





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

termination, anger management, and/or behavior RELATING TO any of the following PERSONS:

a. Plaintiff

b. Royce Johnson

c. Edward Taylor

d. Joseph Mansour

e. Scott Ragland

f. Jennifer Abraham

g. Eugene Kercher

h. Irwin Harris

i. Peter Bryan

j. Toni Smith

RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 104

With regard to Plaintiff, all such notes that Defendants are aware of have been previously

produced. With regard to the other individuals, Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it

calls for the production of information that is protected by the privacy interests of individuals who are

not "comparators" as that term has been defined in the reported cases and is not reasonably calculated to

lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.


Defendants are not complying with the Stipulation & Order re Privacy (Doc. 137). Doc. 137

states in pertinent part:

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto through theirrespective counsel that, with regard to balancing the privacy interests of the Defendantsagainst the Plaintiff's need for disclosure, the Plaintiff's need for disclosure prevails as todocuments that reveal the nature of interpersonal work relationships at KMC betweencore physicians and others, on-the-job behavior towards other members of KMC staff by

core physicians, complaints against core physicians regarding their behavior at KMCand the County's actions in response.

Given that Plaintiff was a chair when he was demoted and a non-chair core physician when he

was placed on administrative leave and his contract was not renewed, all core physicians are

comparators. It is well settled that Plaintiff is entitled to access comparator evidence to prove his claims.

It is not for Defendants to say who is a comparator and who is not for purposes of Plaintiff’s claims.





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


[INSERT HERE]

P.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 105.Any and all handwritten notes which were authored by Peter Bryan during his tenure at KMC

RELATING TO complaints, investigations, corrective action, discipline, demotion, termination, anger

management, and/or behavior RELATING TO any of the following PERSONS.

a. Plaintiff

b. Royce Johnson

c. Edward Taylor

d. Joseph Mansour

e. Scott Ragland

f. Jennifer Abraham

g. Eugene Kercher

h. Irwin Harris

i. Peter Bryan

j. Toni Smith


With regard to Plaintiff, all such notes that Defendants are aware of have been previously

produced. With regard to the other individuals, Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it

calls for the production of information that is protected by the privacy interests of individuals who are

not “comparators” as that term has been defined in the reported cases and is not reasonably calculated to

lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.


Defendants are not complying with the Stipulation & Order re Privacy (Doc. 137). Doc. 137

states in pertinent part:

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto through theirrespective counsel that, with regard to balancing the privacy interests of the Defendantsagainst the Plaintiff's need for disclosure, the Plaintiff's need for disclosure prevails as todocuments that reveal the nature of interpersonal work relationships at KMC between





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

core physicians and others, on-the-job behavior towards other members of KMC staff bycore physicians, complaints against core physicians regarding their behavior at KMCand the County's actions in response.

Given that Plaintiff was a chair when he was demoted and a non-chair core physician when he

was placed on administrative leave and his contract was not renewed, all core physicians are

comparators. It is well settled that Plaintiff is entitled to access comparator evidence to prove his claims.

It is not for Defendants to say who is a comparator and who is not for purposes of Plaintiff’s claims.


[INSERT HERE]

Q. ASSERTION OF PEER REVIEW PRIVILEGE AND PRIVACY PRIVILEGE

In their responses to Plaintiff’s foregoing requests, Defendants at times assert peer review

privilege and privacy privilege.



privilege in federal law per Agster v. Maricopa County, 422 F.3d 836 (9th Cir. 2005) and that state law


WL 1390423 *3 (N.D. Cal. 2006). See Doc. 124, 3:3 - 4:2.

Regarding privacy privilege, Defendants are not complying with the Stipulation & Order re

Privacy (Doc. 137). Doc. 137 states in pertinent part:

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto through theirrespective counsel that, with regard to balancing the privacy interests of the Defendantsagainst the Plaintiff's need for disclosure, the Plaintiff's need for disclosure prevails as todocuments that reveal the nature of interpersonal work relationships at KMC betweencore physicians and others, on-the-job behavior towards other members of KMC staff bycore physicians, complaints against core physicians regarding their behavior at KMCand the County's actions in response.


[INSERT HERE]

IV. CONCLUSION

The party who prevails on a motion to compel is entitled to his or her expenses, including





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

reasonable attorney fees, unless the losing party was substantially justified in making or opposing the

motion (or other circumstances make such an award unjust). FRCP 37(a)(5); H. K. Porter Co., Inc. v.

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (6th Cir. 1976) 536 F2d 1115, 1124–1125.

Plaintiff has met and conferred several times with Defendants in person and in writing, clearing

up any “confusion” and responding to any concerns. Despite this, Defendants have insisted on

withholding a vast amount of documents in violation of discovery rules and the orders of this Court.

Plaintiff requests this court compel Defendants to fully and properly produce documents in response to

the foregoing requests without further delay.

Pursuant to Rule 37, plaintiff further seeks attorney fees in the amount of $5,120 in consideration

of 8.8 of the hours which plaintiff has spent meeting and conferring, preparing this motion and hours

Plaintiff anticipates spending attending the hearing on this motion. Finally, plaintiff requests whatever

other sanctions this court deems proper and just.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: September 23, 2008 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER

By:__________________________________________Mark A. Wasser,Attorney for DefendantsCOUNTY OF KERN, PETER BRYAN, IRWINHARRIS, EUGENE KERCHER, JENNIFERABRAHAM, SCOTT RAGLAND,TONI SMITH,AND WILLIAM ROY

Dated: September 23, 2008 LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE

By:__________________________________________Eugene D. LeeAttorney for Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.




EXHIBITS TO JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENTre: REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 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




Mark A. Wasser CA SB #06160LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100Sacramento, CA 95814Phone: (916) 444-6400Fax: (916) 444-6405Email: [email protected]

Bernard C. Barmann, Sr.KERN COUNTY COUNSELMark Nations, Chief Deputy1115 Truxton Avenue, Fourth FloorBakersfield, CA 93301Phone: (661) 868-3800Fax: (661) 868-3805Email: [email protected]

Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern, Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher, JenniferAbraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smith, and William Roy.




Plaintiff,v.


Defendants.


EXHIBITS TO JOINT STATEMENT re:DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT re:REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION




Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 227-2 Filed 09/23/2008 Page 1 of 182



EXHIBITS TO JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENTre: REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

EXHIBIT 1: Plaintiff’s Requests for Production, Set One (RPD1)

EXHIBIT 2: Defendant’s Responses to RPD1

EXHIBIT 3: Defendant’s First Supplemental Responses to RPD1

EXHIBIT 4: Defendant’s Privilege Log

EXHIBIT 5: Defendant’s Supplemental Privilege Log

EXHIBIT 6: Defendant’s Second Supplemental Responses to RPD1

EXHIBIT 7: Defendant’s Fourth Supplemental Responses to RPD1

EXHIBIT 8: Plaintiff’s Requests for Production, Set Three (RPD3)

EXHIBIT 9: Meet and confer correspondence between the parties


EXHIBIT 11: Defendant’s Responses to RPD3






EXHIBIT 17: Declaration of Eugene D. Lee








- - rom: aw ce o ugene ee g : pm

I Eugene D. Lee SB# 236812LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE

2 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100Los Angeles, California 90013

3 Telephone: (213) 992-3299Facsimile: (213) 596-04874 Email: [email protected]

5 Joan Herrington, SB# 178988BAY AREA EMPLOYMENT LAW OFFICE

6 5032 Woodminster LaneOakland, CA 94602-2614

7 Telephone: (510) 530-4078Facsimile: (510) 530-4725

8 Email: [email protected] to LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE

9

Attorneys for Plaintiff10 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.

II UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13

14 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., Case No. 1:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG

17 COUNTY OF KERN; et aI.

15

16

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Plaintiff,

v.

Defendants.

PROPOUNDING PARTY:

ANSWERING PARTY:

SET NO.:

PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FORPRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS ONDEFENDANT COUNTYOF KERN (SETONE)

Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007Date Set for Trial: August 26, 2008

PlaintiffDAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., F.C.A.P.

Defendant COUNTY OF KERN

One

25

26

27

28

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 34, PlaintiffDavid F. Jadwin hereby requests

that you (i) respond in writing to the following requests by no later than November 12,2007, and (ii)

produce and permit the inspection and copying ofthe documents described below on November 16,

2007,10.00 a.ill. at the LawOffice of Eugene Lee, 555 West Fifth St., Suite 3100, Los Angeles, CA

PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM

DEFENDANT COUNTY OF KERN




- -

1 90013.

rom: aw ce o ugene ee g 11 : pm

2 DEFINITIONS

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

4 firm, entity, corporation, partnership, association, cooperative, governmental entity or agency, or any

5 other entity.

6 B. The terms "YOU" and "YOUR" as used herein include Defendant County ofKern

7 ("Defendant") and include without limitation each predecessor and successor-in-interest, as well as any

8 officer, agent, employee, attorney, representative ofDefendant and/or any other PERSONS acting under

9 the control ofDefendant or on behalfofDefendant.

10 C. The term "DOCUMENT" or "DOCUMENTS" as used herein is broadly defined to

11 include all media on which information is recorded or stored, as well as all non-identical copies thereof

12 including copies which bear any notes, notations or markings not found on the originals and all

13 preliminary, intermediate, final and revised drafts of such document. This includes but is not limited to

14 any writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, video or audio recordings, microfilm, data

15 compilations, and electronically-stored information stored in any medium from which information can

16 be obtained such as e-mails, internet browser bookmarks and history, voicemail messages, websites,

17 electronic messages or bulletin boards. As used herein, the term "writings" shall include but is not

18 limited to letters, memoranda, reports, and notes whether handwritten or otherwise recorded, whether

19 internal or external to you. Electronically-stored information should be printed for production.

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

21 responding to, concerning, connected with, commenting on, in respect of, about, regarding, discussing,

22 showing, describing, depicting, mentioning, reflecting, analyzing, comprising, constituting, evidencing,

23 and pertaining to, whether in whole or in part.

24 E. The term "PERSONNEL FILE" as used herein is broadly defined to include all

25 DOCUMENTS RELATING TO an process improvement file; employee's credentials; qualifications for

26 employment, promotions, transfers, salary, raises, pension eligibility, discipline, separation or other

27 employment action; as well as the "folder", "jacket" or other container of each such file and any

28 attachments thereto and all files maintained by persons employed by you.

PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROMDEFENDANT COUNTY OF KERN 2




- - rom: aw ce o ugene ee g 11 : pm

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

2 DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the description of cells and tissues made by a pathologist based on

3 microscopic evidence and lab testing and used to render a diagnosis of a disease, including but not

4 limited to the DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the following associated items: original requisitions and

5 attached DOCUMENTS, HBO electronic documentation logs, peer reviewer comment sheets and

6 attached DOCUMENTS, pathology specimens listed in the clinical history, subsequent pathology

7 specimens, operative reports for pathology specimens, progress notes made by pathology, outside

8 pathologist reports, correspondence and contracts with outside reviewing pathologists, dictation logs

9 from transcription, laboratory reports, surgical pathology reports, cytology reports, and bone marrow

10 reports.

11

12

G.

H.

The terms "and" and "or" when used herein each mean "and/or".

All references to the singular include the plural, and all references to the plural include

13 the singular. All references to the masculine gender include the feminine and neuter genders and vice-

14 versa.

15 INSTRUCTIONS

16 A. This request requires that YOU identifY and produce the original or an exact copy of the

17 original of all DOCUMENTS responsive to any ofthe following numbered requests which are in YOUR

18 possession, custody or control. A DOCUMENT is deemed to be in YOUR possession, custody or

19 control if it is in YOUR physical custody, or if it is in the physical custody of any PERSON, and YOU:

20 (l) own such DOCUMENT in whole or in part; (2) have a right by contract, statute or otherwise to use,

21 inspect, examine or copy such DOCUMENT on any terms; (3) have an understanding, express or

22 implied, that YOU may use, inspect, examine or copy such DOCUMENT on any terms; or (4) have, as a

23 practical matter, been able to use, inspect, examine or copy such DOCUMENT when YOU have sought

24 to do so. Specifically, and without limiting the foregoing, this request encompasses all DOCUMENTS

25 in the possession, custody or control ofYOU, YOUR attorneys, YOUR employees, YOUR agents,

26 YOUR affiliates, and/or any other PERSON substantially owned or controlled by you.

27 B. YOU are required to engage in a diligent search and make reasonable inquiries in an

28 effort to locate the DOCUMENTS requested.






1 C. If any requested DOCUMENT is not in YOUR possession, custody or control, YOU are

2 required to set forth in YOUR response the location of such DOCUMENT.

3 D. YOU are required to identify with specificity each DOCUMENT which is responsive to

4 this request and to organize and label them to correspond with each of the following numbered requests.

5 If a requested DOCUMENT has already been produced in Defendants' Rule 26 initial disclosures, then

6 YOU are requested to indicate such DOCUMENTS by stating their Bates Numbers rather than

7 producing physical duplicates (so as to conserve natural resources).

8 E. All DOCUMENTS which are responsive in whole or in partto any of the following

9 numbered requests shall be produced in full, without abridgement, abbreviation, redaction or

10 expurgation of any sort. If any such DOCUMENTS cannot be produced in full, YOU are required to

11 produce the DOCUMENT to the extent possible and indicate in YOUR written response what portion of

12 the DOCUMENT is not produced and why it could not be produced.

13 F. If any requested DOCUMENT has been destroyed, lost or stolen, YOU are required to se

14 forth in YOUR response the subject matter of such DOCUMENT; the location of any copies of the

15 DOCUMENT; whether the DOCUMENT was destroyed, lost or stolen; the date of its destruction, loss

16 or theft; and if destroyed, the name of the PERSON who ordered or authorized or was responsible for

17 such destruction.

18 G. Whenever YOU refuse to produce any DOCUMENTS responsive to any of the following

19 numbered requests based upon an objection, YOU are required to (1) identify and describe each such

20 DOCUMENT in sufficient detail to enable Plaintiffto assess the applicability ofthe objection, (2)

21 produce as much ofthe material requested as to which such objection is not made, and (3) separately,

22 with respect to each remaining part, (a) state the nature ofYOUR objection, (b) set forth each and every

23 ground for YOUR objection, and (c) describe the factual basis, if any, upon which YOU rely in making

24 such objections.

25 H. Whenever YOU refuse to produce any DOCUMENTS responsive to any of the following

26 numbered requests based upon a claim of privilege, YOU are required to: (1) state which privilege is

27 claimed, including the identity of any specific attorney(s) with whom YOU claim a privileged

28 relationship, if any; (2) give a precise statement of the facts upon which the claim of privilege is based;


DEFENDANT COUNTY OF KERN 4





1 (3) identify and describe each DOCUMENT in sufficient detail to enable Plaintiffto assess the

2 applicability ofthe privilege or protection by stating: (a) its DOCUMENT type, e.g. letter,

3 memorandum, note, diskette, tape, etc.; (b) the date it was prepared; (c) the name, address, telephone

4 number and title of the PERSON who prepared it; and (d) the name, address, telephone number, and title

5 of each PERSON who received it, if any; and (e) its subject matter;.

6 DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED

7 REQUEST NO.1.

8 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the First Affirmative Defense listed in Defendants'

9 Answer to Plaintiff's Second Supplemental Complaint.

10 REQUEST NO.2.

11 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Second Affirmative Defense stated in

12 Defendants' Answer to Plaintiff's Second Supplemental Complaint.

13 REQUEST NO.3.

14 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Third Affirmative Defense stated in


16 REQUEST NO.4.

17 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Fourth Affirmative Defense stated in


19 REQUEST NO.5.

20 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Fifth Affirmative Defense stated in Defendants'

21 Answer to Plaintiff's Second Supplemental Complaint.

22 REQUEST NO.6.

23 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Sixth Affirmative Defense stated in


25 REQUEST NO.7.

26 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Seventh Affirmative Defense stated in


28 REQUEST NO.8.







1 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Eighth Affirmative Defense stated in


3 REQUEST NO.9.

4 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Ninth Affirmative Defense stated in


6 REQUEST NO. 10.

7 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR organizational structure during Plaintiff's

8 employment with YOU, including but not limited to organizational charts, diagrams and drawings.

9 REQUEST NO. 11.

10 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Kern Medical Center personnel directories or lists,

11 including but not limited to names, direct work phone numbers, departments, etc. which were

12 maintained by YOU during Plaintiff's employment with you.

13 REQUEST NO. 12.

14 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR personnel policies, guidelines, fact sheets,

15 posters, employee and/or employer handbooks, training materials, and employee and/or employer

16 manuals maintained by YOU that YOU contend governed Plaintiff's terms and conditions of

17 employment at any time during the period from October 1, 2000 to October 4, 2007. These include but

18 are not limited to YOUR ordinances, Kern Medical Center's Administrative Procedures Manual, Kern

19 Medical Center's Policy & Administrative Procedures Manual, policies RELATING TO disability

20 discrimination, reasonable accommodation, interactive process, personal leave, administrative leave,

21 medical leave, retaliation, investigations into complaints of unlawful employment practices, discipline 0

22 employees, investigation of employees, appointment of Kern Medical Center acting department chairs,

23 hiring of Kern Medical Center department chairs, demotion of Kern Medical Center department chairs,

24 and policies RELATING TO Kern Medical Center's Pathology Department.

25 REQUEST NO. 13.

26 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR personnel policies, guidelines, fact sheets,

27 posters, employee and/or employer handbooks, training materials, and employee and/or employer

28 manuals maintained by YOU that YOU contend was distributed or made available to YOUR employees,






1 whether management or non-management, from October 24, 2000 to the present and the date of such

2 asserted distribution. These include but are not limited to YOUR ordinances, Kern Medical Center's

3 Administrative Procedures Manual, Kern Medical Center's Policy& Administrative Procedures Manual,

4 policies RELATING TO disability discrimination, reasonable accommodation, interactive process,

5 personal leave, administrative leave, medical leave, retaliation, investigations into complaints of

6 unlawful employment practices, discipline of employees, investigation of employees, appointment of

7 Kern Medical Center acting department chairs, hiring of Kern Medical Center department chairs,

8 demotion ofKern Medical Center department chairs, and policies RELATING TO Kern Medical

9 Center's Pathology Department.

10 REQUEST NO. 14.

11 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO peer review, quality management and quality

12 assurance policies and procedures at Kern Medical Center, including but not limited to Kern Medical

13 Center's Quality Management and Performance Improvement Plan, from October 24, 2000 to the

14 present, and the effective dates.

15 REQUEST NO. 15.

16 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any training provided by YOU to YOUR officers,

17 directors, agents or employees on the following subjects:

18 a) disability discrimination

19 b) accommodation ofan employee's disability

20 c) the interactive process regarding accommodation of an employee's disability

21 d) medical leave rights

22 e) whistleblower retaliation

23 f) medical leave retaliation

24 g) due process required for demotion

25 h) due process required for pay cut

26 i) due process required for termination of employment

27 j) defamation

28 k) Fair Labor Standards Act







1 REQUEST NO. 16.

2 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the PERSONNEL FILES of the following people.

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

a) Plaintiff David F. Jadwin

b) Elsa Ang

c) Ellen Bunyi-Teopengco

d) Philip Dutt

e) Carol Gates

f) Adam Lang

g) Fangluo Liu

h) Savita Sher tukde

i) Navin Amin

j) Kathy Griffith

k) Alice Hevle

1) Denise Long

m) Gilbert Martinez

n) Albert McBride

0) Javad Naderi

p) Jane Thornton

q) Nitin Athavale

r) Chester Lau

s) Jennifer J Abraham

t) Bernard C Barmann

u) Karen S Barnes

v) Peter K Bryan

w) David Culberson

x) Irwin E Harris

y) Royce Johnson

z) Eugene E Kercher






1 aa) Alan Scott Ragland

2 bb) William Roy

3 cc) Maureen Martin

4 dd) Steven O'Connor

5 ee) Antoinette Smith

6 ft) Edward Taylor

7 gg) Marvin Kolb

8 hh) Dianne McConnehey

9 ii) Renita Nunn

10 j j) Ravi Patel

11 kk) Jose Perez

12 11) Evangeline Gallegos

13 mm) Sergio Perticucci

14 nn) Bonnie Quinonez

15 00 ) James Sproul

16 pp) Rebecca Rivera

17 qq) Sheldon Freedman

18 IT) Joseph Mansour

19 ss) George Alkouri

20 tt) Nicole Sharkey

21 REQUEST NO. 17.

22 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the search, recruitment, application, interviewing,

23 and hiring process that resulted in Plaintiff's employment by YOu.

24 REQUEST NO. 18.

25 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the terms, conditions and privileges of Plaintiff's

26 employment with YOu.

27 REQUEST NO. 19.

28 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Plaintiff's job duties and responsibilities for each






1 position held by Plaintiff during his employment with you.

2 REQUEST NO. 20.

3 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Plaintiff's payroll, compensation, base salary and

4 "professional fee payments", as that term is defined in Plaintiff's employment contracts with YOU,

5 including but not limited to any and all changes in compensation and the reasons for the changes,

6 throughout Plaintiff's employment with you.

7 REQUEST NO. 21.

8 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR policies, guidelines and practices regarding

9 base salary steps, salary guidelines, deferred compensation plans, pension plans, health insurance and

10 employment benefits applicable to Plaintiff's positions held throughout his employment with you.

11 REQUEST NO. 22.

12 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Plaintiff's work schedule and/or removal

13 therefrom, including but not limited to timesheets, from October 24, 2000 to the present.

14 REQUEST NO. 23.

15 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Dr. Phillip Dutt's timesheets, from April 20, 2005

16 to the present.

17 REQUEST NO. 24.

18 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Dr. Savita Shertukde's timesheets, from January 4,

19 2005 to the present.

20 REQUEST NO. 25.

21 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO performance reviews, comments, complaints,

22 warnings, reprimands, counseling, advisory notices or evaluations of Plaintiff's performance ofhis job

23 duties throughout his employment with YOU, whether formal or informaL

24 REQUEST NO. 26.

25 Any and all DOCUMENTS maintained by Plaintiff at Kern Medical Center during his

26 employment by YOU, including any and all e-mails, Groupwise calendars, memoranda, written

27 materials, and computer files stored on Plaintiff's computer or Kern Medical Center's servers.

28 REQUEST NO. 27.






1 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any meetings RELATING TO Plaintiff or

2 Plaintiff's employment at Kern Medical Center.

3 REQUEST NO. 28.

4 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO performance reviews, comments, complaints,

5 warnings, reprimands, counseling, advisory notices or evaluations of the Kern Medical Center Pathology

6 Department, whether formal or informal, from October 24, 1995 to the present.

7 REQUEST NO. 29.

8 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Plaintiff's complaints of:

9 a) disability discrimination

lOb) failure to accommodate

11 c) failure to engage in an interactive process

12 d) violations of medical leave rights

13 e) whistleblower retaliation

14 f) medical leave retaliation

15 g) deprivation of property without due process

16 h) defamation

17 i) Fair Labor Standards Act violations

18 REQUEST NO. 30.

19 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any investigation of Plaintiff's complaints of

20 disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in an interactive process, violation 0

21 medical leave rights, whistleblower retaliation, medical leave retaliation, defamation, and/or deprivation

22 of property without due process.

23 REQUEST NO. 31.

24 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any procedures available to YOUR employees to

25 complain of corruption, fraud and other wrongful, illegal or unethical conduct, that YOU contend was

26 distributed or made available to YOUR employees, whether management or non-management, from

27 October 24, 2000 to the present, and the date of such asserted distribution(s).

28 REQUEST NO. 32.







1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR discipline of any employee against whom a

complaint or grievance of discrimination, harassment, defamation, retaliation, failure to accommodate,

and/or failure to engage in an interactive process in their employment has been made from October 24,

2000 to date.

REQUEST NO. 33.

Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO complaints or grievances made by YOUR past or

present employees against YOU for defamation, retaliation, disability discrimination, failure to

accommodate, and/or failure to engage in an interactive process, including but not limited to any

informal or internal complaints, grievances or charges to any state or federal agency, and complaints

fi led in any state or federal court f rom October 24, 2000 to date.

REQUEST NO. 34.

Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any complaints or grievances made to YOU by

Plaintiff.

REQUEST NO. 35.

Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Plaintiffwhich YOU sent to or received from any

governmental or regulatory authority, including but not limited to the California Department of Fair

Employment and Housing, the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency, and the U.S.

Department of Labor.

REQUEST NO. 36.

Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR search for, recruitment of and evaluation of

candidates for the position of staff pathologist at Kern Medical Center during the period from January 1,


REQUEST NO. 37.

Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR search for, recruitment of and evaluation of

candidates for the position ofChair or Chief of Pathology at Kern Medical Center during the period

from January 1, 2006 to the present.

REQUEST NO. 38.







1 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR search for, recruitment of and evaluation of

2 candidates for the position oflocum tenens pathologist at Kern Medical Center during the period from

3 January 1, 2006 to the present.

4 REQUEST NO. 39.


6 candidates for the position ofChair or Chief ofOB-GYN at Kern Medical Center during the period from

7 January 1, 2006 to the present.

8 REQUEST NO. 40.

9 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR removal ofDr. Royce Johnson from the

10 position ofChair or ChiefofMedicine at Kern Medical Center.

11 REQUEST NO. 41.


13 candidates for the position ofChair or Chief ofMedicine at Kern Medical Center during the period from

14 October 24, 2000 to the present.

15 REQUEST NO. 42.

16 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO presentations made at the Kern Medical Center

17 oncology conference in May 2005, induding but not limited to participant evaluation forms.

18 REQUEST NO. 43.

19 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Plaintiff's presentation at the Kern Medical Center

20 oncology conference on or about October 12,2005.

21 REQUEST NO. 44.

22 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR decision to demote Plaintiff from Chair of

23 Kern Medical Center's Pathology Department to staffpathologist.

24 REQUEST NO. 45.

25 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the "packets containing information about Dr.

26 Jadwin" which Mr. Peter Bryan collected at the end ofKern Medical Center's Joint Conference

27 Committee discussion and vote on removal of Plaintiff from Chair of Pathology on July 10, 2006.

28 REQUEST NO. 46.







1 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR decision to place Plaintiffon administrative

2 leave on or about December 7, 2006.

3 REQUEST NO. 47.

4 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR decision to restrict Plaintiff to his home

5 during working hours from on or about December 7, 2006 to on or about May 1, 2007 while he was on

6 administrative leave.

7 REQUEST NO. 48.

8 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR decision to lift the restriction of Plaintiffto

9 his home during working hours from on or about December 7, 2006 to on or about May 1, 2007 while he

10 was on administrative leave.

11 REQUEST NO. 49.

12 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR decision not to renew Plaintiff's

13 employment contract with YOU that was purportedly made on or about May 1,2007.

14 REQUEST NO. 50.

15 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any discipline, coaching, reprimand or corrective

16 action taken against Plaintiffby you.

17 REQUEST NO. 51.

18 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Kern Medical Center's Disruptive Physician

19 Policy, including but not limited to Bylaw Committee meeting minutes.

20 REQUEST NO. 52.

21 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Dr. Rebecca Rivera's lawsuit against Kern Medical

22 Center filed in Kern County California Superior Court.

23 REQUEST NO. 53.

24 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO services provided to YOU by The Camden Group

25 RELATING TO Kern Medical Center.

26 REQUEST NO. 54.

27 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO statistics maintained by YOU RELATING TO

28 patient fatalities at Kern Medical Center from October 24, 2000 to the present.






1 REQUEST NO. 55.

2 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the review ofKern Medical Center's placental

3 evaluations and billing activity as conducted by outside consultants, including but not limited to ProPay

4 Physician Services, LLC, from October 24, 2000 to the present.

5 REQUEST NO. 56.

6 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO blood bank monthly reports, including but not

7 limited to reports generated by Michelle Burris, from January 2006 to the present.

8 REQUEST NO. 57.

9 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO product chart copy-related quality assurance reports

10 from October 24, 2000 to the present.

11 REQUEST NO. 58.

12 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO prostate needle biopsy reports produced by Dr. Elsa

13 Ang for which Plaintiffhad requested a lookback study in October 2005.

14 REQUEST NO. 59.

15 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO sign-in sheets for Kern Medical Center's Cancer

16 Clinic from January 1, 2003 to the present.

17 REQUEST NO. 60.

18 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Workplace Violence or Threat Incident Reports for

19 all Kern Medical Center personnel from October 24,2000 to the present.

20 REQUEST NO. 61.

21 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Fine Needle Aspiration policies at Kern Medical

22 Center from October 24,2000 to the present, including but not limited to DOCUMENTS RELATING

23 TO the outside consultant study conducted by Dr. David Lieu in 2004.

24 REQUEST NO. 62.

25 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Peter Bryan's appointment calendar from January

26 1,2004 to September 1, 2006.

27 REQUEST NO. 63.

28 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO meeting minutes for the following Kern Medical







1 Center connnittees or groups from October 24, 2000 to the present:

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

a) Medical Executive Committee

b) Joint Conference Committee

c) Quality Management Committee

d) Cancer Connnittee

e) Second Level Peer Review Committee

f) Transfusion Committee

g) Executive StaffMeetings

9 REQUEST NO. 64.

10 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO policies ofKern Medical Center's Pathology

11 Department from October 24, 2000 to the present.

12 REQUEST NO. 65.

13 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO case send-out logs for Kern Medical Center's

14 Pathology Department from January 1, 1999 to the present, including but not limited to corresponding

15 Kern Medical Center pathology reports and reports from outside consultants.

16 REQUEST NO. 66.

17 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO monthly turn-around-time reports and logs - by

18 pathologist - for pathology reports processed at Kern Medical Center, including but not limited to

19 Pathology Department Semi-annual Reports to the Medical Staff, for the time period from January 1,


21 REQUEST NO. 67.

22 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO monthly or semi-monthly turn-around-time reports

23 and logs - for Kern Medical Center's Pathology Department as a whole - for pathology reports

24 processed at Kern Medical Center including but not limited to surgical pathology, cytology and bone

25 marrow reports, for the t ime period from January 1, 1999 to the present.

26 REQUEST NO. 68.

27 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO PATHOLOGY REPORTS authored, reviewed or

28 approved by Plaintiff which YOU sent to any outside pathologists for outside review from June 14,2006






- -

1 to the present.

rom: aw ce o ugene ee g 11 : pm

2 REQUEST NO. 69.

3 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO PATHOLOGY REPORTS RELATING TO Case

4 Numbers S06-4131, S06-4619, S06-5229, S06-73276,.

5 REQUEST NO. 70.

6 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO peer review RELATING TO Kern Medical

7 Center's Pathology Department during the time period from January 1, 1995 to the present, including

8 but not limited to computer-generated data, monthly peer review records completed by pathologists, and

9 peer review comment sheets that are completed by pathologists upon discovery of a discrepancy.

10 REQUEST NO. 71.

11 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO exceptional event logs for histology and pathology

12 at Kern Medical Center's Pathology Department from January 1, 2006 to the present.

13 REQUEST NO. 72.

14 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO paper accession logs at Kern Medical Center's

15 Pathology Department from January 1, 2006 to the present.

16 REQUEST NO. 73.

17 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO tissue disposal records for skull-flaps from January

18 1, 2006 to the present.

19 REQUEST NO. 74.

20 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO audits of Kern Medical Center's Pathology

21 Department by outside consultants, including but not limited to Dr. Stacey Garry, from October 24,


23 REQUEST NO. 75.

24 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Kern Medical Center laboratory personnel

25 defections from June 14,2006 to the present, including but not limited to exit interview notes.

26 REQUEST NO. 76.

27 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO dictation transcription logs for Plaintiff from June

28 14, 2006 to the present.







1 REQUEST NO. 77.

2 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO dictation transcription logs for Dr. Philip Dutt from

3 June 14, 2006 to the present.

4 REQUEST NO. 78.

5 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO placental evaluations conducted by Plaintiff from

6 June 14, 2006 to the present.

7 REQUEST NO. 79.

8 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Golden Empire Pathology Associates.

9 REQUEST NO. 80.

10 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Golden Empire Pathology Medical Group.

11

W OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE

555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100Los Angeles, California 90013Telephone: (213) 992-3299Facsimile: (213) 596-0487Email: [email protected] for Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.

fJJ?J"--\-~ n e D . L e eDate: October 11, 2007

18

16

17

15

12

13

14

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28







1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2 I, the undersigned, hereby declare:

3 I am a residentofLos Angeles in the State

ofCalifornia. I am over the age

of18 and not a partyto the action described herein. I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, California. My business

4 address is LAWOFFICE OF EUGENE LEE, 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100, Los Angeles, CA90013. On the date of execution ofthis DOCUMENT, I served the following:

5PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS ON DEFENDANT

6 COUNTY OF KERN (SET ONE)

7 on the following parties in this action by and through their attorneys addressed as follows:

8 Mark A. WasserLAW OFFICES OFMARK A. WASSER

9 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100

Sacramento, CA 9581410 Fax: (916) 444-6405

11 Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern, PeterBryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher, Jennifer

12 Abraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smith andWilliam Roy

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[gJ BY UNITED STATES MAIL: I enclosed the DOCUMENT(s) listed above in a sealed envelopewith postage thereon fully prepaid, addressed to the PERSON(s) listed above, and deposited the sealedenvelope with the United States Postal Service at Los Angeles, California. I am aware that on motion of

the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is morethan one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.

[gJ BY FACSIMILE: I transmitted via facsimile the DOCUMENT(s) listed above to the faxnumber(s) set forth above on this date at approximately 1:00 a.ill. The outgoing facsimile machinetelephone number in this office is (213) 596-0487. The facsimile service used in this office creates atransmission report for each outgoing facsimile transmitted. A copy ofthe transmission report(s) for theservice ofthis DOCUMENT, properly issued by the facsimile service that transmitted this DOCUMENTand showing that such transmission was (transmissions were) completed without error, is attachedhereto.

[gJ FEDERAL: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of Americathat the above is true and correct and that I took said actions at the direction of a licensed attorneyauthorized to practice before this Federal Court.

Executed on October 11,2007, at Los Angeles, California.

- A V0}':U\ Eugene D. Lee

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE




EXHIBITS TO JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENTre: INTERROGATORIES 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

EXHIBIT 2:

Defendant’s Responses to RPD1




DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’SREQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

1

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Mark A. Wasser CA SB #60160LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100Sacramento, CA 95814Phone: (916) 444-6400Fax: (916) 444-6405

E-mail: [email protected] Bernard C. Barmann, Sr.KERN COUNTY COUNSELMark Nations, Chief Deputy1115 Truxton Avenue, Fourth FloorBakersfield, CA 93301Phone: (661) 868-3800Fax: (661) 868-3805E-mail: [email protected]

Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern,Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher,

Jennifer Abraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smithand William Roy



DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.

Plaintiff,

vs.


Defendants.

)))

))))))))))

Case No.: 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FORPRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SETONE)

Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007Trial Date: August 26, 2008

)

PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., F.C.A.P.

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant COUNTY OF KERN

SET NUMBER: ONE (1)





2

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Defendants hereby submit these responses to Plaintiff David F. Jadwin’s Request for

Production of Documents, Set One. Defendants have not located all the documents that are

responsive to this request and, for that reason, many of the production dates set forth herein are

estimates. Defendants will supplement or amend this response, if necessary, as additionaldocuments are located and reviewed.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1

Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the First Affirmative Defense listed in

Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff’s Second Supplemental Complaint.


Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of

documents that are protected by the attorney-work-product and attorney-client privileges.

Without waiving those objections, after diligent search, Defendants’ have not been able to locate

any documents that are responsive to this request.


Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Second Affirmative Defense listed in








Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Third Affirmative Defense listed in









3

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Fourth Affirmative Defense listed inDefendants’ Answer to Plaintiff’s Second Supplemental Complaint.







Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Fifth Affirmative Defense listed in





Without waiving those objections, Defendants will produce all non-privileged documents

responsive to this request on or before December 21, 2007. This request is duplicative of other

requests contained in Plaintiff’s request for production, set one, and the documents produced in

response to this request may refer to the documents produced in response to other requests.


Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Sixth Affirmative Defense listed in











4

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Seventh Affirmative Defense listed in


RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 7Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of





Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Eighth Affirmative Defense listed in






responsive to this request on or before December 21, 2007. This request is duplicative of other

requests contained in Plaintiff’s request for production, set one, and the documents produced in

response to this request may refer to the documents produced in response to other requests.


Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Ninth Affirmative Defense listed in














6

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

employees, appointment of Kern Medical Center acting department chairs, hiring of Kern

Medical Center department chairs, demotion of Kern Medical Center department chairs, and

policies RELATING TO Kern Medical Center’s Pathology Department.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 12Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain

confidential personnel information, documents protected from disclosure by state or federal law,

including the peer-review privilege, or documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege.

Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce documents responsive to this request

by December 21, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential peer review and personnel

information as appropriate.


Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR personnel policies, guidelines, fact

sheets, posters, employee and/or employer handbooks, training materials, and employee and/or

employer manuals maintained by YOU that YOU contend was distributed or made available to

YOUR employees, whether management or non-management, from October 24, 200 to the

present and the date of such asserted distribution. These include but are not limited to YOUR

ordinances, Kern Medical Center’s Administrative Procedures Manual, Kern Medical Center’s

Policy & Administrative Procedures Manual, policies RELATING TO disability discrimination,

reasonable accommodation, interactive process, personal leave, administrative leave, medical

leave, retaliation, investigations into complaints of unlawful employment practices, discipline of

employees, investigation of employees, appointment of Kern Medical Center acting department

chairs, hiring of Kern Medical Center department chairs, demotion of Kern Medical Center

department chairs, and policies RELATING TO Kern Medical Center’s Pathology Department.


Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain










8

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




including the peer-review privilege, or documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege.Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce documents responsive to this request

by December 21, 2007.


Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING To the PERSONNEL FILES of the following

people.


b) Elsa Ang


d) Philip Dutt

e) Carol Gates

f) Adam Lang

g) Fangluo Liu

h) Savita Shertukde

i) Navin Amin

j) Kathy Griffith

k) Alice Hevle

l) Denise Long

m) Gilbert Martinez

n) Albert McBride

o) Javad Naderi

p) Jane Thornton

q) Nitin Athavale

r) Chester Lau

s) Jennifer J. Abraham





9

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

t) Bernard C. Barmann

u) Karen S. Barnes

v) Peter K. Bryan

w) David Culberson

x) Irwin E. Harris

y) Royce Johnson

z) Eugene K. Kercher

aa) Alan Scott Ragland

bb) William Roy

cc) Maureen Martin

dd) Steven O‘Connor

ee) Antoinette Smith

ff) Edward Taylor

gg) Marvin Kolb

hh) Dianne McConnehey

ii) Renita Nunn

jj) Ravi Patel

kk) Jose Perez

ll) Evangeline Gallegos

mm) Sergio Perticucci

nn) Bonnie Quinonez

oo) James Sproul

pp) Rebecca Rivera

qq) Sheldon Freedman

rr) Joseph Mansour

ss) George Alkouri

tt) Nicole Sharkey






10

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Defendants have already produced the personnel file of David F. Jadwin. Defendants

will confirm that the personnel file previously produced was complete as of the time of its

production and, on or before December 7, 2007, will augment the documents previously

produced with any additional materials, if any, that have been added into Mr. Jadwin’s personnelfile since the file was produced. Plaintiff has narrowed the scope of this request by eliminating

all other documents initially requested.


Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the search, recruitment, application,

interviewing, and hiring process that resulted in Plaintiff’s employment by YOU.





Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this

request by December 21, 2007.


Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the terms, conditions and privileges of

Plaintiff’s employment with YOU.


Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007.


Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Plaintiff’s job duties and responsibilities for

each position held by Plaintiff during this employment with YOU.




Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Plaintiff’s payroll, compensation, base

salary and “professional fee payments”, as that term is defined in Plaintiff’s employment





11

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

contracts with YOU, including but not limited to any and all changes in compensation and the

reasons for changes, throughout Plaintiff’s employment with YOU.


Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 7, 2007.REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21

Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR policies, guidelines and practices

regarding base salary steps, salary guidelines, deferred compensation plans, pension plans, health

insurance and employment benefits applicable to Plaintiff’s position s held throughout his

employment with YOU.




Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Plaintiff’s work schedule and/or removal

there from, including but not limited to timesheets, from October 24, 200 to present.




Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Dr. Phillip Dutt’s timesheets, from April 20






Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce all non-privileged documents

responsive to this request by December 21, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential

information, in any, as appropriate.






12

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Dr. Savita Shertukde’s timesheets, from

January 4, 2005 to present.


Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that containconfidential personnel information, documents protected from disclosure by state or federal law,






Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO performance reviews, comments,

complaints, warnings, reprimands, counseling, advisory notices or evaluations of Plaintiff’s

performance of his job duties throughout his employment with YOU, whether formal or

informal.









Any and all DOCUMENTS maintained by Plaintiff at Kern Medical Center during his

employment by YOU, including any and all e-mails, Groupwise calendars, memoranda, written

materials, and computer files stored on Plaintiff’s computer at Kern Medical Center’s servers.


After diligent search, Defendants believe Groupwise calendar information was deleted

many months ago as part of the routine 90-day cycling of the Groupwise software. Defendants





13

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

are continuing to search for other materials that were on the computer that was assigned to

Plaintiff. Some material was archived before the computer was reassigned. Defendants have

identified about 3,000 pages of documents that appear to be responsive to this request but have

not yet concluded their search. Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this requestby December 7, 2007.


Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any meetings RELATING TO Plaintiff or

Plaintiff’s employment at Kern Medical Center.







information, if any, as appropriate.



complaints, warnings, reprimands, counseling, advisory notices or evaluations of the Kern

Medical Center Pathology Department, whether formal or informal, from October 24, 1995 to

the present.













14

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Plaintiff’s complaints of:

a) disability discrimination

b) failure to accommodate

c)

failure to engage in an interactive processd) violation of medical leave rights

e) whistleblower retaliation

f) medical leave retaliation

g) deprivation of property without due process

h) defamation

i) Fair Labor Standards Act violations









Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any investigation of Plaintiff’s complaints

of disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in an interactive process,

violation of medical leave rights, whistleblower retaliation, medical leave retaliation, defamation,

and/or deprivation of property without due process.














17

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TOYOUR search for, recruitment, of and

evaluation of candidates for the position of staff pathologist at Kern Medical Center during the

period from January 1, 2006 to present.


documents that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in

this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Defendants also object to this request to the extent it requests information protected from

disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA and the peer review privilege, and

documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege. Without waving these objections,

Defendants will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this request, if any, by

December 7, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential and privileged information as

appropriate.



evaluation of candidates for the position of Chair or Chief of Pathology at Kern Medical Center

during the period from January 1, 2006 to present.










appropriate.






18

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


evaluation of candidates for the position of locus tenens pathologist at Kern Medical Center










appropriate.



evaluation of candidates for the position of Chair or Chief of OB-GYN at Kern Medical Center











appropriate.






19

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TOYOUR removal of Dr. Royce Johnson from

the position of Chair or Chief of Medicine at Kern Medical Center.


Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in




documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege.



evaluation of candidates for the position of Chair or Chief of Medicine at Kern Medical Center

during the period from October 24, 2000 to present.










appropriate.


Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO presentations made at the Kern Medical

Center oncology conference in May 2005, including but not limited to participant evaluation

forms.








21

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Defendants are searching for documents responsive to this request. Because of

administrative and management changes at Kern Medical Center, it may not be possible to

reconstruct the “packets” requested. Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests

information protected by the peer-review or attorney-client privileges. Defendants also object tothis request to the extent it seeks documents that contain confidential personnel information.

Without waiving these objections, and to the extent that the “packets” can be reconstructed,

Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request, if any, by December 21, 2007.


Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR decision to place Plaintiff on

administrative leave on or about December 7, 2006.


Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests information protected by the

attorney-client privilege. Without waiving that objection, Defendants believe all documents

responsive to this request have been previously produced to Plaintiff. Defendants will confirm

this, or produce additional documents if necessary, by December 7, 2007.


Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR decision to restrict Plaintiff to his

home during working hours from on or about December 7, 2006 to on or about May 1, 2007

while he was on administrative leave.


Defendants believe all documents responsive to this request have been previously

produced to Plaintiff. Defendants will confirm this, or produce additional documents if

necessary, by December 7, 2007.


Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR decision to lift the restriction of

Plaintiff to his home during working hours from on or about December 7, 2006 to on or about

May 1, 2007 while he was on administrative leave.






22

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 49Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR decision not to renew Plaintiff’s

employment contract with YOU that was purportedly made on or about May 1, 2007.




responsive to this request have been previously produced to Plaintiff. Defendants will confirm

this, or produce additional documents if necessary, by December 7, 2007.


Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any discipline, coaching, reprimand or

corrective action taken against Plaintiff by YOU.






Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Kern Medical Center’s Disruptive Physician

Policy, including but not limited to Bylaw Committee meeting minutes.




including the HIPAA and the peer-review privilege, or documents that are subject to the

attorney-client privilege. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce documents

responsive to this request by December 7, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential peer review

and personnel information as appropriate.





23

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Dr. Rebecca Rivera’s lawsuit against Kern

Medical Center filed in Kern County California Superior Court.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 52Plaintiff has narrowed this request to eliminate any documents that have been filed with

the Kern County Superior Court. As so limited, this request seeks documents in the County

Counsel’s litigation file, many of which are protected by the attorney work product and attorney-

client privileges. To the extent this request seeks information that is protected by the attorney-

client privilege, Defendants object to it. Defendants also object to this request on the grounds

that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants

are in the process of reviewing documents that are may be responsive to this request and, without

waiving these objections, will produce non-privileged documents, if any, by December 21, 2007.

Defendants may redact privileged information if appropriate.


Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO services provided to YOU by the Camden

Group RELATING TO Kern Medical Center.






Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO statistics maintained by YOU RELATING

TO patient fatalities at Kern Medical Center from October 24, 2000 to the present.










24

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




December 21, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential and privileged information asappropriate. If the redaction process renders the resulting document useless, Defendants will

inform Plaintiff.


Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the review of Kern Medical Center’s

placental evaluations and billing activity as conducted by outside consultants, including but not

limited to ProPay Physician Services, LLC, from October 24, 2000 to the present.










appropriate.


Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO blood bank monthly reports, included but

not limited to reports generated by Michelle Burris, from January 2006 to present.










25

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




December 21, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential and privileged information asappropriate.


Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO product chart copy-related quality assurance

reports from October 24, 2000 to the present.










appropriate.


Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO prostate needle biopsy reports produced by

Dr. Elsa Ang for which Plaintiff had requested a lookback study in October 2005.












26

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



appropriate.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 59Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO sign-in sheets for Kern Medical Center’s

Cancer Clinic from January 1, 2003 to the present.




Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Workplace Violence or Threat Incident

Reports for all Kern Medical Center personnel from October 24, 2000 to the present.


Defendants object to this request to the extent it seeks documents that contain

confidential personnel information or information protected by the attorney-client privilege.

Defendants also object to the extent the documents contain information protected by the peer-

review privilege and on the grounds that the request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce

all documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007. Defendants will redact

confidential or privileged information as appropriate.


Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Fine Needle Aspiration policies at Kern

Medical Center from October 24, 2000 to the present, including but not limited to

DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the outside consultant study conducted by Dr. David Lieu in

2004.









27

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce

all documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007. Defendants will redact

confidential or privileged information as appropriate.REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 62

Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Peter Bryan’s appointment calendar from

January 1, 2004 to September 1, 2006.




Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO meeting minutes for the following Kern

Medical Center committees or groups from October 24, 2000 to the present:


b) Joint Conference Committee


d) Cancer Committee

e) Second Level Peer Review Committee


g) Executive Staff Meetings



confidential personnel information or information that is protected from disclosure by state or

federal law, including HIPAA and the peer review privilege, or documents that are subject to the

attorney/client privilege. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce documents

responsive to this request by December 21, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential or







28

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO policies of Kern Medical Center’s

Pathology Department from October 24, 2000 to the present.


Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007.REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 65

Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO case send-out logs for Kern Medical

Center’s Pathology Department from January 1, 1999 to the present, including but not limited to

corresponding Kern Medical Center pathology reports and reports from outside consultants.









Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO monthly turn-around-time reports and logs

– by pathologist – for pathology reports processed at Kern Medical Center, including but not

limited to Pathology Department Semi-annual Reports to the Medical Staff, for the time period




privileged peer review information. Without waiving this objection Defendants will produce all

documents responsive to this request by December 7, 2007. Defendants will redact all privileged



Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO monthly or semi-monthly turn-around-time

reports and logs – for Kern Medical Center’s Pathology Department as a whole – for pathology





29

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

reports processed at Kern Medical Center including but not limited to surgical pathology,

cytology and bone marrow reports, for the time period from January 1, 1999 to the present.


Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that containprivileged peer review information. Without waiving this objection Defendants will produce all




Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO PATHOLOGY REPORTS authored,

reviewed or approved by Plaintiff which YOU sent to any outside pathologists for outside review

from June 14, 2006 to the present.







Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO PATHOLOGY REPORTS RELATING TO

Case Numbers S06-4131, S06-4619, S06-5229, S06-73276.



information that is confidential under HIPAA. Defendants also object to the extent that it

requests documents that contain privileged peer-review information. Without waiving these

objections Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 7,

2007. Defendants will redact confidential and privileged information as appropriate.


Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO peer review RELATING TO Kern Medical

Center’s Pathology Department during the time period from January 1, 1995 to the present,





30

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

including but not limited to computer-generated data, monthly peer review records completed by

pathologists, and peer review comment sheets that are completed by pathologists upon discovery

of a discrepancy.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 70Defendants object to this request on the ground that it requests privileged peer-review

information. Defendants also object on the ground that it requests information that is

confidential under HIPAA and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce documents responsive to

this request by January 7, 2008 if it is possible to redact the confidential and privileged

information without rendering the resulting document useless.


Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO exceptional event logs for histology and

pathology on Kern Medical Center’s Pathology Department from January 1, 2006 to the present.




requests documents that contain privileged peer review information. Without waiving these




Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO paper accession logs at Kern Medical

Center’s Pathology Department from January 1, 2006 to present.











31

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO tissue disposal records for skull-flaps from

January 1, 2006 to the present.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 73Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain







Department by outside consultants, including but not limited to Dr. Stacey Garry, from October









Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Kern Medical Center laboratory personnel

defections from June 14, 2006 to the present, including but not limited to exit interview notes.


Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it is vague. Defendants do not know

what “personnel defections” means. If Plaintiff intends to request a list of employees who have

separated from County employment or transferred out of the laboratory, Defendants can prepare

such a list but Defendants believe such a list will need to be redacted to remove confidential

personnel information. Defendants will produce a list of employees who have separated from





32

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

County employment or transferred out of the laboratory by December 21, 2007 and will redact

the information as appropriate.


Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO dictation transcription logs for Plaintiff from June 14, 2006 to the present.




Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO dictation transcription logs for Dr. Philip

Dutt from June 14, 2006 to the present.




Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO placental evaluations conducted by Plaintiff



Plaintiff has attempted to narrow this request but the revised request is broader, more

burdensome and less calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence than the original

request. Defendants object to it for that reason. Defendants object to this request because it is

not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and is burdensome.

Defendants also object to this request on the grounds that it seeks information that is shielded

from disclosure under HIPAA. There are thousands of placental evaluations for the time period

specified and they are not centrally filed or maintained. Locating ones conducted by Plaintiff

will require writing a computer program that will sort the files. After the files are sorted, it will

require a manual review of each file to find the placental evaluation. It will have to be copied

and redacted and copied again. Defendants estimate it will take approximately 90 days to

comply with this request. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will attempt to locate,

copy and produce the documents requested





33

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Golden Empire Pathology Associates.


After diligent search, Defendants’ have not been able to locate any documents that areresponsive to this request.


Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Golden Empire Medical Group.


After diligent search, Defendants’ have not been able to locate any documents that are

responsive to this request.

Dated: November 20, 2007 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER

By: /s/ Mark A. Wasser

Mark A. Wasser

Attorney for Defendants, County of Kern, et al.





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

EXHIBIT 3:

Defendant’s First Supplemental Responses to RPD1




DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’SREQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

1

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Mark A. Wasser CA SB #60160LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100Sacramento, CA 95814Phone: (916) 444-6400Fax: (916) 444-6405

E-mail: [email protected] Bernard C. Barmann, Sr.KERN COUNTY COUNSELMark Nations, Chief Deputy1115 Truxton Avenue, Fourth FloorBakersfield, CA 93301Phone: (661) 868-3800Fax: (661) 868-3805E-mail: [email protected]

Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern,Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher,

Jennifer Abraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smithand William Roy



DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.

Plaintiff,

vs.


Defendants.

)))

))))))))))

Case No. : 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENTAL

RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’SREQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OFDOCUMENTS (SET ONE)

Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007Trial Date: August 26, 2008

)

PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., F.C.A.P.

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant COUNTY OF KERN

SET NUMBER: ONE (1)







3

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Without waiving those objections, after diligent search, Defendants have not been able to locate



Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Fourth Affirmative Defense listed inDefendants’ Answer to Plaintiff’s Second Supplemental Complaint.







Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Fifth Affirmative Defense listed in






responsive to this request on or before December 21, 2007, depending on receipt of

reimbursement for estimated copy costs. This request is duplicative of other requests contained

in Plaintiff’s REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, set one, and the documents produced in response

to this request may refer to the documents produced in response to other requests.


Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Sixth Affirmative Defense listed in









4

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Seventh Affirmative Defense listed inDefendants’ Answer to Plaintiff’s Second Supplemental Complaint.







Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Eighth Affirmative Defense listed in






responsive to this request on or before December 21, 2007, depending on receipt of

reimbursement for estimated copy costs. This request is duplicative of other requests contained

in Plaintiff’s REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, set one, and the documents produced in response

to this request may refer to the documents produced in response to other requests.


Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Ninth Affirmative Defense listed in









5

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


any documents that are responsive to this request


Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR organizational structure duringPlaintiff’s employment with YOU, including but not limited to organizational charts, diagrams

and drawings.


Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request. Production is expected

to be complete on or about December 21, 2007, depending on receipt of reimbursement for

estimated copy costs.


Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Kern Medical Center personnel directories

or lists, including but not limited to names, direct work phone numbers, departments, etc. which

were maintained by YOU during Plaintiff’s employment with YOU.


Defendants will produce all non-privileged documents responsive to this request.

Production is expected to be complete on or about December 21, 2007, depending on receipt of

reimbursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants will redact privileged information as

appropriate.




employer manuals maintained by YOU that YOU contend governed Plaintiff’s terms and

conditions of employment at any time during the period from October 1, 2000 to October 4,

2007. These include but are not limited to YOUR ordinances, Kern Medical Center’s

Administrative Procedures Manual, Kern Medical Center’s Policy & Administrative Procedures

Manual, policies RELATING TO disability discrimination, reasonable accommodation,

interactive process, personal leave, administrative leave, medical leave, retaliation, investigations





6

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

into complaints of unlawful employment practices, discipline of employees, investigation of

employees, appointment of Kern Medical Center acting department chairs, hiring of Kern

Medical Center department chairs, demotion of Kern Medical Center department chairs, and

policies RELATING TO Kern Medical Center’s Pathology Department.RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 12

Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain confidential

personnel information, documents protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including

HIPAA, the peer-review privilege and the personnel privilege, and documents that are subject to

the attorney-client privilege. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce

documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007, depending on receipt of

reimbursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants will redact confidential peer review and

personnel information as appropriate.




employer manuals maintained by YOU that YOU contend was distributed or made available to

YOUR employees, whether management or non-management, from October 24, 2000 to the

present and the date of such asserted distribution. These include but are not limited to YOUR

ordinances, Kern Medical Center’s Administrative Procedures Manual, Kern Medical Center’s

Policy & Administrative Procedures Manual, policies RELATING TO disability discrimination,

reasonable accommodation, interactive process, personal leave, administrative leave, medical

leave, retaliation, investigations into complaints of unlawful employment practices, discipline of

employees, investigation of employees, appointment of Kern Medical Center acting department

chairs, hiring of Kern Medical Center department chairs, demotion of Kern Medical Center

department chairs, and policies RELATING TO Kern Medical Center’s Pathology Department.








7

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

including HIPAA, the peer-review privilege and the personnel privilege, and documents that are

subject to the attorney-client privilege Without waiving these objections, Defendants will

produce documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007, depending on receipt of

reimbursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants will redact confidential peer review andpersonnel information as appropriate.


Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO peer review, quality management and

quality assurance policies and procedures at Kern Medical Center, included but not limited to

Kern Medical Center’s Quality Management and Performance Improvement Plan, from October

24, 2000 to the present, and the effective dates.





subject to the attorney-client privilege. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will





Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any training provided by YOU to YOUR

officers, directors, agents or employees on the following subjects:


b) accommodation of an employee’s disability

c) the interactive process regarding accommodation of an employee’s disability

d) medical leave rights



g) due process required for demotion





8

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

h) due process required for pay cut

i) due process required for termination of employment

j) defamation

Fair Labor Standards ActRESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 15






reimbursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants will redact privileged information, if any, as

appropriate.


Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING To the PERSONNEL FILES of the following

people.


b) Elsa Ang


d) Philip Dutt

e) Carol Gates

f) Adam Lang

g) Fangluo Liu

h) Savita Shertukde

i) Navin Amin

j) Kathy Griffith

k) Alice Hevle

l) Denise Long

m) Gilbert Martinez









11

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007,

depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs.


Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Plaintiff’s job duties and responsibilities foreach position held by Plaintiff during this employment with YOU.





Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Plaintiff’s payroll, compensation, base

salary and “professional fee payments”, as that term is defined in Plaintiff’s employment

contracts with YOU, including but not limited to any and all changes in compensation and the

reasons for changes, throughout Plaintiff’s employment with YOU.





Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR policies, guidelines and practices

regarding base salary steps, salary guidelines, deferred compensation plans, pension plans, health

insurance and employment benefits applicable to Plaintiff’s position s held throughout his

employment with YOU.


Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December21, 2007,



Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Plaintiff’s work schedule and/or removal

therefrom, including but not limited to timesheets, from October 24, 2000 to present.






12

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Dr. Phillip Dutt’s timesheets from April 202005 to the present.



depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants will redact

privileged information, if any as appropriate.


Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Dr. Savita Shertukde’s timesheets, from

January 4, 2005 to present.




privileged information, if any, as appropriate



complaints, warnings, reprimands, counseling, advisory notices or evaluations of Plaintiff’s

performance of his job duties throughout his employment with YOU, whether formal or

informal.



information protected by the attorney-client privilege. Without waiving that objection,



privileged information, if any, as appropriate.








14

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




including HIPAA, the peer-review privilege and the personnel privilege, and documents that aresubject to the attorney-client privilege. Without waiving that objection, Defendants will produce


reimbursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants will redact privileged information, if any, as

appropriate.


Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Plaintiff’s complaints of:


b) failure to accommodate

c) failure to engage in an interactive process

d) violation of medical leave rights



g) deprivation of property without due process

h) defamation

i) Fair Labor Standards Act violations



information protected by the attorney-client privilege. Without waiving that objection,

Defendants will produce documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007, depending

on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants will redact confidential peer

review and personnel information as appropriate.


Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any investigation of Plaintiff’s complaints

of disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in an interactive process,





15

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

violation of medical leave rights, whistleblower retaliation, medical leave retaliation, defamation

and/or deprivation of property without due process.


Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that containinformation protected by the attorney-client privilege. Without waiving that objection,

Defendants will produce documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007, depending

on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs Defendants will redact confidential peer

review and personnel information as appropriate.


Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any procedures available to YOUR

employees to complain of corruption, fraud and other wrongful, illegal or unethical conduct, that

YOU contend was distributed or made available to YOUR employees, whether management or

non-management, from October 24, 2000 to the present, and the date of such asserted

distribution(s).


Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007

depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs


Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR discipline of any employee against

whom a complaint or grievance of discrimination, harassment, defamation, retaliation, failure to

accommodate, and/or failure to engage in an interactive process in their employment was made

from October 24, 2000 to date.


Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it requests documents that contain


including HIPAA, the peer-review privilege and the personnel privilege, and documents that

contain information protected by the attorney-client privilege. Defendants do not believe these





16

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

objections can be resolved by redaction. Defendants also object on the grounds that the request is

not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.


Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO complaints or grievances made by YOURpast or present employees against YOU for defamation, retaliation, disability discrimination,

failure to accommodate, and/or failure to engage in an interactive process, including but not

limited to any informal or internal complaints, grievances or charges to any state or federal

agency, and complaints filed in any state or federal court from October 24, 2000 to date.




this case. Consequently, this request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence. Defendants also object on the ground that the phrase, “informal or internal

complaints” is vague and, depending on interpretation, could include any off-hand gripe by any

employee, to the extent it was memorialized in writing. Defendant County of Kern employs

several thousand employees. In the past seven years, there could be many documents that fit the

description of this request yet none have anything to do with the issues in this case. This request

is, accordingly, overbroad and burdensome. Defendants do not believe redaction would resolve

these objections.


Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any complaints or grievances made to YOU

by Plaintiff



produced. Defendants will confirm this or produce additional documents, if there are any, by

December 21, 2007, depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs.








18

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




Defendants also object to this request to the extent it requests information protected fromdisclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA, the peer-review privilege and the personnel

privilege, and documents that contain information protected by the attorney-client privilege.




Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR search for, recruitment, of and

evaluation of candidates for the position of locum tenens pathologist at Kern Medical Center







disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA, the peer-review privilege and the personnel


After review of the documents potentially responsive to this request, Defendants have

determined that the burden of redacting privileged information outweighs the marginal relevancy

of the remaining information in the documents.


Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR search for, recruitment, of and

evaluation of candidates for the position of Chair or Chief of OB-GYN at Kern Medical Center









20

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




determined that the burden of redacting privileged information outweighs the marginal relevancyof the remaining information in the documents.


Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO presentations made at the Kern Medical

Center oncology conference in May 2005, including but not limited to participant evaluation

forms.









December 21, 2007. Defendants will redact privileged, if any, information as appropriate.


Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Plaintiff’s presentations made at the Kern

Medical Center oncology conference on or about October 12, 2005.












21

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


December21, 2007. Defendants will redact privileged, if any, information as appropriate.


Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR decision to demote Plaintiff fromChair of Kern Medical Center’s Pathology Department to staff pathologist.


Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that are privileged

under the attorney-client privilege. Without waiving this objection Defendants will produce all

non-privileged documents responsive to this request by December21, 2007, depending on receipt

of reimbursement for estimated copy costs.


Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING To the “packets containing information about

Dr. Jadwin” which Peter Bryan collected at the end of Kern Medical Center’s Joint Conference

Committee discussion and vote on removal of Plaintiff from Chair of Pathology on July 10,

2006.


Defendants are searching for documents responsive to this request. Because of

administrative and management changes at Kern Medical Center, it may not be possible to

reconstruct the “packets” requested. Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests

information protected by the peer-review or attorney-client privileges. Defendants also object to

this request to the extent it seeks documents that contain confidential personnel information.

Without waiving these objections, and to the extent that the “packets” can be reconstructed,

Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request, if any, by December21, 2007,



Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR decision to place Plaintiff on administrative

leave on or about December 7, 2006.






22

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



responsive to this request have been previously produced. Defendants will confirm this or

produce additional documents, if there are any, by December21, 2007, depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs.


Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR decision to restrict Plaintiff to his

home during working hours from on or about December 7, 2006 to on or about May 1, 2007

while he was on administrative leave.



produced. Defendants will confirm this or produce additional documents, if there are any, by

December 21, 2007, depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs.


Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR decision to lift the restriction of

Plaintiff to his home during working hours from on or about December 7, 2006 to on or about

May 1, 2007 white he was on administrative leave.



produced to Plaintiff. Defendants will confirm this or produce additional documents, if there are

any, by December 21, 2007, depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs.


Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR decision not to renew Plaintiff’s

employment contract with YOU that was purportedly made on or about May 1, 2007.


Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests information protected by the attorney-

client privilege. Without waiving that objection, Defendants believe all documents responsive to

this request have been previously produced. Defendants will confirm this or produce additional









25

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the review of Kern Medical Center’s

placental evaluations and billing activity as conducted by outside consultants, including but not

limited to ProPay Physician Services, LLC, from October 24, 2000 to the present.











Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO blood bank monthly reports, included but

not limited to reports generated by Michelle Burris, from January 2006 to present.


















27

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 60Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Workplace Violence or Threat Incident

Reports for all Kern Medical Center personnel from October 24, 2000 to the present.






discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce all


reimbursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants will redact confidential or privileged



Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Fine Needle Aspiration policies at Kern

Medical Center from October 24, 2000 to the present, including but not limited to

DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the outside consultant study conducted by Dr. David Lieu in

2004.






discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce all

documents responsive to this request by December21, 2007, depending on receipt of





28

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

reimbursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants will redact confidential or privileged



Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Peter Bryan’s appointment calendar fromJanuary 1, 2004 to September 1, 2006.


After diligent search, Defendants have determined that the Groupwise calendar

information was deleted many months ago as part of the routine 90-day cycling of the Groupwise

software. Defendants believe there are no documents responsive to this request.


Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO meeting minutes for the following Kern

Medical Center committees or groups from October 24, 2000 to the present:


h) Joint Conference Committee


d) Cancer Committee

c) Second Level Peer Review Committee


g) Executive Staff Meetings







reimbursement for estimated copy costs, Defendants will redact confidential peer review

and personnel information as appropriate.






29

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO policies of Kern Medical Center’s

Pathology Department from October 24, 2000 to the present.


Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007,depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs.


Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO case send-out logs for Kern Medical Center’s

Pathology Department from January 1, 1999 to the present, including but not limited to











Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO monthly turn-around-time reports and

logs— by pathologist — for pathology reports processed at Kern Medical Center, including but

not limited to Pathology Department Semi-annual Reports to the Medical Staff, for the time

period from January 1, 1999 to the present.











30

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO monthly or semi-monthly turn-around-timereports and logs — for Kern Medical Center’s Pathology Department as a whole — for

pathology reports processed at Kern Medical Center including but riot limited to surgical

pathology, cytology and bone marrow reports, for the time period from January 1, 1999 to the

present.



confidential personnel information, documents protected from disclosure by state or federal jaw,














reimbursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants will redact all privileged information as


Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO PATHOLOGY REPORTS RELATING TO

Case Numbers 305-4131, 306-4519, 306-5229, 306-73276.







32

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.Defendants also object to this request to the extent it requests information protected from





























34

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

confidential personnel information. Defendants will produce a list of employees who have

separated from County employment or transferred out of the laboratory by December 21, 2007,

depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs, and will redact the confidential

information as appropriate.REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 76

Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO dictation transcription logs for Plaintiff







Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO dictation transcription logs for Dr. Philip










Plaintiff has attempted to narrow this request but the revised request is broader, more

burdensome and less calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence than the original

request. Defendants object to this request because it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence and is burdensome. Defendants object to this request on the

grounds that it calls for the production of documents that contain confidential personnel

information that is not relevant to any issues in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead







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:

Defendant’s Privilege Log








3

BATES NO. DATE TO FROM CC D

0008718 - 0008722 2000-2001

SumAnn

Com

RatiClas

0008752 - 0008757 2000-2001

SumAnn

Com

RatiClas

0008830 - 0008834 2000-2001

SumAnn

Com

RatiClas

0008982 - 008895 2001-

2002

Sum

AnnCom

Rati

Clas

0009336 - 0009337 7/2001 –

6/2002

Sum

ActiUns

Ann

PerfRev

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 227-2 Filed 09/23/2008 Pag





5

BATES NO. DATE TO FROM CC D

0011068 3/16/07 David K. Culberson Irwin Harris Ema

0011101 - 0011125 8/06 Paul Esselman Can

Pres

0011140 Mem

Sala

011078 - 11080 David K. Culberson Mem








2

BATES NO. DATE TO FROM CC DO

0012866 11/14/00 BakersfieldPathology

Medical Group

Path

0012867 - 0012868 Unid

Pati

0012869 - 0012892 Lett

Med

0012894 – 0013048 Lett

Med

0013049 – 0013050 Unid

Pati

0013051 - 0013135 LettMed




3


0013136 - 0013137 UnidPati

0013138 - 0013477 Lett

Med

0013478 - 0013479 Unid

Pati

0013480 - 0013683 Lett

Med

0013684 - 0013685 Unid

Pati

0013687 - 0013833 LettMed

0013834 - 0014138 2006/

2007

Surg

SpecLog




4


0014454 - 0014503 Med

0014595 - 0014641 11/15/06 Karen Barnes Phil Dutt Peer

Mem

0014643 - 0014730 Lett

Med

0014753 – 0014755 Surg

Path

0014765 – 0014769 Surg

Path

0014771 - 0014776 SurgPath




5


0014778– 0014784 SurgPath

0014786 - 0014792 Surg

Path

0014793 – 0015315 9/06 –

12/06

Surg

Path

Rep

0015453 - 0015536 12/15/06 Kern Medical

Center

Timothy Dutra Cali

Part

PhyApp

0015537 - 0015641 3/7/07 Kern MedicalCenter

Martin Lipschultz AppPati

and

TenTem

Priv

0015642 - 0015683 4/4/06 Kern Medical

Center

Vivek Bhargava App

Pati

and Ten

Tem

Priv






7


0016151 TranServ

Cha

0016153 Tran

ServCha

0016155 - 0016157 Tran

Serv

Cha

0016159 - 0016161 Tran

ServCha

0016163 - 0016179 Tran

Serv

Cha

0016181 - 0016182 TranServ

Cha






9


0016226 TranServ

Cha

0016228 - 0016232 Tran

ServCha

0016234 - 0016235 Tran

Serv

Cha

0016237 - 0016248 Tran

ServCha

0016251 - 0016282 Tran

Serv

Cha

0016284 - 0016293 TranServ

Cha




10


0016295 - 0016297 TranServ

Cha

0016299 Tran

ServCha

0016301 - 0016303 Tran

Serv

Cha

0016305 Tran

ServCha

0016307 - 0016309 Tran

Serv

Cha

0016311 TranServ

Cha




11


0016313 - 0016327 TranServ

Cha

0016329 - 0016330 Tran

ServCha

0016332 - 0016334 Tran

Serv

Cha

0016336 - 0016337 Tran

ServCha

0016339 - 0016340 Tran

Serv

Cha

0016342 TranServ

Cha










15


0016528 TranServ

Cha

0016530 - 0016531 Tran

ServCha

0016533 - 0016535 Med

0016537 - 0016541 Tran

ServCha

0016544 Tran

Serv

Cha

0016546 - 0016547 TranServ

Cha




16


0016549 - 0016552 TranServ

Cha

0016554 Tran

ServCha

0016557 - 0016560 Tran

Serv

Cha

0016562 - 0016563 Tran

ServCha

0016567 - 0016573 Med

0016610 - 0016615 Med

0016667 – 0016669 11/19/07 Phil Dutt Dianne

McConnehey

Mem




17


0016670 10/9/07 Philip Dutt Roy Johnson Mem

0016671 - 0016682 Perf

Eva

Surg

Dep

0016683 - 0016894 11/2002 PerfEva

Path

Dep

0016897 - 0016900 7/25/06 David HillIrwin Harris

Philip Dutt

Gilbert Martinez EmaCha

Lab

Dire

0016902 - 0016905 7/20/06 Lab

Persre G

Mar

0017371 - 0017373 10/30/06 Jonathan Epstein B.C. Barmann

Karen Barnes

Irwin Harris

Philip Dutt

Lett

Qua

AsseRev

0017378 – 0017522 Surg






19


0018392 - 0018429 10/25/05 Gary Zohman David Jadwin Lettattac

Rec

0018430 - 0018439 10/20/05 Maureen Martin David Jadwin Mem

withMed

0018603 - 0018618 8/2/05 Juan Felix David Jadwin Lett

attac

Rec

0018619 - 0018624 5/24/05 Dr. Ratnayake David Jadwin Dr. Johnson Mem

withMed

0018625 - 0018630 5/24/05 Dr. Ratnayake David Jadwin Dr. Johnson Mem

with

Med

0018631 - 0018633 5/16/05 David Jadwin Steven Jacobs Lettattac

Rec






21


0018868 - 0018894 12/03 –3/04

RepCha

0019805 – 0019810 7/05 –

9/05

Tim

Phil

0019811 – 0019812 9/12/05 ReqCorr

Payr

Phil

0019813 – 0019867 9/05 –11/07

TimPhil

0019868 – 0019948 10/04 –

11/07

Tim

Savi





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 6:

Defendant’s Second Supplemental Responses to RPD1




10 08 04:44p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.1

The Law Offices of Mark A. Wasser400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100

Sacramento, California 95814

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

FaxTo: Eugene Lee

Fax: (213) 596-0487

Phone: (213) 992-3299

From: Amy Remly

Pages: 8 (including cover page)

Date: 3/10/08

Re: Jadwin v. County ofKern CC:

D Urgent

• Comments:

D For Review D Please Comment D Please Reply D Please Recycle

Please see attached.




10 08 04:45p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.2

I Mark A. Wasser CA SB #60160LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER

2 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100Sacramento, CA 95814

3 Phone: (916) 444-6400Fax: (916) 444-6405

4 E-maiL [email protected]

5 Bernard C. Barmann, Sr.KERN COUNTY COUNSEL

6 Mark Nations, ChiefDeputy1115 Truxtun Avenue, Fourth Floor

7 Bakersfield, CA 93301Phone: (661) 868-3800

8 Fax: (661) 868-3805E-mail: [email protected]

9

10 Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern,Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher,

11 Jennifer Abraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smithand William Roy

12

20 Defendants.

19 COUNTY OF KERN, et al.,



13

14

15

16 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.

17 Plaintiff,

18 vs.

21

22

23

24 PROPOUNDING PARTY:

25 RESPONDING PARTY;

26 SET NUMBER:

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

) DEFENDANTS' SECOND

) SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO) PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR

) PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET) ONE)

Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007) Trial Date: August 26, 2008)))))



ONE (1)

27

28

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSESTO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES






10 08 04:45p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 pA

1 REQUEST FQR PRQDUCTION NO. 66

2 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO munthly lum-arOllild-lime reports and logs

3 - by pathologist - for pathology reports processed at Kern Medical Center, including but not

4 limited to Pathology Department Semi-annual Reports to the Medical Staff, for the time period

5 fTom January I, 1999 to the present.

6 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REOCEST :\TO. 66

7 Defendants previously produced documents responsive to this request for years 200I

8 to 2005. Those documents are bates numbered 0014575 - 0014595, Dcfcndants are continuing

9 to search for documents for years 1999,2000 and 2006 but have not been able to fmd them yet.

10 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 67

11 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO monthly or semi-monthly turn-around-time

12 repOlts and logs - for Kern Medical Center's Pathology Department as a whole - lor pathology

13 reports processed at Kcrn Mcdical Ccntcr including but not limited to surgical pathology,

14 cytology and bone marrow reports, for the time period from January I, 1999 to the present.

15 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQLEST :'110.67

16 Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request on March 11,2008,


18 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO PATHOLOGY REPORTS RELATiNG TO

19 Case Numbers S06-4131, 806·4619, 806-5229, 806-73276.

20 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQCEST :\TQ. 69

21 Defendants previously produced d Q c u m < : n t ~ responsive to this request, the documents are

22 bates numhered 0014453 - 0014503 and 0014709 - 0014792.


24 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO peer review RELATING TO Kern Medical

25 Center's Pathology Department during the time period from January 1, 1995 to the present,

26 including but not limited to computer-generated data. monthly peer review records completed by

27 pathologists, and peer review comment sheets that arc completed by pathologists upon discovery

28 of a discrepancy.

3

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSESTO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORlES




10 08 04:46p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.5

Sl:PPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 70

2 Defendants previously produced documents responsive to this request for 2006. The

3 documents are bates numbered 0014504 - 0014569. Defendants are continuing to search for

4 documents for the other years requested but have not found them yet.


6 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATIKG TO exceptional event logs for histology and

7 pathology on Kern Medical Center's Pathology Department from January 1,2006 to the present.

8 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 71

9 Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request on March 11, 2008.


11 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO paper accession logs at Kern Medical

12 Center's Pathology Department fi'om January 1,2006 to present.


14 Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request on March 11, 2008.


16 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO dictation transcription logs for Plaintiff

17 from June 14,2006 to the present.


19 There are no documents responsive to this request.


21 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO dictation transcription logs for Dr. Philip

22 Dutt from June 14, 2006 to the present.

23 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TQ REQUEST ~ O 77

24 Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request on March 11,2008.

25 REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 78

26 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO placental evaluations conducted by Plaintiff

27 from June 14,2006 to the present.

28

4

DEFENDA"lTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSESTO PLAINTIFFS INTERROGATORIES




10 08 04:46p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.6

2

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 78

Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request on March 11,2008.

3 Dated: March 10, 2008

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

1415

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LA W OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER

B y ; - - - - J 7 ~ / : z A : . . ~ 7 d Z . ~ 0 . ~ · A ~ J ~ ~ : : : = : . . . - - - - _ _ _ _ IMark A. Wasser

Attomey for Defendants, County of K em , e t al.

5

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES

TO PLAINTIFFS INTERROGATORIES






10 08 04:47p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.8

I I, Amy Remly, declare:

2 I am a resident of the State ofCalifornia and over the age of eighteen years, and not a party totbe within action; my business address is 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100, Sacramento, CA 95814. On

3 March 10,2008, I served the within documents: Defendants' Second Supplemental Responses toPlaintifrs Request for Production ofDocuments (Set One).

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

o

o

by transmitting via facsimile from (916) 444-6405 the above listed document(s)without error to the fax number(s) set forth below on tbis date before 5:00 p.m. A copyoftbe transmittal/confirmation sheet is attached, and

by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fullyprepaid, in the United States mail at Sacramento, California addressed as set forthbelow.

by causing personal delivery by of the document(s) listed above to theperson(s) at the address (es) set forth below.

by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed Federal Express Overnight Deliveryenvelope and affixing a pre-paid air bill, and causing the envelope to be delivered to aOvernight Delivery Federal Express agent for delivery at the address set forth below.

Eugene LeeLaw Offices ofEugene Lee555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100Los Angeles, California 90013-1010Facsimile: (213) 596-0487

I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for16 mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with

postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party17 served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one18 day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.

19 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is trueand correct.

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Executed on March 10,2008, at Sacramento, c a l i f o r ~ ~ ~ : - : ~ - ' . - = ' - - ' - _ = - " , - ~ : - : r - _AM:Y REM(hY

-2 - PROOF OF SERVICE





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 7:

Defendant’s Fourth Supplemental Responses to RPD1




May 21 08 05:03p Mark Wasser916-444-6405 p.1

"file Law Offices o Marl\. A.. Wasser400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100Sacramento, Calilornia 9 5 8 ~ 4Office: 9 ~ 6 - 4 4 4 - 6 4 0 0Fax: 9 ~ 6 - 4 4 4 - 6 4 0 5

FaxTo: Eugene Lee From: Mark A. Wasser

Fax: (213) 596-0487 Pages: 6 (including cover page)

Phone: (213) 992-3299 Date: 5121/08

Re: Jadwin v. County of Kern CC:

o Crgent o For Review 0 Please Comment 0 Please Reply 0 Please Recycle

• Comments:

Please see attached Defendants' Fourth Supplemental Responses to Plaintiffs Request ForProduction ofDocuments, Set One.






21 08 05:04p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.3

Defendants hereby submit these supplemental responses to Plaintiff's Request for

2 Production ofDocuments, Set One in response to the May 9,2008 Order ofMagistrate Judge

3 Goldner. The following responses represent those that are due within 10 days of the Order.

4 REQVEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11

5 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Kern Yfedical Center personnel directories

6 or lists, including but not limited to names, direct work phone numbers, departments, etc. which

7 were maintained by YOU during Plaintiffs employment with YOU.

8 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 11

9 Defendants have already produced all documents responsive to this request.

10 REQUEST FOR P R O D U C T I Q ~ NO. 23II Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Dr. Phillip Dutt's timesheets, from April 20


13 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NQ. 23



16 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Dr. Savita Shertukde's timesheets, from

17 January 4, 2005 to present.

18 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 24


20 REQUEST FQR PRQDUCTION NO. 26

21 Any and all DOCUMENTS maintained by Plaintiff at Kern Medical Center during his

22 employment by YOU, including any and all e-mails, Groupwise calendars, memoranda, written

23 materials, and computer files stored on Plaintiff's computer at Kern Medical Center's servers.

24 RESPQNSE TQ REQUEST NO. 26

25 Defendants will produce four additional CDs that contain the remaining contents of the

26 hard drive offthe County computer that was assigned to Plaintiff. The CDs will be available for

27 Inspection and copying at KMC on and after May 22, 2008. Plaintiffmay make arrangements

28 with Defendants' counsel to inspect and copy the CDs during normal business hours at KMC.

2

DEFENDANTS' FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'SREQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OFDOCUMENTS






21 08 05:05p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.5

1 Mark A. Wasser CA SB #060160LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER

2 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100Sacramento, CA 95814

3 Phone; (916) 444-6400Fax: (916) 444-6405

4 E-mail: mwasser@markwasseLcom

)_ Bernard C. Barmann. Sr. CA SB #60508

KERN COUNTY COUNSEL6 MarkNations, ChiefDeputy CA SB #1018381115 Truxton Avenue, Fourth FloorBakersfield, CA 93301

7 Phone: (661) 868-3800Fax: (661) 868-3805

8 E-mail: [email protected]

9Attorneys for Defendants County ofKern,

10 Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher,

Jennifer Abraham, Scott Ragland, Toni SmithI I and William Roy

18 COUNTY OF KERN, et ai,

PROOF OF SERVICE



Plaintiff,

VS.

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

))))))

11-------------.)

16

17

12

13

14


19 Defendants.

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PROOF OF SERVIC









(213) 992 -3299

TELEPHONELAW

E U G

OFFICE

ENE L

OF

E E

[email protected]

EMAIL

(213) 596 -0487

FACSIMILE

FAX

5 5 5 WEST F IFTH STREET SUITE 3 1 0 0

Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9001 3-1 01 0

WWW.LOEL.COM

WEBSITE

To:

Fax Number: 2135960487


Re: Jadwin/KC: RDP3

Comments:

Mark,

From: Law Office of Eugene Lee

Date: 07/18/2008

See a t t ached P la i n t i f f ' s r eques t s fo r product ion , s e t 3 .





I Eugene D. Lee SB# 236812LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE

2 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100Los Angeles, California 90013

3 Telephone: (213) 992-3299Facsimile: (213) 596-04874 Email: [email protected]

5 Joan Herrington, SB# 178988BAY AREA EMPLOYMENT LAW OFFICE

6 5032 Woodminster LaneOakland, CA 94602-2614

7 Telephone: (510) 530-4078Facsimile: (510) 530-4725

8 Email: [email protected] to LAWOFFICE OF EUGENE LEE

9

Attorneys for Plaintiff10 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.

11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13

14 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., Case No. 1:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG

17 COUNTY OF KERN; et al.

15

16

18

v.

Plaintiff,

Defendants.

PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS ON

DEFENDANTCOUNTY OF KERN

(SETTHREE)


Pursuant to Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure Rule 34, PlaintiffDavid F. Jadwin hereby requests

19

20

21

22

23

24

PROPOUNDING PARTY:

ANSWERING PARTY:

SET NO.:



Three

25

26

27

28

that, within thirty (30) days of service hereof, you (i) respond in writing to the following requests, and

(ii) produce and pennit the inspection and copying ofthe documents described below at the Law Office

of Eugene Lee, 555 West Fifth St., Suite 3100, Los Angeles, CA 90013.

DEFINITIONS


DEFENDANT COUNTY OF KERN (SET THREE)





1 A. The tenn "PERSON" as used herein includes, without limitation, any natural person,

2 firm, entity, corporation, partnership, association, cooperative, governmental entity or agency, or any

3 other entity.

4 B. The tenns "YOU" and "YOUR" as used herein include Defendant County of Kern

5 ("Defendant") and include without limitation each predecessor and successor-in-interest, as well as any

6 officer, agent, employee, attorney, representative of Defendant and/or any other PERSONS acting under

7 the control of Defendant or on behalfof Defendant.

8 c. The tenn "DOCUMENT' or "DOCUMENTS" as used herein is broadly defined to

9 include all media on which infonnation is recorded or stored, as well as all non-identical copies thereof

10 including copies which bear any notes, notations or markings not found on the originals and all

11 preliminary, intennediate, final and revised drafts of such document. This includes but is not limited to

12 any writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, video or audio recordings, microfilm, data

13 compilations, and electronically-stored information stored in any medium from which infonnation can

14 be obtained such as e-mails, internet browser bookmarks and history, voicemail messages, websites,

15 electronic messages or bulletin boards. As used herein, the tenn "writings" shall include but is not

16 limited to letters, memoranda, reports, and notes whether handwritten or otherwise recorded, whether

17 internal or external to you. Electronically-stored infonnation should be printed for production.

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

19 responding to, concerning, connected with, commenting on, in respect of, about, regarding, discussing,

20 showing, describing, depicting, mentioning, reflecting, analyzing, comprising, constituting, evidencing,

21 and pertaining to, whether in whole or in part.

22 E. The tenn "PERSONNEL FILE" as used herein is broadly defined to include all

23 DOCUMENTS RELATING TO an process improvement file; employee's credentials; qualifications for

24 employment, promotions, transfers, salary, raises, pension eligibility, discipline, separation or other

25 employment action; as well as the "folder", "jacket" or other container of each such file and any

26 attachments thereto and all files maintained by persons employed by you.

27 F. The tenn "PATHOLOGY REPORT" as used herein is broadly defined to include all

28 DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the description of cells and tissues made by a pathologist based on


DEFENDANT COUNTY OF KERN (SET THREE) 2





1 microscopic evidence and lab testing and used to render a diagnosis of a disease, including but not

2 limited to the DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the following associated items: original requisitions and

3 attached DOCUMENTS, RBO electronic documentation logs, peer reviewer comment sheets and

4 attached DOCUMENTS, pathology specimens listed in the clinical history, subsequent pathology

5 specimens, operative reports for pathology specimens, progress notes made by pathology, outside

6 pathologist reports, correspondence and contracts with outside reviewing pathologists, dictation logs

7 from transcription, laboratory reports, surgical pathology reports, cytology reports, and bone marrow

8 reports.

9

10

G.

R.

The terms "and" and "or" when used herein each mean "and/or".

All references to the singular include the plural, and all references to the plural include

11 the singular. All references to the masculine gender include the feminine and neuter genders and vice-

12 versa.

13 INSTRUCTIONS

14 A. This request requires that YOU identify and produce the original or an exact copy of the

15 original of all DOCUMENTS responsive to any of the following numbered requests which are in YOUR

16 possession, custody or control. A DOCUMENT is deemed to be in YOUR possession, custody or

17 control if i t is in YOUR physical custody, or if it is in the physical custody of any PERSON, and YOU:

18 (l) own such DOCUMENT in whole or in part; (2) have a right by contract, statute or otherwise to use,

19 inspect, examine or copy such DOCUMENT on any terms; (3) have an understanding, express or

20 implied, that YOU may use, inspect, examine or copy such DOCUMENT on any terms; or (4) have, as a

21 practical matter, been able to use, inspect, examine or copy such DOCUMENT when YOU have sought

22 to do so. Specifically, and without limiting the foregoing, this request encompasses all DOCUMENTS

23 in the possession, custody or control ofYOU, YOUR attorneys, YOUR employees, YOUR agents,

24 YOUR affiliates, and/or any other PERSON substantially owned or controlled by you.

25 B. YOU are required to engage in a diligent search and make reasonable inquiries in an

26 effort to locate the DOCUMENTS requested.

27 C. If any requested DOCUMENT is not in YOUR possession, custody or control, YOU are

28 required to set forth in YOUR response the location of such DOCUMENT.







1 D. YOU are required to identify with specificity each DOCUMENTwhich is responsive to

2 this request and to organize and label them to correspond with each of the following numbered requests.

3 If a requested DOCUMENT has already been produced in Defendants' Rule 26 initial disclosures, then

4 YOU are requested to indicate such DOCUMENTS by stating their Bates Numbers rather than

5 producing physical duplicates (so as to conserve natural resources).

6 E. All DOCUMENTS which are responsive in whole or in part to any of the following

7 numbered requests shall be produced in full, without abridgement, abbreviation, redaction or

8 expurgation of any sort. If any such DOCUMENTS cannot be produced in full, YOU are required to

9 produce the DOCUMENT to the extent possible and indicate in YOUR written response what portion of

10 the DOCUMENT is not produced and why it could not be produced.

11 F. If any requested DOCUMENT has been destroyed, lost or stolen, YOU are required to se

12 forth in YOUR response the subject matter of such DOCUMENT; the location of any copies of the

13 DOCUMENT; whether the DOCUMENTwas destroyed, lost or stolen; the date of its destruction, loss

14 or theft; and if destroyed, the name of the PERSON who ordered or authorized or was responsible for

15 such destruction.

16 G. Whenever YOU refuse to produce any DOCUMENTS responsive to any of the following

17 numbered requests based upon an objection, YOU are required to (1) identify and describe each such

18 DOCUMENT in sufficient detail to enable Plaintiff to assess the applicability of the objection, (2)

19 produce as much ofthe material requested as to which such objection is not made, and (3) separately,

20 with respect to each remaining part, (a) state the nature ofYOUR objection, (b) set forth each and every

21 ground for YOUR objection, and (c) describe the factual basis, if any, upon which YOU rely in making

22 such objections.

23 H. Whenever YOU refuse to produce any DOCUMENTS responsive to any of the following

24 numbered requests based upon a claim of privilege, YOU are required to: (1) state which privilege is

25 claimed, including the identity of any specific attorney(s) with whom YOU claim a privileged

26 relationship, if any; (2) give a precise statement of the facts upon which the claim of privilege is based;

27 (3) identify and describe each DOCUMENT in sufficient detail to enable Plaintiff to assess the

28 applicability of the privilege or protection by stating: (a) its DOCUMENT type, e.g. letter,







1 memorandum, note, diskette, tape, etc.; (b) the date it was prepared; (c) the name, address, telephone

2 number and title of the PERSON who prepared it; and (d) the name, address, telephone number, and title

3 of each PERSON who received it, if any; and (e) its subject matter;.

4 REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION/INSPECTION

5 REOUESTNO.I02.

6 Any and all consultation reports issued by Johns Hopkins Hospital or Johns Hopkins University

7 or their affiliates RELATING TO the following KMC medical record numbers:

8 a. 806-37

9 b. S06-495

10 c. S06-3511

11 d. S06-4619

12 REOUESTNO.I03.

13 Any and all surgical PATHOLOGY REPORTS RELATING TO the patient(s) corresponding to

14 the following KMC medical record numbers:

15 a S06-4131

16 b. S06-5229

17 REQUEST NO . 104.

18 Any and all handwritten notes in this action which were authored by Marvin Kolb during his

19 tenure at KMC RELATING TO complaints, investigations, corrective action, discipline, demotion,

20 termination, anger management, and/or behavior RELATING TO any ofthe following PERSONS:

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

a. Plaintiff

b. Royce Johnson

c. Edward Taylor

d. Joseph Mansour

e. Scott Ragland

f. Jennifer Abraham

g. Eugene Kercher

h. Irwin Harris







1 1. Peter Bryan

2 J Toni Smith

3 REQUEST NO. 105.

4 Any and all handwritten notes which were authored by Peter Bryan during his tenure at KMC

5 RELATING TO complaints, investigations, corrective action, discipline, demotion, termination, anger

6 management, and/or behavior RELATING TO any of the following PERSONS.

7

8

9

10

1112

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

a. Plaintiff

b. Royce Johnson

c. Edward Taylor

d. Joseph Mansour

e. Scott Ragland

f. Jennifer Abraham

g. Eugene Kercher

h. Irwin Harris

1. Peter Bryan

JToni Smith

Date: July 18, 2008

~ g e n e D. Leew OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE

555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100Los Angeles, California 90013Telephone: (213) 992-3299Facsimile: (213) 596-0487Email: [email protected] for PlaintiffDAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.







1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2 I, the undersigned, hereby declare:

3 I am a resident of Los Angeles in the State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a partyto the action described herein. I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, California. My business4 address is LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE, 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100, Los Angeles, CA

90013. On the date of execution ofthis DOCUMENT, I served the following:5

PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS ON DEFENDANT6 COUNTY OF KERN (SET THREE)

7 on the following parties in this action by and through their attorneys addressed as follows:

8 Mark A. WasserLAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER

9 400 Capitol Mall, Suite II 00

Sacramento, CA 9581410 Fax: (916) 444-6405

11 Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern, PeterBryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher, Jennifer

12 Abraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smith andWilliam Roy

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

12<;] BY UNITED STATES MAIL: I enclosed the DOCUMENT(s) listed above in a sealed envelopewith postage thereon fully prepaid, addressed to the PERSON(s) listed above, and deposited the sealedenvelope with the United States Postal Service at Los Angeles, California. I am aware that on motion of

the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is morethan one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.

12<;] BY FACSIMILE: I transmitted via facsimile the DOCUMENT(s) listed above to the faxnumber(s) set forth above on this date before or around 5:00 p.m. The outgoing facsimile machinetelephone number in this office is (213) 596-0487. The facsimile service used in this office creates atransmission report for each outgoing facsimile transmitted. A copy ofthe transmission report(s) for theservice of this DOCUMENT, properly issued by the facsimile service that transmitted this DOCUMEN"Tand showing that such transmission was (transmissions were) completed without error, is attachedhereto.

12<;] FEDERAL: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of Americathat the above is true and correct and that I took said actions at the direction of a licensed attorneyauthorized to practice before this Federal Court.

Executed on July 18, 2008, at Los Angeles, California.






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 9:

Meet and confer correspondence between the parties







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 10:









15 08 02:47p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.1

The Law Offices of Mark A. Wasser400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2640

Sacramento, California 95814Office: 916-444-6400

Fax: 916-444·6405

FaxTo: Eugene Lee

Fax: (213) 596-0487

Phone: (213) 992-3299

From: Mark A. Wasser


Date: 8/15/08

Re: Jadwin v. County ofKern CC:

D Urgent D For Review D Please Comment D Please Reply D Please Recycle

• Comments:

Please see attached discovery responses.






ug 15 08 02:49p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.8

1 University of their aftiliates RELATlNU TO the follo",",ng KM C medical record numbers:

2

3

4

5

a.

b.

c.

d.

S06-37

806-495

806-3511

806-4619

6 RESPONSE T O REQUEST F O R PR ODUC TION NO . 102

7 The numbers listed in this request are not KMC medical record numbers. Nevertheless,

8 Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request.

9 REQUEST F O R PRODUCTION NO. 103

10 Any and all PATHOLOGY REPORTS RELATI\IG TO the patient(s) corresponding to

II the following KM C medical record numbers:

12

13

a.

b.

S06-4131

S06-5229

14 RESPONSE T O REQUEST F O R PRODUCTIOX NO . 103

15 The numbers listed in this request are not K:YIC medical record numbers. Neve11heless,

16 Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request.

17 REQUEST F O R PRODUCTION NO. 104

18 Any and all handwritten notes in this action which were authored by Marvin Kolb during

19 his tenure at KIvlC RELATING TO complaints, i n v e ~ t i g l l t i o n ~ , correctiYl;' action, d i ~ c i p l i n e ,20 demotion, tennination, anger management and/or behavior RELATING TO any ofthc following

21

22

24

25

26

27

28

PERSONS:

a. Plaintiff

b. Royce Johnson

c. Edward Taylor

d. Joseph Mansour

e. Scott Ragland

f Jennifer Abraham

g. Eugene Kercher

-2-

DEFENDANTS' RESPO'lSES TO PLATNTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET THREE




ug 15 08 02:50p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.9

1

2

h.

1.

Irwin Harris

Peter Bryan

PERSONS:

a. Plaintiff

b. Royce Johnson

c. Edward Taylor

d. Joseph Mansour

e. Scott Ragland

f. Jennifer Abraham

g. Eugene Kercher

h. Irwin Harris

i. Peter Bryan

J. Toni Smith

20

24

23

22

21

3 j. Toni Smith

4 RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 104

5 With regard to Plaintiff, all such notes that Defendants are aware of have been previously

6 produced. With regard to the other individuals, Defendants object to this request on the grounds

7 that it calls for the production of intonnation that is protected by the privacy interests of

& individuals who are not "comparators" as that term has been defined in the reported cases and is

9 not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

10 REQUEST FQRPRODUCTION NO. lOS

11 Any and all handwritten notes in this action which were authored by Peter Bryan during

12 his tenure at KMC RELATING TO complaints, investigations, corrective action, discipline,

13 demotion, tennination, anger management and/or behavior RELATING TO any of the follo\'\'ing

14

15

16

17

18

19

25 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 104

26 With regard to Plaintiff, all such notes that Defendants are aware of have been previously

27 produccd. With rcgard to thc othcr individuals, Defendants object to this request on the grounds

28 that it calls for thc production of infonnation that is protected by the privacy interests of

-3-

DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET THREE




ug 15 08 02:50p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.10

individuals who are not "comparators" as that term has been defined in the reported cases and is

2 not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1112

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2122

23

24

25

26

27

28

Dated: August 1S, 2008 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER

Mark A. Wasser

Attorney for Defendants, County ofKern, et al.

-4-DEFE'IDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTlFF 'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET THREE




ug 15 08 02:50p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.11

:\1ark A. Wasser CA 58 #060160LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER

' I 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2640Sacramento, CA 95814

3 Phone: (916) 444-6400Fax: (916) 444-6405


5 Bernard C. Barmann, Sr. CA S8 #60508KERN COUNTY COUNSEL

6Mark Nations, ChiefDeputy CA SB #1018381115 Truxtun Avenue. Fourth FloorBakersfield, CA 93301

7 Phone: (661) 868-3800Fax: (661) 868-3805


9Attorneys for Defendants County ofKern,

10 Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher,

Jennifer Abraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smith11 andWilliamRoy

12

13

14




Case No.: 1:07-cv-00026-0'i'lW-TAG

16

17 vs.

Plaintiff, ROOF OF SERVICE

18 COUNTY OF KERN, et aI.,

19 Defendants.

20

2122

23

24

25

26

27

28

PROOF OF SERVICE




ug 15 08 02:51 p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.12

1 I, Amy Remly, declare:

2 I am a resident ofthc State of California and over the age of eighteen years, and not a party tothe within action; my business address is 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2640, Sacramento. CA 95814. On

3 August 15,2008, I served thc within documents:

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1112

13

14

15

16

D

D

D

• Defendants' Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Admission, Set Two• Defendants' Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Admission, Set Three• Defendants' Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production, Set Three

by transmitting via facsimile from (916) 444-6405 the above listed document(s)

' I \ ~ t h o u t error to the fax number(s) set forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m. A copy

of the transmittal/confirmation sheet is attached. and

by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully

prepaid, in the United States mail at Sacramento, California addressed as set forth

below.

by causing personal delivery by of the document(s) listed above to the

person(s) at the address (es) set forth below.

by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed Federal Express Overnight Deliveryenvelope and affixing a pre-paid air bill, and causing the envelope to be delivered to a

Overnight Delivery Federal Express agent for delivery at the address set forth below.

Eugene LeeLaw Offices ofEugene Lee555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100Los Angeles, California 90013-1010Facsimile: (213) 596-0487

17 I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence formailing. Cnder that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with

18 postage thereon ful ly prepaid in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party

served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one

19 day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.

20 I declare under penalty ofperjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is trueand correct.

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Executed on August 15,2008, at Sacramento, C a l i l l i ~ \ I U \ h A M Y R E M ~

-2 - PROOF OF SERVICE






1

Eugene D. Lee

From: Eugene D. Lee [[email protected]]Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 10:14 PMTo: '[email protected]'Subject: Discovery Responses

Mark,

Thank you for your fax of August 15, 2008. I am writing to meet and confer regarding Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s

latest discovery requests.

RFA2 consisting of RFA nos. 291 to 294 and RFA3 consisting of RFA nos. 295 to 296 request authentication and business

record determination to documents which were identified in an attached schedule. Defendants have responded as

follows:

“Defendants object to this request on the ground that it calls for a legal conclusion and, in that sense, is a contention

inquiry and not a proper request for admission. Defendants will be prepared to address authentication and business

records determination at the pre‐trial conference.”

Plaintiff’s position is that these are standard authentication and business record RFAs. Plaintiff intends to move to

compel responses and/or to deem them admitted.

RPD3 includes RPD nos. 104 and 105, requesting handwritten notes of Dr. Kolb and Mr. Bryan, respectively, relating to

complaints and corrective action of certain persons. Defendants have responded as follows:

“With regard to Plaintiff, all such notes that Defendants are aware of have been previously produced. With regard to the

other individuals, Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of information that is

protected by the privacy interests of individuals who are not "comparators" as that term has been defined in the

reported cases and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”

Plaintiff’s position is that Defendants’ are not complying with the Stipulation & Order re Privacy (Doc. 137). Unless

Defendants produce these documents immediately (and prior to Plaintiff’s re‐convening of Mr. Bryan’s deposition),

Plaintiff will move to compel not only their production, but also re‐convening of Mr. Bryan’s deposition yet again.

Plaintiff will also consider moving to compel reconvening of Dr. Kolb’s deposition.

Plaintiff also reminds Defendants that they must supplement all prior document production in conformity with the

Stipulation & Order re Privacy. It is apparent that Defendants are laboring under an incorrect conception of the nature

and boundaries of the privacy order which the Court had issued.

Please let me know your response to the foregoing at your earliest convenience as the cutoff date for non‐dispositive

motions fast approaches.

Sincerely,

Gene Lee

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

L A W O F F I C E O F E U G E N E L E E

E M P L O Y M E N T L A W

5 5 5 W E S T F I F T H S T . , S T E . 3 1 0 0L O S A N G E L E S , C A 9 0 0 1 3

T e l : ( 2 1 3 ) 9 9 2 - 3 2 9 9





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

EXHIBIT 13:





1

Eugene D. Lee

From: Eugene D. Lee [[email protected]]Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 10:08 AMTo: '[email protected]'Subject: Discovery Meet and Confer

Mark,

We will be sending you a detailed list of the pathology dept-related documents which we still have not received

in response to Plaintiff’s requests for production, set one.

Also, there are additional discovery requests which remain at issue:

REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 102

Any and all consultation reports issued by Jolm Hopkins Hospital or John Hopkins University of their aftiliatesRELATlNU TO the follo",",ng KMC medical record numbers:

S06-37

806-495806-3511

806-4619

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 102The numbers listed in this request are not KMC medical record numbers. Nevertheless,



Any and all PATHOLOGY REPORTS RELATING TO the patient(s) corresponding to the following KMC

medical record numbers:S06-4131

S06-5229

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 103The numbers listed in this request are not KMC medical record numbers. Nevertheless, Defendants will produce

all documents responsive to this request. produce all documents responsive to this request.

Since the deadline for motions to compel is Sept. 2, we kindly request your prompt response regarding the

above at your earliest convenience.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Gene Lee

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




T e l : ( 2 1 3 ) 9 9 2 - 3 2 9 9





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

EXHIBIT 14:





1

Eugene D. Lee

From: Eugene D. Lee [[email protected]]Sent: Monday, September 01, 2008 10:20 AMTo: '[email protected]'Cc: 'Karen Barnes'Subject: FW: Path Doc Requests See my comments and edit before sending to WasserAttachments: image002.gif

Mark,

Please see below re pathology-related documents. As we discussed during the depos, Plaintiff will be pre-

emptively filing a motion to compel tomorrow but will withdraw the motion once the below documents requestsare resolved.

FNA REPORTS

We need additional computer records in the HBO system that demonstrate the log of changes by date and time

made to the FNA reports sent to UCLA. The reports that we have don’t contain all of the documentation.


Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO case send-out logs for Kern Medical

Center’s Pathology Department from January 1, 1999 to the present, including but not limited to


This should be about 800 or more cases, probably 5 boxes full. These are located in files in the pathology office,

and some in pathology storage.

These are logs of cases that were sent out to outside facilities, both slides and KMC reports. Most will have areport from the outside facility when the slides were returned to KMC after review.








2





Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO monthly turn-around-time reports and logs

– by pathologist – for pathology reports processed at Kern Medical Center, including but not

limited to Pathology Department Semi-annual Reports to the Medical Staff, for the time period







We have not received any semi-annual pathology department notes before or after those written by Jadwin.

The TAT reports should be printed by pathologist for monthly (or

quarterly) periods using the HBO reporting system. Kathy Griffith knows how to generate these reports.Reports should be generated for:

Freedman, Ang, Lang, Liu, Jadwin, Dutt, Shertudke, and the new pathologist.

Reports can be generated for Surgical Cases (S99- through S08-), Fine Needle Aspiration (F01- through F08-),

Non-Gynecologic Cytology (N01- through N08-) and Bone Marrows (B01- through B08-).





3

Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO monthly or semi-monthly turn-around-time

reports and logs – for Kern Medical Center’s Pathology Department as a whole – for pathology reportsprocessed at Kern Medical Center including but not limited to surgical pathology,

cytology and bone marrow reports, for the time period from January 1,1999 to the present.






Same as above, but for all pathologists as a whole.










Explanatory.






5

information. Defendants also object on the ground that it requests information that is

confidential under HIPAA and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce documents responsive to

this request by January 7, 2008 if it is possible to redact the confidential and privileged

information without rendering the resulting document useless.

These includes peer review data contained in the a peer review Access File maintained by the departmentsecretary (Tracy Lindsey). This should be printed out by year for each and every pathologist in the system

(anyone that worked from 2001 onwards. This report should print out case numbers with an associated original

pathologist, reviewing pathologist and review code (letter-number): A-C and 0 or 1. This data should beprovided in paper and electronic formats.

We also need to have corresponding peer review logs that are filled out each month by each and every

pathologist. These are also maintained in the pathology office.

This would also include all corresponding peer review sheets containing comments related to review that arefilled out by hand by the reviewing pathologist. There should be a review sheet for any consultation (A) and any

case scored (“1”). There are about 20 four inch binders in the pathology department containing these sheetscompleted by the reviewer.

Some may be in pathology storage behind the hospital.


Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO exceptional event logs for histology and

pathology on Kern Medical Center’s Pathology Department from January 1,








6

requests documents that contain privileged peer review information.

Without waiving these



There should be exceptional event sheets filled out by pathologist and the histology section each month from2001 to present. Typically there are 5 to 10 sheets generated each month. They are maintained in the pathology

office and/or in pathology storage.l











These are specimen accession logs that Vangie or other person in histology record all incoming specimens thatare received each day. It lists the case number, the number of specimens and the labeling of each container




7







requests documents that contain privileged peer review information.Without waiving these



All tissue destruction and/or disposal logs for tissue disposed by the pathology department that included skull

flaps removed during surgery.



Department by outside consultants, including but not limited to Dr.

Stacey Garry, from October











8


Explanatory. Obtain any documents in the possess of Dr. Garry, who now lives in Idaho. She is a relative of a

laboratory employee.


Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO dictation transcription logs for Plaintiff




These are reports generated by the transcription department. They are generated on a daily basis and stored inthe pathology office in binders. If there are missing reports, then transcription can print the reports by day

listing the dictation of each pathologist, the case number, the type of dictation, the length of dictation, etc.


Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO dictation transcription logs for Dr.

Philip







9

Same thing.




Copies of all placental reports during the time period specified completed by the department of pathology,

including those of all pathologists.

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 3 T e l : ( 2 1

3 ) 9 9 2 - 3 2 9 9 F a x : ( 2 1 3 ) 5 9 6 - 0 4 8 7 E - 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 anyattachments.





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 15:





1

Eugene D. Lee

From: Mark Wasser [[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 6:48 PMTo: [email protected]: RE: Continued PMK

Gene,

The IT guy at KMC says he cannot sort the database to print what you want in less than 4 days. I realize Dr. Jadwinthinks the IT guy is wrong but that is what I am told. So, no, I cannot produce additional documents by Thursday.

Mark

From: Eugene D. Lee [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 6:42 PM

To: [email protected]: RE: Continued PMK

Are we going to have the Pathology-related documents prior to Dutt’s continued PMK depo, per your proposeddual-track schedule for Thurs?

Sincerely,

Gene Lee

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




T e l : ( 2 1 3 ) 9 9 2 - 3 2 9 9F a x : ( 2 1 3 ) 5 9 6 - 0 4 8 7E - m a i l : [email protected]

W e b s i t e : www.LOEL.com B l o g : www.CaLaborLaw.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this

transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.

From: Mark Wasser [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 6:35 PMTo: [email protected]: Karen Barnes; Assistant to Mark A. WasserSubject: Continued PMK

Gene,






1

Eugene D. Lee

From: Mark Wasser [[email protected]]Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 7:59 PMTo: [email protected]: Karen Barnes; Assistant to Mark A. WasserSubject: RE: Path Docs/PMK due processAttachments: image001.gif

Gene,

With regard to the pathology turn-around reports, we have consulted with James Pusavat, the interim laboratorymanager, and Eric Santerre, the clinical laboratory supervisor. They both state that the STAR software is notable to print monthly turnaround reports by pathologist. Eric has verified that no such report exists in the SQLdatabase. To run the reports Dr. Jadwin has requested would require that Eric (or an outside programmer at ~$200/hour) write a special SQL report and then program the system with the requisite codes. The reports wouldthen have to be downloaded into a PC and placed into a readable format - such as Excel.

James and Eric estimate it would take between two to five days, depending on competing workload, to write theSQL report and program STAR. It would take another 4 to 5 days to print and collate the reports. Nothing inthe FRCP requires the County to create documents that do not exist and cannot be readily generated by existingsoftware.If Dr. Jadwin wants to discuss paying for it, that is a different issue.I will get you an estimate of the cost, if you want.

With regard to the “due process” subjects in the PMK (items 15, 16 and 17), there is no witness who can testifyon these topics. The topics are somewhat artificial and, although I understand you do not intend for them to be

“contention” requests, they are. Existing discovery has established what happened pretty clearly. Dr. Jadwindid not appear before the JCC at the time it considered removing him as chair. He did not request theopportunity to appear. He did not communicate with anyone at the County after the JCC meeting about thevote. He maintained the silence and absence that had characterized the previous several months. Dr. Jadwinwas not consulted before he was placed on administrative leave. The only discussions regarding the non-renewal of his contract were between you and me and arose in the context of an unsuccessful settlement effortto buy out his contract. I understand what Mr. Watson said at his deposition but you will find that there were nodiscussions of that subject other than the ones you and I had. The “decision” to not renew the contract was nomore than a consequence of not being able to settle the dispute. As to whether the County believes Dr. Jadwinhad a protected constitutional interest in the salary he lost, that is a legal issue.

I am willing to draft some undisputed facts about the issue but cannot complete that tonight. However, forpurposes of the PMK, there is no witness.

With regard to the terms of Dr. Jadwin’s employment contract, base compensation and professional fees, if the witnesses you depose next Tuesday do not satisfactorily respond to those subjects, we will offersupplemental witnesses after I return from vacation.




2

Mark

________________________________

From: Eugene D. Lee [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 5:01 PMTo: [email protected]: Path Docs/PMK due process

Mark,

As we discussed, please let me know what the status is re:

1) Pathology dept-related documents (Plaintiff’s requests forproduction, set one, nos. 65-78)

2) PMK reps who will address items 15-17 of Plaintiff’s PMK deponotice (due process-related items). Just to remind you, Plaintiff is seeking PMKs who can address: a) the termsof Plaintiff’s employment contract dated 2002 regarding base comp and professional fees, b) KMC’s practice ofrenewing or not renewing physician contracts, c) the procedure which Kern gave to Plaintiff in connection withremoval, administrative leave and non-renewal

We will not be able to depose PMK (Dutt) on items 28 or 29 (monthly turnaround times for pathology,plaintiff’s work performance) on next Tuesday unless we are in receipt of the documents cited in paragraph 1)above.

Please contact me anytime (including this weekend) if you want to discuss the above.





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 17:

Declaration of Eugene Lee in Support of Motion




DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION1

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,v.


Defendants.


DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE IN

SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPELPRODUCTION




Plaintiff submits this Declaration of Eugene D. Lee pursuant to Local Rule 37-251(d) in lieu of a

joint statement re discovery disagreement.

I, Eugene D. Lee, declare as follows:

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

California and admitted to practice before the U.S.D.C. for the Eastern District of California. I am

counsel of record for Plaintiff David F. Jadwin in this matter.

2. I am making this declaration in support of plaintiff’s motion to compel production. 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. I have spent and anticipate spending substantially in excess of 8.8 hours meeting and

conferring with Mr. Wasser by phone, fax, letter and email, researching and drafting these moving

papers and attending the motion hearing in Bakersfield, CA. My regular rate for such services is $400






DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION3

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

active practice as the General Counsel of Tcom America, Inc., a technology venture in Silicon Valley

from 1999 to 2002. From 2002 to 2004, I worked as a senior associate for Kim & Chang, a law firm

located in Seoul, Korea. In 2005, I was admitted to the California Bar. I have been the principal of Law

Office of Eugene Lee since 2005.

8. I attempted several times to secure local counsel to prosecute Plaintiff’s suit but was

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

Employment Lawyers Association seeking co-counsel. No attorneys from Fresno responded. On

February 28, 2007, I called Andrew Jones, Esq. in Fresno, CA, requesting his involvement as local

counsel in this action. Mr. Jones declined.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the United States

that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on: September 23, 2008

/s/ Eugene D. Lee

EUGENE D. LEEDeclarant




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10


I, the undersigned, hereby declare:

I am a resident of Los Angeles in the State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party

to the action described herein. I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, California. My businessaddress is LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE, 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100, Los Angeles, CA90013. On the date of execution of this DOCUMENT, I served the following:

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPELPRODUCTION

on the following parties in this action by and through their attorneys addressed as follows:

Mark A. WasserLAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100Sacramento CA 95814
