83 MTC Declaration Re Joint Statement

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 83 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 1 of 207
1 Eugene D. Lee SB#: 236812

LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE
2 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100
Los Angeles, CA 90013
3 Phone: (213) 992-3299
Fax: (213) 596-0487
4 email: elee@LOEL.com
5 Joan Herrington, SB# 178988
BAY AREA EMPLOYMENT LAW OFFICE
6 5032 Woodminster Lane
Oakland, CA 94602-2614
7 Telephone: (510) 530-4078
Facsimile: (510) 530-4725
8 Email: jh@baelo.com
Of Counsel to LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE
9
Attorneys for Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.
10
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13
DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG
14
Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE re:
15 v. INABILITY TO SECURE COOPERATION
OF DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL TO
16 COUNTY OF KERN, et al., PREPARE AND EXECUTE JOINT
STATEMENT
17 Defendants.
Date: January 14, 2008
18 Time: 9:30 a.m.
Place: U.S. District Court, Bankruptcy Courtroom
19 1300 18th St., Bakersfield, CA
20 Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007
Date Set for Trial: December 3, 2008
21
22 Plaintiff submits this Declaration of Eugene D. Lee pursuant to Local Rule 37-251(d) in lieu of a
23 joint statement re discovery disagreement.
24 //
25 //
26 //
27 //
28 ///
DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE re: INABILITY TO SECURE COOPERATION OF
DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL TO PREPARE AND EXECUTE JOINT STATEMENT 1
1 I, Eugene D. Lee, declare as follows:

2 1. I am counsel of record for Plaintiff. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth
3 below and I could and would competently testify thereto if called as a witness in this matter.
4 2. Pursuant to Local Rule 37-251, I attempted to secure the cooperation of Defendants’
5 counsel, Mark Wasser, to prepare and execute a joint statement re discovery disagreement. I had
6 numerous, extensive meet and confer discussions with Mr. Wasser by phone, email and fax. On Friday,
7 January 4, 2008, at around 4 p.m., I sent Mr. Wasser a draft version of the Joint Statement re: Discovery
8 Disagreement by fax, requesting his input. I explained in the cover letter that the draft was a work in
9 progress and remained subject to change. I also sent to Mr. Wasser, via first-class mail, a copy of the
10 exhibits which I intended to attach to the Joint Statement. Later that day, at around 11 p.m., I sent Mr.
11 Wasser another draft of the Joint Statement by fax, again requesting his input.
12 3. On January 9, 2008, I approached Mr. Wasser at a deposition he was conducting of my
13 client, Plaintiff David Jadwin, and asked him for his feedback on the Joint Statement. He responded that
14 he intended to file a Declaration re Joint Statement stating that I had not delivered to him the exhibits to
15 the Joint Statement for his review. I explained I had mailed the exhibits to him, per my fax of January 4,
16 2008. I also offered to give him an electronic version of the exhibits right then and there. Mr. Wasser
17 refused. The exhibits consist exclusively of faxes, letters and emails exchanged between myself and Mr.
18 Wasser, all of which Mr. Wasser already has in his possession.
19 4. To date, I have not received any response from Mr. Wasser regarding the Joint Statement.
20 5. Attached hereto as Attachment A is a true and correct copy of the draft Joint Statement
21 which I had prepared.
22 6. Defendants refuse to produce documents in response to Plaintiff’s request for production
23 set one unless and until Plaintiff reimburses Defendants for copy costs which Defendants incurred
24 without once consulting with Plaintiff. Plaintiff had requested Defendants produce the documents for
25 Plaintiff’s inspection and copying at its own cost, but Defendants’ refused, insisting on reimbursement
26 for the copies which it had unilaterally made. Plaintiff has moved this Court to compel Defendants to
27 produce the documents.
28 7. Defendants refuse to produce a privilege log unless and until Plaintiff reimburses
1 Defendants for the above-referenced copy costs. Plaintiff contends that the copy costs have nothing to
2 do with the privilege log and Defendants should have timely produced it.
3 8. Defendants invoke peer review privilege based upon state law. Plaintiff contends that
4 state privilege law does not apply in federal question jurisdiction cases in federal court. Plaintiff also
5 contends that there is no federal peer review privilege.
6 9. Defendants invoke numerous other objections and privileges which Plaintiff contends are
7 improper and/or baseless.
8 10. Briefing regarding Plaintiff’s above-referenced contentions is contained in the draft Joint
9 Statement, attached hereto as Attachment A.
10
11 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the United States
12 that the foregoing is true and correct.
13
Executed on: January 9, 2008
14
15
16 /s/ Eugene D. Lee
17 EUGENE D. LEE
Declarant
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 ATTACHMENT A
28

3 Phone: (213) 992-3299
Fax: (213) 596-0487
7 Telephone: (510) 530-4078
Facsimile: (510) 530-4725
9
10
Mark A. Wasser CA SB #06160
11 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100
12 Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 444-6400
13 Fax: (916) 444-6405
Email: mwasser@markwasser.com
14
Bernard C. Barmann, Sr.
15 KERN COUNTY COUNSEL
Mark Nations, Chief Deputy
16 1115 Truxton Avenue, Fourth Floor
Bakersfield, CA 93301
17 Phone: (661) 868-3800
Fax: (661) 868-3805
18 Email: mnations@co.kern.ca.us
19 Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern, Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher, Jennifer
Abraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smith, and William Roy.
20
21
22
23
Plaintiff, JOINT STATEMENT RE: DISCOVERY
24 v. DISAGREEMENT
25 COUNTY OF KERN, et al., Date: January 14, 2008
Time: 9:30 a.m.
26 Defendants. Place: U.S. District Court, Bankruptcy Courtroom
1300 18th St., Bakersfield, CA
27
Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007
28 Date Set for Trial: December 3, 2008
JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 1

1 This joint statement re: discovery disagreement is submitted pursuant to Local Rule 37-251(a) in
2 advance of the January 14, 2008 hearing on Plaintiff’s motion to compel production and further
3 responses to Plaintiff’s requests for production, set one (“RPD1”).
4
I. DETAILS OF THE PARTIES’ DISCOVERY CONFERENCES
5
6 The parties engaged in a prolonged “meet and confer” process that was conducted by letter,
7 email and phone over the course of several months as shown in the attached Exhibits. Plaintiff David F.
8 Jadwin (“Plaintiff”) served RPD1 on Defendant County of Kern (“Defendant”) on October 11, 2007.
9 After Defendant served initial responses to Plaintiff’s RPD1 (“Response 1”) on November 20, 2007,
10 Plaintiff met and conferred extensively with Defendant in an attempt to resolve discovery disputes. As
11 Defendant has admitted, Plaintiff has tried to be “flexible” with Defendant in extending deadlines and
12 narrowing request language. Plaintiff even gave technological advice on optical scanning, OCR
13 functions, and cost-efficient purchase of Adobe Acrobat 8.0.
14 On December 17, 2007, four days before the agreed-upon December 21, 2007 deadline to
15 produce documents, Defendant suddenly demanded Plaintiff pay $10,000 (later reduced to $3,765) in
16 reimbursement of Kern County’s copy costs. Defendant stated that if it was not in receipt of such
17 payment, Defendant would not produce any documents at all. Defendant admits it had not previously
18 raised this issue with Plaintiff.
19 Plaintiff initially agreed to pay under protest, but after researching case law and upon being
20 further informed by Defendant for the first time that “Many of the documents you have requested have,
21 at most, a very tenuous connection to any issues in the case”, Plaintiff hesitated to pay such a substantial
22 and possibly wasteful sum for possibly unnecessary copies which Defendant had unilaterally made
23 without consulting Plaintiff. Unlike Defendant Kern County, Plaintiff is an individual and cannot easily
24 bear such a cost.
25 On December 19, 2007, Defendant served supplemental responses (“Response 2”). As compared
26 to Response 1, Response 2 raised new objections, contained overbroad objections, contained new
27 refusals to produce, etc. Despite extensive meet and confers, Response 2 represented a step backward
28 from Response 1.

1 In lieu of paying Defendant’s demanded sum of $3,765 for copies, Plaintiff requested Defendant
2 produce originals for inspection and copying at Plaintiff’s office, as had been requested in Plaintiff’s
3 RPD1. Defendants refused and, to date, continue to withhold documents and the associated privilege
4 log.
5 Following is a brief chronology of relevant events:
6 October 11, 2007 Plaintiff serves requests for production, set one, on Defendant,
requesting written responses by November 12, 2007 and
7 production by November 16, 2007.
8 October 31, 2007 Defendant requests extension of deadlines to December 21,
2007.
9
November 1, 2007 Parties meet and confer by phone.
10
November 7, 2007 Parties meet and confer by phone. Plaintiff agrees to permit
11 both responses and production in three separate installments
due November 16, December 7 and December 21. Defendant
12 requests stipulation to delay pre-trial and trial deadlines by
three months to accommodate Defendant’s document
13 processing requirements. Plaintiff later agrees.
14 November 14, 2007 Parties meet and confer by phone. Defendant confirms
production/response deadlines.
15
November 15, 2007 Plaintiff’s counsel, Eugene Lee, speaks by phone with
16 Defendant’s counsel, Mark Wasser, and his assistant and
guides them through the OCR and redaction functions of
17 Adobe Acrobat 8.0. In an email, Mr. Lee advises Mr. Wasser
on cost-efficient methods to purchase Acrobat.
18
November 20, 2007 Defendant serves written responses (“Response 1”) indicating
19 production dates of November 20, December 7 and December
21, and the first document production installment (“Production
20 1”). Production 1 contains up to 8 duplicate sets of the same
documents. Parties meet and confer by emails.
21
November 21, 2007 Parties meet and confer by phone regarding Response 1.
22 Defendant agrees that Defendant’s objection “documents
protected from disclosure by state or federal law” is overbroad
23 and intends to revise its responses.
24 November 26, 2007 Parties meet and confer by phone regarding Response 1.
Defendant clarifies that its objection, “documents protected
25 from disclosure by state or federal law”, refers specifically to
HIPAA and peer review privilege. Defendant agrees to revise
26 Response 1 accordingly by November 30.
27 At Defendant’s request, Plaintiff narrows Request 33 by
revising it to read:
28

1 “Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO complaints or

grievances made by YOUR past or present employees against
2 YOU for defamation, retaliation, disability discrimination,
failure to accommodate, and/or failure to engage in an
3 interactive process RELATING TO Kern Medical Center
and/or its officers or staff, including but not limited to any
4 informal or internal complaints, grievances or charges to any
state or federal agency, and complaints filed in any state or
5 federal court from October 24, 2000 to date.”
(redlined to show revisions)
6
November 30, 2007 Parties meet and confer by phone regarding Response 1.
7
December 3, 2007 Parties meet and confer by phone. Defendant reiterates
8 production deadlines of December 7 and December 21.
Defendant states that it will serve privilege log on December 6.
9
December 7, 2007 Defendant fails to produce second document installment
10 (“Production 2”) or privilege log.
11 December 13, 2007 Defendant serves incomplete privilege log relating only to
Production 1 (“Log 1”).
12
December 14, 2007 Parties meet and confer by email regarding Response 1.
13 Defendant makes no mention of reimbursement costs and
states “I expect to produce the remaining documents before
14 December 21”.
15 December 17, 2007 Parties meet and confer by phone and emails. Defendant raises
the issue of copy reimbursement costs for the first time and
16 demands Plaintiff pay $10,000 in actual and “estimated”
copy costs, otherwise, Defendant will not produce Production
17 2.
18 December 19, 2007 Defendant sends fax to Plaintiff requesting Plaintiff’s payment
of $3,765 in reimbursement of Defendant’s copy costs.
19 Defendant admits “You are correct that we did not raise the
issue of costs earlier.”
20
Defendant serves supplemental responses (“Response 2”).
21 Response 2 is deficient in that it:
22 - raises new objections which were waived in Response
1;
23 - fails to narrow Defendant’s overly-broad objection
“documents protected from disclosure by state or
24 federal law” as had been agreed on several occasions;
- adds several new refusals to produce documents,
25 despite agreeing to such production in meet and confer;
- refuses to produce documents based on privilege
26 instead of producing redacted versions;
- refuses to produce in response to Request 35 in
27 disregard of Plaintiff’s narrowing of Request 35 that
Defendant had requested and agreed to.
28 - conditions all production on receipt of reimbursement

1 of its estimated copy costs of $3,765.

2 December 20, 2007 Plaintiff sends fax to Defendant refusing to pay the demanded
reimbursement and requesting Defendant produce original
3 documents for Plaintiff’s inspection and copying by December
21.
4
Defendant tells Plaintiff that it is suspending production of
5 documents.
6 December 21, 2007 Defendant fails to produce second document installment or
privilege log (“Log 2”).
7
December 28, 2007 Plaintiff and Defendant exchange meet and confer emails
8 regarding the cost reimbursement issue.
9 December 31, 2007 Plaintiff and Defendant meet and confer by phone and emails
regarding the cost reimbursement issue and the numerous
10 deficiencies in Response 2.
11 January 2, 2008 Plaintiff and Defendant meet and confer by emails regarding
the cost reimbursement issue. Defendant admits to mis-
12 remembering events.
13 January 4, 2008 Plaintiff and Defendant meet and confer by emails regarding
the cost reimbursement issue. Defendants states they have
14 identified case citations which definitively establish the
correctness of their position. Defendants ask Plaintiff to share
15 case citations in support of Plaintiff’s position, but when asked
to do the same, they refuse.
16
17 II. A STATEMENT OF THE NATURE OF THE CASE AND FACTUAL DISPUTES
18
Plaintiff David F. Jadwin, D.O., F.C.A.P., former Chair of Pathology at Kern Medical Center
19
(“KMC”) and senior pathologist from October 24, 2000 to October 4, 2007, filed a Complaint with this
20
Court on January 6, 2007. Plaintiff contends that various defendants retaliated against and defamed him
21
for reporting his concerns about patient care quality issues at KMC. As a result, Plaintiff was forced to
22
take medical and recuperative leave for disabling clinical depression in early 2006. While Plaintiff was
23
on leave, Defendants demoted him in June 2006 to a staff pathologist for “unavailability” and refused to
24
reinstate him upon his return to work on October 4, 2006. On December 7, 2006, he was placed on
25
involuntary administrative leave and restricted to his home during working hours until May 1, 2007.
26
Around May 1, 2007, Defendant informed Plaintiff of its decision to either “buy out” the remaining term
27
of his contract (due to expire on October 4, 2007) or simply let the contract “run out”. On October 4,
28

1 2007, Defendants did not renew Plaintiff’s employment contract.

2 Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges whistleblower retaliation, disability discrimination, medical leave
3 interference and retaliation, defamation and deprivation of compensation and professional fees without
4 procedural due process. Critical to Plaintiff’s case is evidence that Plaintiff was treated differently from
5 other similarly situated individuals at KMC, i.e., so-called “comparators”, as a result of discrimination
6 and retaliation by Defendants.
7 Defendants contend that the dispute arose out of Plaintiff’s tenure as a pathologist at Kern
8 Medical Center. Plaintiff’s relationship with other members of the medical staff deteriorated to the point
9 of intimidation, hostility and antagonism. Defendants contend, to the extent that any hostile work
10 environment existed, it was caused by Plaintiff.
11
III. THE CONTENTION OF EACH PARTY AS TO EACH CONTESTED ISSUE
12
13 A. Defendant’s Refusal to Produce Documents or Privilege Log until Plaintiff
Reimburses Defendant for Copy Costs
14
1. Plaintiff’s Position
15
a. The Privilege Log
16
During a meet and confer call of December 31, 2007, Defendants stated that they refused to
17
produce the final privilege log, Log 2, until the cost reimbursement issue regarding production of
18
Production 2 has been resolved. Later that day, Plaintiff sent an email to Defendants stating: “Contrary
19
to what you said on the call, production of the privilege log should not be made contingent on actual
20
production of the documents.” Presumably Defendants are not asking Plaintiff to reimburse it for copy
21
costs associated with Log 2. As such, Defendants should have provided Log 2 to Plaintiff on December
22
21, 2007. Instead, nearly three months after Plaintiff had first served the requests for production set one,
23
they continue to withhold it.
24
The Court should deem all privileges asserted by Defendants waived. The Court has discretion to
25
reject a claim of privilege where an insufficient privilege log is provided. United States v. Construction
26
Products Research, Inc. (2nd Cir. 1996) 73 F3d 464, 473; United States v. British American Tobacco
27
(Investments) Ltd. (DC Cir. 2004) 387 F3d 884, 890–891.
28

1 b. Defendants Rely upon a Misreading of Caselaw

2 Defendants have cited “page 11-236, section 11:1937 of the Schwarzer, Tashima and Wagstaffe
3 handbook on federal practice” in meet and confers for the proposition that the requesting party must pay
4 the producing party’s copy costs. Section 11:1937 reads:
5 Ordinarily, the producing party bears the costs of reviewing and gathering documents
while the requesting party pays for the costs of the copies only. [Continental Ill. Nat'l
6 Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago v. Caton (D KS 1991) 136 FRD 682, 690; Bills v.
Kennecott Corp. (D UT 1985) 108 FRD 459, 462]
7 CAFEDCIVP CH. 11(IV)-C.
8 However, Defendants misconstrue this proposition. The proposition is not that requesting party must pay
9 any and all copy costs incurred in whatsoever manner, no matter how exorbitant or wasteful, by any
10 party, with or without prior consultation with the requesting party. This would give responding parties
11 wide discretion to financially harass, ambush and drain the resources of the requesting party, particularly
12 where, as here, the requesting party is an individual. That is exactly what Defendants have done by
13 suddenly demanding Plaintiff Dr. Jadwin pay $10,000 in copy costs just four days before the final
14 production deadline.
15 The proposition correctly stated is that the responding party must produce documents to the
16 requesting party, bearing its own costs of gathering the documents, while the requesting party must be
17 permitted to inspect the documents and copy documents of Plaintiff’s choosing, bearing its own costs of
18 copying and inspection. The Washington District Court articulates this exact proposition (citing both
19 Continental and Kennecott) in Fryer v. Brown, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20830 (D. Wash. 2005):
20 Any party may serve on any other party a request to produce and permit the party
making the request to inspect and copy any designated documents. Fed. R. Civ. P.
21 34(a). Ordinarily, the producing party bears the costs of reviewing and gathering
documents while the requesting party pays for the costs and copies only. Continental Ill.
22 Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. Of Chicago v. Caton, 136 FRD 682, 690 (D KS 1991); Bills v.
Kennecott Corp., 108 FRD 459, 462 (D UT 1985). [emphasis added].
23
Plaintiff’s requests for production set one had requested Defendants “produce and permit
24
inspection and copying of the documents described below [at the office of plaintiff's counsel]”. On
25
December 20, 2007, faced with Defendants’ sudden last-minute demand for payment of $10,000 in copy
26
costs (later reduced by Defendants to ~$3,000), Plaintiff had no choice but to reiterate its original
27
request that Defendants produce the original documents for inspection and copying by Plaintiff at its
28

1 own cost. Defendants refused to comply, citing objections to the manner and place of production despite
2 having failed to raise, and thereby having waived, those objections in Response 1. Instead, Defendants
3 continued to insist Plaintiff pay Defendants for copy costs associated with a massive volume of
4 documents which in Defendants’ own words “have, at most, a very tenuous connection to any issues in
5 the case”, copy costs which Defendants unilaterally incurred without consulting or meeting and
6 conferring with Plaintiff beforehand.
7 c. Defendants Had a Duty to Meet and Confer with Plaintiff on Copy Costs
8 Even if the Court determines Defendants are entitled to be reimbursed for their copy costs,
9 Defendants are under a duty to meet and confer with Plaintiff regarding such costs. In Rodger v.
10 Electronic Data Sys. Corp., defendant EDS, a large multi-national corporation, argued that plaintiffs’
11 requests for documents relating to multiple reductions in force over a number of years across 26
12 countries would impose a “mind-boggling burden” on defendant. 155 F.R.D. 537, 539 (D.N.C. 1994).
13 The Rodger court found it appropriate to tax the costs of production to the plaintiff given the undue
14 burden imposed on the defendant. However, the court further held that the parties should meet and
15 confer so as to minimize those costs for the plaintiff:
16 Defendant's counsel are directed to confer, after consultation with their client, to seek to
minimize these costs by: (1) restricting the scope of materials as much as possible, and
17 (2) using the lowest level employees who have the knowledge and skill required to
retrieve the documents. Counsel shall attempt to agree on these expenses and only
18 failing that, file a motion for taxation of these expenses with the court.”. Id. at 542.
19 In meet and confers occurring over more than two months, Defendants repeatedly committed to
20 producing Production 2 by December 21, 2007. It was only on December 17, just four days before the
21 final production deadline, that Defendants raised the issue of copy costs with Plaintiff. As Defendants
22 admit, this was the first time Defendants had done so. Defendants demanded Plaintiff pay Defendants
23 $10,000 or Defendants would not produce Production 2 by December 21, as had been promised.
24 However, on August 6, 2007, Plaintiff and Defendants had exchanged Rule 26 Initial Disclosures
25 without either party making any mention of copy costs. Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures were more
26 voluminous than Defendants’ Initial Disclosures. On November 20, 2007, Defendants served Production
27 1 on Plaintiff in the form of electronic files stored on CDs, again without a single mention of copy costs.
28 Production 1 comprised over 12,000 pages of documents (much of it useless chaff).

1 By failing to consult with Plaintiff as to cost, Defendants acted on their own initiative in
2 incurring processing costs of roughly 14 cents per page. Had Defendants informed Plaintiff earlier of the
3 substantial costs involved, Plaintiff would definitely have worked with Defendants to narrow requests
4 and/or suggest other less costly alternatives. As Defendants admit, Plaintiff had already narrowed
5 numerous production requests in its meet and confers with Defendants in order to expedite Defendants’
6 production.
7
1. Defendant’s Position
8
[INSERT HERE]
9
10
11 B. Defendant’s Objection that Documents are Protected from Disclosure by State or
Federal law
12
13
In Response 2, Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff requests nos. 12-15, 17, 23-30, 32-34, 36-43,
14
51, 54-58, 63, 65-67, 70-73, and 78 contain the following objection: “Defendants also object to this
15
request to the extent it requests information protected from disclosure by state or federal law . . . .”. On
16
November 20, 2007, Plaintiff sent an email to Defendants explaining why this objection, which was also
17
contained in Response 1, was overbroad and therefore defective. On a November 21, 2007 call,
18
Defendants admitted it was overbroad. Plaintiff wrote in followup to the call:
19
As you know, in that email, we had explained that defendants' oft-used objection,
20 "documents protected from disclosure by state or federal law", does not comply with
FRCP Rule 34 because it (a) is too broadly stated and (b) fails to explain how the
21 objection relates to the documents demanded. During the call, you indicated that
defendants would re-state this objection.
22
Yet, in Response 2, the objection remains just as overbroad as it had been in Response 1.
23
The objection does not comply with FRCP Rule 34 because it (a) is too broadly stated and (b)
24
fails to explain how the objection relates to the documents demanded. In Obiajulu v City of Rochester,
25
Dep't of Law (1996, WD NY) 166 FRD 293, the defendant City of Rochester had objected that each
26
request “seeks information and material protected by the attorney client, work product doctrine or other
27
privilege”. The court held that “Such pat, generic, non-specific objections, intoning the same boilerplate
28

1 language, are inconsistent with both the letter and the spirit of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”
2 The court further held:
3 An objection to a document request must clearly set forth the specifics of the objection
and how that objection relates to the documents being demanded. Roesberg v. Johns-
4 Manville Corp., 85 F.R.D. 292 (E.D. Pa. 1980). The burden is on the party resisting
discovery to clarify and explain precisely why its objections are proper given the broad
5 and liberal construction of the discovery rules found in the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
6
Other federal courts have reached similar holdings. Pulsecard, Inc. v Discover Card Servs.
7
(1996, DC Kan) 168 FRD 295 (Although FRCP 34, which governs production of documents and things,
8
does not provide any language with respect to specificity and waiver of objections, which FRCP 33,
9
which governs interrogatories, does, no reason exists to distinguish between interrogatories and requests
10
for production as to these matters); Rivera v Kmart Corp. (2000, DC Puerto Rico) 190 FRD 298, 45 FR
11
Serv 3d 1349 (asserting general objection to request for production of documents does not comply with
12
FRCP 34(b)).
13
In Hall v Sullivan, the court held that Rule 34 requires objections to document production
14
requests be stated with particularity in a timely answer, and that failure to do so may constitute waiver of
15
grounds not properly raised, including privilege or work product immunity, unless the court excuses this
16
failure for good cause shown. (2005, DC Md) 231 FRD 468. Defendants’ bad faith overbroad objection,
17
which Defendants themselves admitted is overbroad and had agreed to narrow in meet and confer,
18
should be deemed waived in all responses.
19
20 2. Defendant’s Position
21 [INSERT HERE]
22
C. Defendant’s Objection based on State-Law Peer Review Privilege
23
24
a. State Privilege Law Does Not Apply
25
In Response 2, Defendants invoke the “peer-review privilege” in response to Plaintiff’s requests
26
no. 12-15, 17, 26, 28, 32, 36-43, 45, 51, 54-58, 60, 61, 63, 65-74 and 78. Defendants state in boilerplate
27
fashion: “Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests . . . documents protected from
28

1 disclosure by state or federal law, including . . . the peer-review privilege.”

2 As Plaintiff has repeatedly made clear to Defendants in meet and confers, state privilege law
3 does not apply to federal question jurisdiction cases in federal court. This principle is well-settled in
4 federal law. In the oft-cited case, Wm. T. Thompson, Co. v. Gen. Nutrition Corp., Inc., the court held:
5 Thus, under Rule 501, it is clear that federal claims asserted in a federal question case
are governed by federal common law. Further, it is been held that where state law claims
6 overlap with federal claims in a federal question case such that particular documents are
relevant to both the state and the federal claims, federal privilege law also applies.
7 671 F.2d 100, 104 (3rd Cir.1982).
8 The 9th Circuit cited Thompson Co. v. Gen. Nutrition Corp. with approval in Agster v. Maricopa County,
9 holding that “Where there are federal question claims and pendent state law claims present, the federal
10 law of privilege applies.” 422 F.3d 836, 839-840 (9th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted).
11 In the instant case, plaintiff is bringing federal question claims under FMLA, 42 USC 1983
12 (procedural due process), and FLSA. These federal law claims involve events spanning the entire period
13 of Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant County of Kern. Defendants were on notice of Plaintiff’s
14 depression disability as early as 2000. Plaintiff began raising patient care quality concerns as early as
15 2001 and the retaliation he suffered was almost immediate. As a result of the ongoing hostile work
16 environment, Plaintiff required FMLA medical leave in 2006 in response to which the Defendants
17 demoted him, placed him on 5-months involuntary administrative leave and restriction to his home, and
18 did not renew his contract. Defendants explain their harsh conduct as being in response to Plaintiff’s
19 “arrogance”. At a minimum, all these events establish the willful and malicious nature of the individual
20 Defendants’ conduct in violation of federal laws.
21 A single court has held that, where documents sought are relevant only to pendant state law
22 claims and not to the federal claims in a diversity jurisdiction case, state privilege law applies: Platypus
23 Wear, Inc. v. K.D. Co., Inc., 905 F. Supp. 808 (S.D. Cal. 1995). However, that case is distinguishable
24 due to its extreme circumstances. There, plaintiff had brought exclusively state claims in federal court
25 under diversity, not federal question, jurisdiction. The defendant then brought counter-claims which
26 included a single federal counter-claim. On the slim basis of the defendant’s lone federal counter-
27 claim, plaintiff argued that federal privilege law should apply to its state law claims. The court held in
28 those extreme circumstances that state privilege law should apply to plaintiff’s state law claims. Id. at

1 812.
2 The distinction between diversity and federal question jurisdiction should not be underestimated.
3 In federal question cases, the state's interest is that of a litigant, and not, as in diversity cases, that of a
4 sovereign whose law is being applied in a foreign forum. Reference to federal law in this case is
5 necessary on the issue of the existence and scope of the claimed privilege. Heathman v. United States
6 District Court, 503 F.2d at 1034; Fears v. Burris Manufacturing Co., 436 F.2d 1357, 1360-1361 (5th
7 Cir. 1971); Carr v. Monroe Manufacturing Co., 431 F.2d 384, 387-389 (5th Cir. 1970); Colton v. United
8 States, 306 F.2d 633, 636 (2d Cir. 1962).
9 Even if the Court were inclined to find that state privilege law should apply to Plaintiff’s pendent
10 state law claims, it should be noted that the task of discerning which evidence goes solely to Plaintiff’s
11 state law claims vis-à-vis federal law claims will be impracticable and will engender unending disputes
12 between the parties that will ultimately require excessive judicial resources to sort out.
13 Under the well-settled holding in Thompson, Co. v. Gen. Nutrition Corp, the Court should hold
14 that state privilege law does not apply.
15 b. There Is No Federal Peer Review Privilege
16 There is no federal peer review privilege, nor has a single case in the 9th Circuit yet recognized
17 one. In Agster v. Maricopa County, the 9th Circuit refused to recognize a federal peer review privilege:
18 No case in this circuit has recognized the [peer review] privilege. . . . We are constrained
by two considerations, one general and the other particular to this case. We must be
19 "especially reluctant to recognize a privilege in an area where it appears that Congress
has considered the relevant competing concerns but has not provided the privilege
20 itself." . . . . Congress has twice had occasion and opportunity to consider the [peer
review] privilege and not granted it either explicitly or by implication, there exists a
21 general objection to our doing so.
422 F.3d 836, 839-840 (9th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted).
22
The Defendants oft-invoked peer review privilege is baseless. The Court should order
23
Defendants to produce all documents requested.
24
25
26
[INSERT HERE]
27
28

1 D. Defendant’s Objection of Personnel Privilege

2 1. Plaintiff’s Position
3 In Response 2, Defendants invoke the “personnel privilege” in response to Plaintiff’s requests
4 nos. 12-15, 17, 26, 28, 32, 36-39, 41, 51, 54-58, 63, 65-67, 70-73, 78. In Response 2, Defendants state in
5 boilerplate fashion: “Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests . . . documents protected
6 from disclosure by state or federal law, including . . . the personnel privilege.”
7 Failing to object to a Rule 34 request within the time permitted waives such objections thereto,
8 including claims of privilege and work product. Hall v Sullivan (2005, DC Md) 231 FRD 468; see also
9 Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants (9th Cir. 1992) 959 F2d 1468, 1473 (“Failure to object to
10 discovery requests within the time required constitutes a waiver of any objection”); see also Coregis Ins.
11 Co. v. Baratta & Fenerty, Ltd. (ED PA 1999) 187 FRD 528, 529.
12 Defendants failed to raise the personnel privilege in Response 1, and is raising it for the first time
13 in Response 2. Plaintiff had met and conferred with Defendants in the hopes that Defendants would
14 remedy the many deficiencies contained in Response 1. Defendants ostensibly served Response 2 as a
15 product of the meet and confers. In fact, Defendants used Response 2 to make a mockery of the meet
16 and confer process and raise new objections that had not been raised in Response 1.
17 Moreover, as stated above, FRCP Rule 34 prohibits objections which (a) are too broadly stated
18 and (b) fail to explain how the objection relates to the documents demanded. Defendants are under a
19 duty to clarify and explain precisely why their objections are proper. The mere boilerplate assertion of
20 “personnel privilege” with no further explication fails to comply with Rule 34. It fails to put Plaintiff on
21 notice as to what the privilege is (Plaintiff has no idea), what its basis is, what it covers, etc.
22 The Court should deem the “personnel privilege” waived in all responses.
23
24
[INSERT HERE]
25
26
27
28

1 E. Defendant’s Refusal to Produce Due to Marginal Relevancy

2 1. Plaintiff’s Position
3 In Response 2, Defendants refuse to produce any documents in response to Plaintiff’s requests
4 nos. 32, 36, 38, 39, 41, 54-58, 70-73, 78. In Response 2, Defendants state: “Defendants have determined
5 that the burden of redacting privileged information outweighs the marginal relevancy of the remaining
6 information in the documents”. Plaintiff requests the Court conduct an in camera review of the
7 documents at issue to confirm that Defendants’ redactions are valid and that their refusal to produce any
8 documents is justified.
9
10
[INSERT HERE]
11
12
13 F. Specific Contested Responses and Objections
14 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11
15 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Kern Medical Center personnel directories or lists,
16 including but not limited to names, direct work phone numbers, departments, etc. which were
17 maintained by YOU during Plaintiff’s employment with YOU.
18 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 11
19 Defendants will produce all non-privileged documents responsive to this request. Production is
20 expected to be complete on or about December 21, 2007, depending on receipt of reimbursement for
21 estimated copy costs. Defendants will redact privileged information as appropriate.
22 PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
23 FRCP Rule 34 prohibits objections which (a) are too broadly stated and (b) fail to explain how
24 the objection relates to the documents demanded. Defendants are under a duty to clarify and explain
25 precisely why their objections are proper. Defendants merely reference “privileged personal or
26 confidential information”. This assertion of privilege fails to comply with Rule 34. It fails to put Plaintiff
27 on notice as to what the privileges are (Plaintiff has no idea), what its basis is, what it covers, etc.
28 Failing to object to a Rule 34 request within the time permitted waives such objections thereto—

5 The Court should deem this assertion of privilege waived.
6 DEFENDANTS’ POSITION
7 [INSERT HERE]
8
10 Any and all DOCUMENTS maintained by Plaintiff at Kern Medical Center during his
11 employment by YOU, including any and all e-mails, Groupwise calendars, memoranda, written
12 materials, and computer files stored on Plaintiff’s computer at Kern Medical Center’s servers.
14 Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain confidential
15 personnel information, documents protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA,
16 the peer-review privilege and the personnel privilege, and documents that are subject to the attorney-
17 client privilege. After diligent search, Defendants believe Groupwise calendar information was deleted
18 many months ago as part of the routine 90-day cycling of the Groupwise software. Defendants are
19 continuing to search for materials that were on the computer that was assigned to Plaintiff. Some
20 material was archived before the computer was reassigned and Defendants will produce copies of the
21 material that was archived by December 21, 2007, depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated
22 copy costs. Defendants will redact privileged information, if any, as appropriate.

1 Defendants are for the first time raising objections of “confidential personnel information”,
2 “documents protected by disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA, the peer-review privilege
3 and the personnel privilege”, and “attorney-client privilege”. Defendants did not timely raise these
4 objections or privileges in Response 1.
5 The Court should deem these objections waived.
7 [INSERT HERE]
8
10 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO complaints or grievances made by YOUR past or
11 present employees against YOU for defamation, retaliation, disability discrimination, failure to
12 accommodate, and/or failure to engage in an interactive process, including but not limited to any
13 informal or internal complaints, grievances or charges to any state or federal agency, and complaints
14 filed in any state or federal court from October 24, 2000 to date.
16 Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of documents that
17 contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in this case. Consequently,
18 this request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also
19 object on the ground that the phrase, “informal or internal complaints” is vague and, depending on
20 interpretation, could include any off-hand gripe by any employee, to the extent it was memorialized in
21 writing. Defendant County of Kern employs several thousand employees. In the past seven years, there
22 could be many documents that fit the description of this request yet none have anything to do with the
23 issues in this case. This request is, accordingly, overbroad and burdensome. Defendants do not believe
24 redaction would resolve these objections.
26 During meet and confers, specifically at Defendant’s request Plaintiff had narrowed Request 33.
27 In a meet and confer fax of November 22, 2007, memorializing a meet and confer call, Plaintiff stated:
28

1 In past meet and confer calls, plaintiff had narrowed this request to complaints or
grievances relating to Kern Medical Center which had been made to a government
2 agency or court. These documents are essential to prove disparate treatment and
discriminatory/retaliatory intent.
3
On November 27, 2007, following a meet and confer call, Plaintiff sent another meet and confer
4
fax stating:
5
We reiterated that we have already agreed to narrow this request [33] to documents
6 relating to complaints or grievances relating to Kern Medical Center which had been
made to a government agency or court. We further explained that these documents are
7 essential to prove disparate treatment and discriminatory/retaliatory intent. You
requested and we agreed to send you revised response language which nails down
8 exactly what we are requesting. You confirmed that the documents are already in the
process of being collected and that, once the request language is revised, you will
9 produce responsive documents by December 7.
10 In that same fax, Plaintiff revised Request 33 to read:
11 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO complaints or grievances made by YOUR
past or present employees against YOU for defamation, retaliation, disability
12 discrimination, failure to accommodate, and/or failure to engage in an interactive
process RELATING TO Kern Medical Center and/or its officers or staff, including but
13 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
14 to date.”
15 On November 30, 2007, following a meet and confer call, Plaintiff sent another meet and confer
16 fax stating:
17 You confirmed that plaintiff’s revised request language is adequate and that you will
produce responsive documents tentatively by December 7, but you would have a more
18 definite idea as to production date by next Monday.
19 Despite this extensive meet and confer process, Defendants chose to disregard the revisions
20 Plaintiff had made to Request 33. In Response 2, Defendants restated Request 33 in its unrevised form
21 and restated their same objections. In so doing, Defendants breached the numerous assurances they had
22 made to Plaintiff that they would produce documents upon receiving a revised version of Request 33.
24 [INSERT HERE]
25
27 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR search for, recruitment, of and evaluation of
28 candidates for the position of locum tenens pathologist at Kern Medical Center during the period from

1 January 1, 2006 to present.

4 contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in this case and is not
5 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also object to this
6 request to the extent it requests information protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including
7 HIPAA, the peer-review privilege and the personnel privilege, and documents that contain information
8 protected by the attorney-client privilege. After review of the documents potentially responsive to this
9 request, Defendants have determined that the burden of redacting privileged information outweighs the
10 marginal relevancy of the remaining information in the documents.
12 A showing of relevancy may be enough to cause the court to balance the compelling public need
13 for discovery against the fundamental right of privacy. (Mendez v. Superior Court (1988) 206
14 Cal.App.3d 557, 567.)
15 These documents are highly probative to Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant County of Kern failed
16 to reasonably accommodate his depression disability by failing to timely arrange for locum tenens
17 pathologists who could assist with the Pathology department’s workload during Plaintiff’s reduced work
18 schedule medical and recuperative leaves in 2006. During meet and confers, the parties had specifically
19 discussed Defendants’ privacy concerns regarding this request. The parties agreed that Defendants need
20 not produce any third party letters of reference. In exchange, Defendants agreed to produce documents
21 in response to Request 38. In typical fashion, Defendants now breach the assurances they made to
22 Plaintiff in meet and confer.
24 [INSERT HERE]
25
28 candidates for the position of Chair or Chief of OB-GYN at Kern Medical Center during the period from


14 Cal.App.3d 557, 567.)
15 An employer's failure to follow its own policies and procedures indicates discrimination. Village
16 of Arlington Heights v. Met. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 267 (1977); Duschene v. Pinole Point
17 Steel Co. (1999) 76 Cal. App. 4th 33 (“Departures from the normal procedural sequence also might
18 afford evidence that improper purposes are playing a role”).
19 Plaintiff has a compelling need for this evidence to establish whether Defendant County of Kern
20 customarily complied with their policies regarding removal and replacement of department chairs and
21 whether Plaintiff was treated in a disparate manner. The evidence is highly probative to Plaintiff’s
22 claims.
24 [INSERT HERE]
25
27 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR removal of Dr. Royce Johnson from the
28 position of Chair or Chief of Medicine at Kern Medical Center.


6 HIPAA and the peer review privilege, and documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege.
10 Cal.App.3d 557, 567.)
16 customarily complied with their policies regarding removal and replacement of department chairs and
17 whether Plaintiff, who was removed from Chair of Pathology, was treated in a disparate manner. The
18 evidence is highly probative to Plaintiff’s claims. Although Dr. Royce Johnson’s formal title may have
19 been Acting Chair of Medicine, Dr. Johnson functioned and held himself out as Chair of Medicine for
20 many years. According to recently discovered evidence, some time in or about 2002, Defendant County
21 of Kern undertook a roughly 1 year long process to remove Dr. Johnson and replace him due to his
22 substantial behavioral and management problems.
23 In addition, Dr. Johnson has been described by several deponents as “arrogant” and was the
24 subject of anger management complaints. Given Defendant’s fifth affirmative defense that Plaintiff was
25 “arrogant” and contributed to his own injuries, this evidence is directly probative to Defendant’s
26 defense.
28 [INSERT HERE]

1
4 candidates for the position of Chair or Chief of Medicine at Kern Medical Center during the period from
5 October 24, 2000 to present.
16 See Plaintiff’s Position re Request for Production Nos. 39 and 40 above.
18 [INSERT HERE]
19
21 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Plaintiff’s presentations made at the Kern Medical
22 Center oncology conference on or about October 12, 2005.
28 HIPAA and the peer review privilege, and documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege.

1 Without waving these objections, Defendants will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this
2 request, if any, by December21, 2007. Defendants will redact privileged, if any, information as
3 appropriate.
11 irrelevance and “not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence”, “documents
12 protected by disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA, the peer-review privilege and the
13 personnel privilege”, and “attorney-client privilege”. Defendants did not timely raise these objections or
14 privileges in Response 1.
17 [INSERT HERE]
18
20 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the review of Kern Medical Center’s placental
21 evaluations and billing activity as conducted by outside consultants, including but not limited to ProPay
22 Physician Services, LLC, from October 24, 2000 to the present.

7 Cal.App.3d 557, 567.)
13 customarily complied with their policies and procedures regarding their audit of Plaintiff’s placental
14 evaluations and billing activity in or around 2005 and whether Plaintiff was treated in a disparate
15 manner. The evidence is highly probative to Plaintiff’s claims.
17 [INSERT HERE]
18
20 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO exceptional event logs for histology and pathology
21 on Kern Medical Center’s Pathology Department from January 1, 2006 to the present.

6 Cal.App.3d 557, 567.)
12 customarily complied with their policies and procedures regarding Dr. Jadwin’s numerous alleged
13 violations of hospital policy, including the leaving of sharps out at the workstation when not in use, the
14 taking of a sternal bone biopsy without proctoring, the unauthorized accessioning of tissue samples, etc.
15 and whether Plaintiff was treated in a disparate manner as compared to others in the Pathology
16 department or laboratory who engaged in similar conduct. The evidence is highly probative to Plaintiff’s
17 claims.
19 [INSERT HERE]
20
22 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO paper accession logs at Kern Medical Center’s
23 Pathology Department from January 1, 2006 to present.

8 Cal.App.3d 557, 567.)
9 In late 2006, Acting Chair of Pathology Dr. Dutt accused Plaintiff of engaging in unauthorized
10 accessioning of tissue samples. Dr. Dutt reported this issue to the CEO. The accession logs are directly
11 relevant to this accusation against Plaintiff.
13 [INSERT HERE]
14
16 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO tissue disposal records for skull-flaps from January
17 1, 2006 to the present.
23 HIPAA. the peer-review privilege and the personnel privilege, and documents that contain information

2 Cal.App.3d 557, 567.)
3 In December of 2006, Plaintiff reported to Kern Medical Center CEO David Culberson the
4 storage of skull flaps in a non-regulation freezer as a possible violation of state and federal regulations.
5 These documents are directly probative of Plaintiff’s California Labor Code 1102.5 claim for
6 whistleblower retaliation.
8 [INSERT HERE]
9
11 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO placental evaluations conducted by Plaintiff from
12 June 14, 2006 to the present.
14 Plaintiff has attempted to narrow this request but the revised request is broader, more
15 burdensome and less calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence than the original request.
16 Defendants object to this request because it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
17 admissible evidence and is burdensome. Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for
18 the production of documents that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any
19 issues in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
20 Defendants also object to this request to the extent it requests information protected from disclosure by
21 state or federal law, including HIPAA, the peer-review privilege and the personnel privilege, and
22 documents that contain information protected by the attorney-client privilege. After review of the
23 documents potentially responsive to this request. Defendants have determined that the burden of
24 redacting privileged information outweighs the marginal relevancy of the remaining information in the
25 documents.
27 Based on newly discovered evidence, Plaintiff has reason to believe that Acting Chair of
28 Pathology, Dr. Philip Dutt, has defrauded Plaintiff by claiming credit for placental evaluations

1 conducted by Plaintiff as his own, thereby diverting the associated professional billing fees from
2 Plaintiff to himself. This evidence is highly probative of possible claims for fraud, conversion and
3 breach of fiduciary duty which Plaintiff is investigating bringing against Dr. Dutt.
4 Also, failing to object to a Rule 34 request within the time permitted waives such objections
5 thereto—including claims of privilege and work product. Hall v Sullivan (2005, DC Md) 231 FRD 468;
6 see also Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants (9th Cir. 1992) 959 F2d 1468, 1473 (“Failure to
7 object to discovery requests within the time required constitutes a waiver of any objection”); see also
8 Coregis Ins. Co. v. Baratta & Fenerty, Ltd. (ED PA 1999) 187 FRD 528, 529.
10 “documents protected by disclosure by state or federal law, including . . . the peer-review privilege and
11 the personnel privilege”, and “attorney-client privilege”. Defendants did not timely raise these
12 objections or privileges in Response 1.
15 [INSERT HERE]
16
IV. CONCLUSION
17
18 Despite the extensive correspondence between the parties, it does not appear that this dispute can
19 be resolved without assistance from the Court. Plaintiff has done its utmost to avert this imposition on
20 the Court’s time.
21 In contrast, Defendants have made a mockery of the meet and confer process, breached
22 numerous assurances to Plaintiff and have refused to effectively meet and confer in good faith with
23 Plaintiff. By way of example, on January 4, 2008, Defendants stated that they had identified caselaw
24 which they said definitively proves them right on the issue of unreimbursed copy costs for discovery
25 production: “I have found cases that say the requesting party must pay the cost of photocopying
26 documents. I have found no cases that hold otherwise.” Defendants then requested Plaintiff provide
27 case citations supporting Plaintiff’s position. Plaintiff was still researching the issue and had no citations
28 to share at the time. It should be noted that Plaintiff has provided myriad, detailed case citations in

1 good faith to Defendants during meet and confer discussions in the past. When Plaintiff asked
2 Defendants to provide its case citations to Plaintiff, stating “Mark, I would appreciate the case citations.
3 I look forward to receiving them”, Defendants refused, stating:
4 No. I am not researching this for you. I have done my research. It is your motion to
compel. I presume you have authority to support your motion. If not, too bad. If so,
5 proceed with your motion.”
6 Regrettably, this exchange fairly characterizes the interactions Plaintiff has had with Defendants
7 throughout this action.
8
9 Respectfully submitted,
10
11
Dated: January __, 2008 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER
12
13
By:__________________________________________
14 Mark A. Wasser,
Attorney for Defendants
15 COUNTY OF KERN, PETER BRYAN, IRWIN
HARRIS, EUGENE KERCHER, JENNIFER
16 ABRAHAM, SCOTT RAGLAND,TONI SMITH,
AND WILLIAM ROY
17
18 Dated: January___, 2008 LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE
19
20 By:__________________________________________
Eugene D. Lee
21 Attorney for Plaintiff
DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28


3 Phone: (213) 992-3299
Fax: (213) 596-0487
7 Telephone: (510) 530-4078
Facsimile: (510) 530-4725
9
10
11 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER
12 Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 444-6400
13 Fax: (916) 444-6405
Email: mwasser@markwasser.com
14
Bernard C. Barmann, Sr.
16 1115 Truxton Avenue, Fourth Floor
17 Phone: (661) 868-3800
Fax: (661) 868-3805
18 Email: mnations@co.kern.ca.us
19 Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern, Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher, Jennifer
Abraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smith, and William Roy.
20
21
22
23
Plaintiff, EXHIBITS TO JOINT STATEMENT re:
24 v. DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT
25 COUNTY OF KERN, et al., Date: January 14, 2008
Time: 9:30 a.m.
26 Defendants. Place: U.S. District Court, Bankruptcy Courtroom
1300 18th St., Bakersfield, CA
27
Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007
28 Date Set for Trial: December 3, 2008
USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG
EXHIBITS TO JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT 1
EXHIBITS TO JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT
EXHIBIT 1. Meet and confer letter faxed by Defendants’ to Plaintiff’s attorney, 10/31/07
EXHIBIT 2. Meet and confer letter faxed by Plaintiff’s to Defendants’ attorney, 11/1/07
EXHIBIT 4. Meet and confer emails between Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ attorney, 11/15/07
EXHIBIT 7. RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION SET ONE
(“Response 1”), 11/20/07
EXHIBIT 12. DEFENDANTS’ PARTIAL PRIVILEGE LOG, 12/13/07
EXHIBIT 15. SUPPLEMENTED RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION SET ONE (“Response 2”), 12/19/07
EXHIBIT 1. Meet and confer letter faxed by Defendants’ to Plaintiff’s attorney,

10/31/07
MTC000001
Oct 31 07 11:21a Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.1

The Law Offices of Mark A. Wasser
Sacramento, California 95814
Office: 916-444-6400
Fax: 916-444-6405
Fax
To: Eugene Lee From: Mark Wasser
Fax: (213) 596-0487 Pages: 2 (including cover page)
Phone: (213) 992-3299 Date: October 31, 2007
Re: Jadwin v. County of Kern cc:
o Urgent o For Review 0 Please Comment 0 Please Reply D Please Recycle
• Comments:
Please see attached letter.
MTC000002
Oct 31 07 11:21a Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.2
Law Offices of
MARK A. WASSER
Office: 916-444-6400 Fax: 916-444-6405
mwasser@markwasser.com
October 31, 2007
VIA FACSIMILE & FIRST CLASS MAIL
Eugene Lee
Law Offices of Eugene Lee
555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100
Los Angeles, California 90013 -1010
Re: Jadwin v. County ofKern, et at.
Dear Mr. Lee:
I have reviewed your Request For Production of Documents and discussed it with
County staff. Our best estimate is that it will take until December 21, 2007 to locate,
assemble and serve the documents you have requested. Some of the documents may
require extensive redaction to remove patient identifiers.
We request an extension of time until December 21,2007 to respond to your

Request.
Let me know your position.
Thank you.
Very Truly Yours,
Mark A. Wasser
cc: Karen Barnes (via first class mail)

Joan Herrington (via first class mail)
Admitted to Practice in California and Nevada MTC000003

EXHIBIT 2. Meet and confer letter faxed by Plaintiff’s to Defendants’ attorney,

11/1/07
MTC000004
To: 213-596-0487 From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee Pg 1/3 11/01/07 6:26 pm

ELEE@LOEL.COM
(213) 992-3299
TELEPHONE
LAW OFFICE OF EMAIL
E U G ENE L E E
(213) 596-0487 555 WEST FIFTH STREET SUITE 3100 WWW.LOEL.COM
FACSIMILE Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9001 3-1 01 0 WEBSITE
FAX
To: From: Law Office of Eugene Lee
Fax Number: 2135960487 Date: 11/01/2007
Pages: 3 (including cover page)
Re: Jadwin/KC:
Comments:
Mark,
Transmitted herewith is a letter in followup to our meet and confer call

of this morning.
Sincerely.
MTC000005
(213) 992-3299
TELEPHONE
LAW OFFICE OF ELEE@LOEL.GOM
E-MAIL
EUGENE LEE
(Z 1 3) 596-0487 555 WEST FIFTH STREET, SUITE 3100 WWW.LOEL.COM
FACSIMILE LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90013-1010 WEBSITE
EUGENE D. LEE, ESQ JOAN E. HERRINGTON, ESQ
PRINCIPAL OF COUNSEL
November 1, 2007
VIA FACSIMILE
Mark Wasser 100011.001

Law Offices of Mark Wasser
400 Capitol Mall Ste 1100
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: Plaintiff's Requests for Production, Set One

Jadwin / County of Kern, et al. (USDC EDCA NO.1 :07-cv-00026-0WW/TAG)
Dear Mark:
It was a pleasure speaking and meeting and conferring with you today on plaintiff's requests for
production, set one.
In order to facilitate things, we thought we would try to narrow and clarify some of our
document requests.
DocReq Proposed clarification

No.
12 Exclude "training materials" from the request

13 Exclude "training materials" from the request
16 Delete subparts b) through tt)
52 Exclude from the request DOCUMENTS which are on file in Superior Court of
California in and for County of Kern
59 The request is for DOCUMENTS RELATING TO medical staff sign-in sheets for
Kern Medical Center's Cancer Clinic held pursuant to ACS-CoC standards from
January 1, 2003 to the present.
Also, as we discussed, please let us know your thoughts on providing us with patient
identification numbers, including those which were redacted from defendants' initial disclosures,
as well as entering into a stipulation with us whereby plaintiff would electronically redact any
patient identifying information (other than patient identification numbers) from all documents
produced by defendants (along with concomitant covenants to strictly preserve the
confidentiality and guard against disclosure of such information). As we stated, plaintiff has no
interest in jeopardizing anyone's medical information privacy.
MTC000006
To: 213-596-0487 From: Law Office
OFFice of Eugene Lee Pg 3/
3/33 11/01/07 6:26 pm
We look forward to our next meet and confer conference call with you at 10:00 a.ill. on
Wednesday, November 7, 2007. Plaintiff is hoping that Defendant can respond by November
12, 2007, then produce the actual documents according to an adjusted schedule that can be
12,2007,
finalized by Wednesday, November 7, 7,2007.
2007.
We look forward to your response. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions.
cc: Joan Herrington, Esq.
2
MTC000007

11/8/07
MTC000008

ELEE@LOEL.COM
(213) 992-3299
TELEPHONE
LAW OFFICE OF EMAIL
E U G ENE L E E
FAX
Fax Number: 2135960487 Date: 11/08/2007
Re: Jadwin/KC: RPD1 County of Kern
Comments:
Mark,
It was a pleasure speaking with you yesterday. Transmitted herewith is a

followup letter.
Sincerely.
MTC000009
(213) 992-3299
TELEPHONE
E-MAIL
EUGENE LEE
November 8, 2007
VIA FACSIMILE


Jadwin / County of Kern, et al. (USDC EDCA No.1 :07-cv-00026-0WW/TAG)
Dear Mark:
It was a pleasure speaking and meeting and conferring with you yesterday on Plaintiff's Requests
For Production, Set One to County of Kern and to Peter Bryan. We confirmed that you did not
foresee any difficulties with the Peter Bryan requests. The Kern County requests involved more
discussion as follows.
I. TENTATIVE AGREEMENTS / CLARIFICATIONS RE DOCUMENT REQUESTS
We discussed each of plaintiff's requests for production and, with a few exceptions, you had
indicated varying expected production/response dates of November 16, December 7 and
December 21. Plaintiff is reviewing the proposed dates. Let's discuss these at our next
conference call.
In addition, the parties made the following tentative agreements and clarifications with respect to
certain Requests:
DocReq Tentative agreement/clarification

No.
40 Defendants to ask Dr. Royce Johnson for consent to disclose the requested
information to plaintiff and let plaintiff know by November 14. In the event he
refuses consent, defendants expect to give plaintiff a response by November 16.
41 Defendants to redact names of applicants and references.
52 Defendants need not include in defendants' privilege log any protected attorney work
product or attorney-client privileged communications which were authored by subject
attorneys.
54 Plaintiff seeks statistics for both patient "fatalities" and patient "deaths", as each
considered alone is not meaningful and must be compared to the other.
56 Redaction may address defendants' privilege concerns.
MTC000010
57 Redaction may address defendants' privilege concerns.

59 Plaintiff seeks medical staff attendance/sign-in sheet for the weekly Oncology Clinic
that meets every Wednesday and partially fulfills AC8-CoC standards.
62 Defendants are looking into retrieving Groupwise archives.
69 806-73276 relates to Case Nos. 806-495, 806-3511 and 806-4619 (see defendants'
initial disclosures, bates no. 778) - please produce the pathology reports associated
with those case numbers, with medical record nos. unredacted.
II. REQUEST 78
Regarding Request 78, defendants said they would need 120 days to produce. In order to shorten
this time, plaintiff proposes defendants instead produce the following. We can discuss this at our
next conference if you wish.
1. A printout from HEO of all surgical pathology cases that lists the case number,
the specimen, the date of receipt, the date of completion and the name ofthe
pathologist that released the case for June 14, 2006 to the present. This will be a
list of a few hundred pages that can be prepared in two or so days.
2. A printout of all dictation by case number from the medical transcription

department for all pathology dictation for June 14, 2006 to the present. This will
be a list of similar length that can be prepared in two or so days.
3. A printout of all pathology reports involving placentas signed out by any

pathologist. There are perhaps 2,500 reports per year; two pages per report. These
are identified by the list in item (l) above. Each report will need to be hand
printed by entering the case number from the list; time to print each report not to
exceed 60 seconds. Each page will need to have the patient name redacted (three
instances per page).
4. A printout from HEO of all autopsy pathology reports listing the case number, the
date of procedure, the date of completion and the name ofthe pathologist who
released the case for June 14, 2006 to the present. This should take one or so days.
5. A copy of each pathology report listed in item (4) above. There should be less
than 50 reports and this should take one or so days.
Hopefully the above would lead to a significantly reduced production time.
II. MEDICAL RECORD NOS. / REDACTION IN GENERAL
Please let us know your thoughts on providing us with patient medical record nos. (as opposed to
patient account numbers), including those which were redacted from defendants' initial
disclosures, as well as entering into a stipulation with us whereby plaintiff would electronically
redact any patient identifying information (other than patient identification numbers) from all
documents produced by defendants (along with concomitant covenants to strictly preserve the
2
MTC000011
confidentiality and guard against disclosure of such information). As we stated, plaintiff has no
interest in jeopardizing anyone's medical information privacy. If you have alternative
suggestions, plaintiff would be interested in discussing them with you.
II. AMENDING THE SCHEDULING ORDER
You had mentioned the idea of re-visiting the Scheduling Order and pushing back the discovery
cut-off date. Let's discuss this further at our next call after you have a more definite idea ofthe
production times necessary for plaintiff's discovery requests. We realize the logistical difficulties
you must be facing as you coordinate document production with Kern Medical Center and are
willing to work with you on this.
II. DEPOSITIONS
Plaintiff had suggested deposing certain witnesses in early December. Following is the tentative
deposition schedule proposed by plaintiff. Please let us know whether the schedule will work for
you and the deponents. You had also mentioned that defendants would not object to deposition
notices as short as 3 to 5 days, so long as a mutually convenient time could be worked out for all
concerned. Plaintiff appreciates defendants' flexibility and cooperation.
4-Dec 0800 - 1300 Steve O'Conner

1400 - 1600 Charles Wrobel
1600 - 1800 Phil Brown (l0)
S-Dec 0900 - 1200 Jane Thornton
1300 - 1700 Ed Taylor
6-Dec 0800 - 1300 Javad Naderi
1400 - 1800 Ravi Patel
We look forward to our next meet and confer conference call with you at 10:00 a.ill. on
Wednesday, November 14, 2007. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions or if
you need to re-schedule.
7rp{~urs,
'mttb
EiVpENE D. LEE
cc: Joan Herrington, Esq. V
David F. Jadwin, D.O., F.C.A.P.
MTC000012
EXHIBIT 4. Meet and confer emails between Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ attorney,
11/15/07
MTC000013
Eugene D. Lee
From: Mark Wasser [mwasser@markwasser.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 12:30 PM
To: elee@LOEL.com
Cc: Assistant to Mark A. Wasser
Subject: RE: Jadwin/KC: Discovery Docs
Thank you.
From: Eugene D. Lee [mailto:elee@LOEL.com]

Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 11:35 AM
To: mwasser@markwasser.com
Cc: 'Joan Herrington'
Mark,
Get Acrobat 8.0 Professional. If you ever plan on going paperless (digitizing paper), it’s the only way to go.
If you want to save some money, consider buying Acrobat 6.0 or 7.0 (you can get it cheap on eBay), then buy the
8.0 Professional upgrade (not full version). That’s what I did.
My friends have bought software here: www.buycheapsoftware.com. They said it has good prices and were all
happy with their purchases. I myself have never bought anything there though.
Acrobat is not only a good digital paper handling program, it’s a very powerful OCR (text-recognition) program.
You won’t need to buy a separate OCR program. It also has a useful and powerful Bates stamping function – Go to
“Advanced” in the menu bar -Æ Document processing in the sub-menu Æ Bates numbering. This is a huge
timesaver – you don’t need a separate Bates stamping program. And obviously, you’ll never need to manually bates
stamp again. If you screw it up, it’s very simple to re-run the bates stamping program until you get it right. You can
also delete the bates stamp if you change your mind.
Let me know if you need help with any of this.
Sincerely,
Gene Lee

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EMPLOYMENT LAW
555 WEST FIFTH ST., STE. 3100
LOS ANGELES, CA 90013
Tel: (213)992-3299
Fax: (213)596-0487
E - m a i l : elee@LOEL.com
W e b s i t e : www.LOEL.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.
1
MTC000014
From: Mark Wasser [mailto:mwasser@markwasser.com]

To: elee@LOEL.com
Gene,
Fine. We can do that.
There are several versions of Acrobat 8, ranging in price from $300 to over $1,000. Any thoughts as to which one I want?
Mark

Subject: Jadwin/KC: Discovery Docs
Mark,
On second thought, if it isn’t too much trouble, could you create multiple discrete PDF files, rather than one mega
massive PDF file? I suspect the one file will get far too large in size, it might crash my computer. It would also help
us know where one document ends and the next begins.
Give me a call if you or your assistant run into trouble OCR’ing or redacting.
Thanks.
Sincerely,
Gene Lee

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EMPLOYMENT LAW
Tel: (213)992-3299
Fax: (213)596-0487
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2
MTC000015

11/15/07
MTC000016

ELEE@LOEL.COM
(213) 992-3299
TELEPHONE
LAW OFFICE OF EMAIL
E U G ENE L E E
FAX
Fax Number: 2135960487 Date: 11/15/2007
Re: Jadwin/KC: Meet and Confer RPD1
Comments:
Mark,
Transmitted herewith is a letter in followup to our conference call

yesterday.
Sincerely.
MTC000017
(213) 992-3299
TELEPHONE
E-MAIL
EUGENE LEE
November 15, 2007

VIA FACSIMILE


Dear Mark:
It was a pleasure speaking and meeting and conferring with you yesterday on Plaintiff's Requests
For Production, Set One to County of Kern. This letter confirms the content of our discussions.
We reviewed my letter to you of November 8,2007, and you confirmed that we were in
agreement with most ofthe issues stated therein. Only a few items required further discussion, as
follows:
I. TENTATIVE AGREEMENTS / CLARIFICATIONS RE DOCUMENT REQUESTS
We discussed plaintiff's requests for production and agreed that defendants would provide a
written response by November 20, with the exception ofthe following requests: 18, 19,21,27,
28,42-45,54-57,59, and 61-63, which require further clarification by Defendants. You had
indicated varying expected production dates of November 16, December 7 and December 21. On
certain requests, we agreed that the production date would be changed from December 21 to
December 7: 20,46 and 47.
In addition, the parties made the tentative agreements and clarifications with respect to the
following requests:
DocReq Tentative agreement/clarification

No.
26 Defendants may have destroyed some ofthese files. Defendants will note this in
response by November 20.
40 Defendants to respond by November 20 with objection and refusal to produce.
Plaintiff intends to file a motion to compel.
54 Plaintiff seeks statistics for both patient "fatalities" and patient "deaths", as each
considered alone is not meaningful and must be compared to the other. Defendants
MTC000018
are considering objecting to disclosure of "fatalities" statistics due to peer review

privilege. Plaintiff stated that this does not fall under peer review privilege.
56 Defendants to produce in redacted form.
57 Defendants to produce in redacted form.
62 Groupwise archives were destroyed as part of a routine sweep. Defendants will note
this in response by November 20.
78 Defendants are reviewing Plaintiff's suggested production procedure. Defendants
believe the initial 120 day estimate may have been too conservative.
II. MEDICAL RECORD NOS. / REDACTION IN GENERAL
Defendants are still considering the issue of disclosing medical record numbers to Plaintiff.
Plaintiff explained that the number cannot be linked to a patient name without access to KMC's
computer, and that Plaintiff requires this number in order to determine which case numbers are
associated with each other.
We look forward to our next meet and confer conference call with you at 10:00 a.ill. on Monday,
November 26,2007. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions or if you need to re-
schedule.
7Jt~nurs,
~
1()tt~)
ENED. LEE
2
MTC000019
11/20/07
MTC000020
Eugene D. Lee
From: Eugene D. Lee [elee@LOEL.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 10:49 PM
To: 'mwasser@markwasser.com'
Subject: RE: Response to Plaintiffs RFP 11.9.07
Follow Up Flag: Follow up

Flag Status: Completed
Mark,
Thank you for your email and responses to plaintiff’s requests for production.
Based upon a cursory review, we’ve noticed that many of Defendants’ responses contain this objection: “documents
protected from disclosure by state or federal law”. This objection does not comply with FRCP Rule 34 because it (a)
is too broadly stated and (b) fails to explain how the objection relates to the documents demanded. A great deal of
caselaw supports these requirements. See Obiajulu v City of Rochester, Dep't of Law (1996, WD NY) 166 FRD 293
(Objection to document request must clearly set forth specifics of objection and how that objection relates to
documents being demanded); Pulsecard, Inc. v Discover Card Servs. (1996, DC Kan) 168 FRD 295 (Although FRCP 34,
which governs production of documents and things, does not provide any language with respect to specificity and
waiver of objections, which FRCP 33, which governs interrogatories, does, no reason exists to distinguish between
interrogatories and requests for production as to these matters); Rivera v Kmart Corp. (2000, DC Puerto Rico) 190
FRD 298, 45 FR Serv 3d 1349 (asserting general objection to request for production of documents does not comply
with FRCP 34(b)); Hall v Sullivan (2005, DC Md) 231 FRD 468 (Implicit within Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 is requirement
that objections to document production requests must be stated with particularity in timely answer, and that failure
to do so may constitute waiver of grounds not properly raised, including privilege or work product immunity, unless
court excuses this failure for good cause shown).
Please correct this deficiency at your earliest convenience. We’re happy to discuss this further with you tomorrow if
you wish. I’m available at my cellphone at 213-453-1781. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Gene Lee

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EMPLOYMENT LAW
Tel: (213)992-3299
Fax: (213)596-0487
B l o g : www.CaLaborLaw.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1
MTC000021
CALIFORNIA LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW
US Workers: Overworl:ed, Underpaid 8< Left
""¥ember II, 'II' n ..." 'Y "'",," ..

To: Eugene Lee; Joan Herrington
Subject: Response to Plaintiffs RFP 11.9.07
Gene and Joan,
Here is our written response to your first request for production of documents. I am sending you a service copy by
FedEx. I am enclosing with the service copy a DVD that has about four boxes of documents on it. We have several
thousand more pages to produce as soon as the County can get the documents to me. I will let you know when that will
happen as soon as I know.
Mark
2
MTC000022
EXHIBIT 7. RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

SET ONE (“Response 1”), 11/20/07
MTC000023
Eugene D. Lee
Subject: Response to Plaintiffs RFP 11.9.07
Attachments: Response to Plaintiffs RFP 11.9.07.doc

Gene and Joan,
Here is our written response to your first request for production of documents. I am sending you a service copy by
FedEx. I am enclosing with the service copy a DVD that has about four boxes of documents on it. We have several
thousand more pages to produce as soon as the County can get the documents to me. I will let you know when that will
happen as soon as I know.
Mark
1
MTC000024
1 Mark A. Wasser CA SB #60160

LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER
2 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100
3 Phone: (916) 444-6400
Fax: (916) 444-6405
4 E-mail: mwasser@markwasser.com
5 Bernard C. Barmann, Sr.
KERN COUNTY COUNSEL
6 Mark Nations, Chief Deputy
1115 Truxton Avenue, Fourth Floor
7 Bakersfield, CA 93301
Phone: (661) 868-3800
8 Fax: (661) 868-3805
E-mail: mnations@co.kern.ca.us
9
10 Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern,
Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher,
11 Jennifer Abraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smith
and William Roy
12
13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
14 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
15
16 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O. ) Case No.: 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
)
17 Plaintiff, ) DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO
) PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR
18 vs. ) PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET
) ONE)
19 COUNTY OF KERN, et al., )
) Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007
20 Defendants. ) Trial Date: August 26, 2008
)
21 )
)
22 )
)
23 )
24 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., F.C.A.P.
25 RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant COUNTY OF KERN
26 SET NUMBER: ONE (1)
27
28
1
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
MTC000025
1 Defendants hereby submit these responses to Plaintiff David F. Jadwin’s Request for
2 Production of Documents, Set One. Defendants have not located all the documents that are
3 responsive to this request and, for that reason, many of the production dates set forth herein are
4 estimates. Defendants will supplement or amend this response, if necessary, as additional
5 documents are located and reviewed.
7 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the First Affirmative Defense listed in
8 Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff’s Second Supplemental Complaint.
10 Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of
11 documents that are protected by the attorney-work-product and attorney-client privileges.
12 Without waiving those objections, after diligent search, Defendants’ have not been able to locate
13 any documents that are responsive to this request.
15 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Second Affirmative Defense listed in
23 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Third Affirmative Defense listed in
28
2

MTC000026
4 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Fourth Affirmative Defense listed in
12 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Fifth Affirmative Defense listed in
17 Without waiving those objections, Defendants will produce all non-privileged documents
18 responsive to this request on or before December 21, 2007. This request is duplicative of other
19 requests contained in Plaintiff’s request for production, set one, and the documents produced in
20 response to this request may refer to the documents produced in response to other requests.
22 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Sixth Affirmative Defense listed in

3

MTC000027

2 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Seventh Affirmative Defense listed in
10 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Eighth Affirmative Defense listed in
16 responsive to this request on or before December 21, 2007. This request is duplicative of other
17 requests contained in Plaintiff’s request for production, set one, and the documents produced in
18 response to this request may refer to the documents produced in response to other requests.
20 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Ninth Affirmative Defense listed in
28
4

MTC000028
1 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR organizational structure during

2 Plaintiff’s employment with YOU, including but not limited to organizational charts, diagrams
3 and drawings.
5 Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request. Production may occur
6 in stages. The first stage of production will be on November 20, 2007 and may include all
7 responsive documents. If other responsive documents are discovered, they will be produced by
8 December 7, 2007.
10 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Kern Medical Center personnel directories
11 or lists, including but not limited to names, direct work phone numbers, departments, etc. which
12 were maintained by YOU during Plaintiff’s employment with YOU.
14 Defendants will produce all non-privileged documents responsive to this request.
15 Production may occur in stages. The first stage of production will be on November 20, 2007 and
16 may include all responsive documents. If other responsive documents are discovered, they will
17 be produced by December 7, 2007. Defendants will redact personal or confidential information
18 as appropriate.
20 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR personnel policies, guidelines, fact
21 sheets, posters, employee and/or employer handbooks, training materials, and employee and/or
22 employer manuals maintained by YOU that YOU contend governed Plaintiff’s terms and
23 conditions of employment at any time during the period from October 1, 2000 to October 4,
24 2007. These include but are not limited to YOUR ordinances, Kern Medical Center’s
25 Administrative Procedures Manual, Kern Medical Center’s Policy & Administrative Procedures
26 Manual, policies RELATING TO disability discrimination, reasonable accommodation,
27 interactive process, personal leave, administrative leave, medical leave, retaliation, investigations
28 into complaints of unlawful employment practices, discipline of employees, investigation of

5

MTC000029
1 employees, appointment of Kern Medical Center acting department chairs, hiring of Kern
2 Medical Center department chairs, demotion of Kern Medical Center department chairs, and
3 policies RELATING TO Kern Medical Center’s Pathology Department.
5 Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain
6 confidential personnel information, documents protected from disclosure by state or federal law,
7 including the peer-review privilege, or documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege.
8 Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce documents responsive to this request
9 by December 21, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential peer review and personnel
10 information as appropriate.
14 employer manuals maintained by YOU that YOU contend was distributed or made available to
15 YOUR employees, whether management or non-management, from October 24, 200 to the
16 present and the date of such asserted distribution. These include but are not limited to YOUR
17 ordinances, Kern Medical Center’s Administrative Procedures Manual, Kern Medical Center’s
18 Policy & Administrative Procedures Manual, policies RELATING TO disability discrimination,
19 reasonable accommodation, interactive process, personal leave, administrative leave, medical
20 leave, retaliation, investigations into complaints of unlawful employment practices, discipline of
21 employees, investigation of employees, appointment of Kern Medical Center acting department
22 chairs, hiring of Kern Medical Center department chairs, demotion of Kern Medical Center
23 department chairs, and policies RELATING TO Kern Medical Center’s Pathology Department.
6

MTC000030
4 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO peer review, quality management and
5 quality assurance policies and procedures at Kern Medical Center, included but not limited to
6 Kern Medical Center’s Quality Management and Performance Improvement Plan, from October
7 24, 2000 to the present, and the effective dates.
13 by December 7, 2007.1. Defendants will redact confidential peer review and personnel
16 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any training provided by YOU to YOUR
17 officers, directors, agents or employees on the following subjects:
18 a) disability discrimination
19 b) accommodation of an 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

7

MTC000031

6 by December 21, 2007.
8 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING To the PERSONNEL FILES of the following
9 people.
10 a) Plaintiff David F. Jadwin
11 b) Elsa Ang
12 c) Ellen Bunyi-Teopengco
13 d) Philip Dutt
14 e) Carol Gates
15 f) Adam Lang
16 g) Fangluo Liu
17 h) Savita Shertukde
18 i) Navin Amin
19 j) Kathy Griffith
20 k) Alice Hevle
21 l) Denise Long
22 m) Gilbert Martinez
23 n) Albert McBride
24 o) Javad Naderi
25 p) Jane Thornton
26 q) Nitin Athavale
27 r) Chester Lau
28 s) Jennifer J. Abraham
8

MTC000032
1 t) Bernard C. Barmann
2 u) Karen S. Barnes
3 v) Peter K. Bryan
4 w) David Culberson
5 x) Irwin E. Harris
6 y) Royce Johnson
7 z) Eugene K. Kercher
8 aa) Alan Scott Ragland
9 bb) William Roy
10 cc) Maureen Martin
11 dd) Steven O‘Connor
12 ee) Antoinette Smith
13 ff) Edward Taylor
14 gg) Marvin Kolb
15 hh) Dianne McConnehey
16 ii) Renita Nunn
17 jj) Ravi Patel
18 kk) Jose Perez
19 ll) Evangeline Gallegos
20 mm) Sergio Perticucci
21 nn) Bonnie Quinonez
22 oo) James Sproul
23 pp) Rebecca Rivera
24 qq) Sheldon Freedman
25 rr) Joseph Mansour
26 ss) George Alkouri
27 tt) Nicole Sharkey

9

MTC000033
1 Defendants have already produced the personnel file of David F. Jadwin. Defendants
2 will confirm that the personnel file previously produced was complete as of the time of its
3 production and, on or before December 7, 2007, will augment the documents previously
4 produced with any additional materials, if any, that have been added into Mr. Jadwin’s personnel
5 file since the file was produced. Plaintiff has narrowed the scope of this request by eliminating
6 all other documents initially requested.
8 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the search, recruitment, application,
9 interviewing, and hiring process that resulted in Plaintiff’s employment by YOU.
14 Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this
15 request by December 21, 2007.
17 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the terms, conditions and privileges of
18 Plaintiff’s employment with YOU.
20 Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007.
22 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Plaintiff’s job duties and responsibilities for
23 each position held by Plaintiff during this employment with YOU.
27 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Plaintiff’s payroll, compensation, base
28 salary and “professional fee payments”, as that term is defined in Plaintiff’s employment
10

MTC000034
1 contracts with YOU, including but not limited to any and all changes in compensation and the
2 reasons for changes, throughout Plaintiff’s employment with YOU.
6 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR policies, guidelines and practices
7 regarding base salary steps, salary guidelines, deferred compensation plans, pension plans, health
8 insurance and employment benefits applicable to Plaintiff’s position s held throughout his
9 employment with YOU.
13 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Plaintiff’s work schedule and/or removal
14 there from, including but not limited to timesheets, from October 24, 200 to present.
18 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Dr. Phillip Dutt’s timesheets, from April 20
19 2005 to the present.
24 Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce all non-privileged documents
25 responsive to this request by December 21, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential
26 information, in any, as appropriate.
28
11

MTC000035
1 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Dr. Savita Shertukde’s timesheets, from
11 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO performance reviews, comments,
12 complaints, warnings, reprimands, counseling, advisory notices or evaluations of Plaintiff’s
13 performance of his job duties throughout his employment with YOU, whether formal or
14 informal.
24 employment by YOU, including any and all e-mails, Groupwise calendars, memoranda, written
25 materials, and computer files stored on Plaintiff’s computer at Kern Medical Center’s servers.
27 After diligent search, Defendants believe Groupwise calendar information was deleted
28 many months ago as part of the routine 90-day cycling of the Groupwise software. Defendants
12

MTC000036
1 are continuing to search for other materials that were on the computer that was assigned to
2 Plaintiff. Some material was archived before the computer was reassigned. Defendants have
3 identified about 3,000 pages of documents that appear to be responsive to this request but have
4 not yet concluded their search. Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request
5 by December 7, 2007.
7 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any meetings RELATING TO Plaintiff or
8 Plaintiff’s employment at Kern Medical Center.
15 information, if any, as appropriate.
18 complaints, warnings, reprimands, counseling, advisory notices or evaluations of the Kern
19 Medical Center Pathology Department, whether formal or informal, from October 24, 1995 to
20 the present.

13

MTC000037
1 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Plaintiff’s complaints of:

3 b) failure to accommodate
4 c) failure to engage in an interactive process
5 d) violation of medical leave rights
8 g) deprivation of property without due process
9 h) defamation
10 i) Fair Labor Standards Act violations
19 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any investigation of Plaintiff’s complaints
20 of disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in an interactive process,
21 violation of medical leave rights, whistleblower retaliation, medical leave retaliation, defamation,
22 and/or deprivation of property without due process.
28
14

MTC000038
4 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any procedures available to YOUR
5 employees to complain of corruption, fraud and other wrongful, illegal or unethical conduct, that
6 YOU contend was distributed or made available to YOUR employees, whether management or
7 non-management, from October 24, 2000 to the present, and the date of such asserted
8 distribution(s).
12 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR discipline of any employee against
13 whom a complaint or grievance of discrimination, harassment, defamation, retaliation, failure to
14 accommodate, and/or failure to engage in an interactive process in their employment was made
15 from October 24, 2000 to date.
17 Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it requests documents that contain
19 including HIPAA and the peer-review privilege, and documents that contain information that is
20 subject to the attorney-client privilege. Defendants do not believe these objections can be
21 resolved by redaction. Defendants also object on the grounds that the request is not reasonably
22 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
25 past or present employees against YOU for defamation, retaliation, disability discrimination,
26 failure to accommodate, and/or failure to engage in an interactive process, including but not
27 limited to any informal or internal complaints, grievances or charges to any state or federal
28 agency, and complaints filed in any state or federal court from October 24, 2000 to date.
15

MTC000039

3 documents that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in
4 this case. Consequently, this request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
5 admissible evidence. Defendants also object on the ground that the phrase, “informal or internal
6 complaints” is vague and, depending on interpretation, could include any off-hand gripe by any
7 employee, to the extent it was memorialized in writing. Defendant County of Kern employs
8 several thousand employees. In the past seven years, there could be many documents that fit the
9 description of this request yet none have anything to do with the issues in this case. This request
10 is, accordingly, overbroad and burdensome. Defendants do not believe redaction would resolve
11 these objections.
13 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any complaints or grievances made to YOU
14 by Plaintiff.
16 Defendants believe all documents responsive to this request have been previously
17 produced to Plaintiff. Defendants will confirm this, or produce additional documents if
18 necessary, by December 7, 2007.
20 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Plaintiff which YOU sent to or received
21 from any governmental or regulatory authority, including but not limited to the California
22 Department of Fair Employment and Housing, the California Labor and Workforce Development
23 Agency, and the U.S. Department of Labor.

16

MTC000040
1 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TOYOUR search for, recruitment, of and
2 evaluation of candidates for the position of staff pathologist at Kern Medical Center during the
3 period from January 1, 2006 to present.
7 this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
8 Defendants also object to this request to the extent it requests information protected from
9 disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA and the peer review privilege, and
10 documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege. Without waving these objections,
11 Defendants will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this request, if any, by
12 December 7, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential and privileged information as
13 appropriate.

16 evaluation of candidates for the position of Chair or Chief of Pathology at Kern Medical Center
17 during the period from January 1, 2006 to present.
27 appropriate.

17

MTC000041
2 evaluation of candidates for the position of locus tenens pathologist at Kern Medical Center
13 appropriate.

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

18

MTC000042
1 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TOYOUR removal of Dr. Royce Johnson from
2 the position of Chair or Chief of Medicine at Kern Medical Center.
9 documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege.
12 evaluation of candidates for the position of Chair or Chief of Medicine at Kern Medical Center
13 during the period from October 24, 2000 to present.
23 appropriate.
25 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO presentations made at the Kern Medical
26 Center oncology conference in May 2005, including but not limited to participant evaluation
27 forms.

19

MTC000043
9 appropriate.
11 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Plaintiff’s presentations made at the Kern
12 Medical Center oncology conference on or about October 12, 2005.
16 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR decision to demote Plaintiff from
17 Chair of Kern Medical Center’s Pathology Department to staff pathologist.
19 Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that are privileged
20 under the attorney-client privilege. Without waiving this objection Defendants will produce all
21 non-privileged documents responsive to this request by December 7, 2007.
23 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING To the “packets containing information about
24 Dr. Jadwin” which Peter Bryan collected at the end of Kern Medical Center’s Joint Conference
25 Committee discussion and vote on removal of Plaintiff from Chair of Pathology on July 10,
26 2006.
28
20

MTC000044
1 Defendants are searching for documents responsive to this request. Because of

2 administrative and management changes at Kern Medical Center, it may not be possible to
3 reconstruct the “packets” requested. Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests
4 information protected by the peer-review or attorney-client privileges. Defendants also object to
5 this request to the extent it seeks documents that contain confidential personnel information.
6 Without waiving these objections, and to the extent that the “packets” can be reconstructed,
7 Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request, if any, by December 21, 2007.
9 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR decision to place Plaintiff on
10 administrative leave on or about December 7, 2006.
12 Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests information protected by the
13 attorney-client privilege. Without waiving that objection, Defendants believe all documents
14 responsive to this request have been previously produced to Plaintiff. Defendants will confirm
15 this, or produce additional documents if necessary, by December 7, 2007.
17 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR decision to restrict Plaintiff to his
18 home during working hours from on or about December 7, 2006 to on or about May 1, 2007
19 while he was on administrative leave.
25 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR decision to lift the restriction of
26 Plaintiff to his home during working hours from on or about December 7, 2006 to on or about
27 May 1, 2007 while he was on administrative leave.

21

MTC000045
5 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR decision not to renew Plaintiff’s
6 employment contract with YOU that was purportedly made on or about May 1, 2007.
8 Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests information protected by the
10 responsive to this request have been previously produced to Plaintiff. Defendants will confirm
11 this, or produce additional documents if necessary, by December 7, 2007.
13 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any discipline, coaching, reprimand or
14 corrective action taken against Plaintiff by YOU.
20 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Kern Medical Center’s Disruptive Physician
21 Policy, including but not limited to Bylaw Committee meeting minutes.
25 including the HIPAA and the peer-review privilege, or documents that are subject to the
26 attorney-client privilege. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce documents
27 responsive to this request by December 7, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential peer review
28 and personnel information as appropriate.

22

MTC000046

2 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Dr. Rebecca Rivera’s lawsuit against Kern
3 Medical Center filed in Kern County California Superior Court.
5 Plaintiff has narrowed this request to eliminate any documents that have been filed with
6 the Kern County Superior Court. As so limited, this request seeks documents in the County
7 Counsel’s litigation file, many of which are protected by the attorney work product and attorney-
8 client privileges. To the extent this request seeks information that is protected by the attorney-
9 client privilege, Defendants object to it. Defendants also object to this request on the grounds
10 that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants
11 are in the process of reviewing documents that are may be responsive to this request and, without
12 waiving these objections, will produce non-privileged documents, if any, by December 21, 2007.
13 Defendants may redact privileged information if appropriate.

15 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO services provided to YOU by the Camden
16 Group RELATING TO Kern Medical Center.
22 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO statistics maintained by YOU RELATING
23 TO patient fatalities at Kern Medical Center from October 24, 2000 to the present.
23

MTC000047
5 appropriate. If the redaction process renders the resulting document useless, Defendants will
6 inform Plaintiff.
8 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the review of Kern Medical Center’s
9 placental evaluations and billing activity as conducted by outside consultants, including but not
10 limited to ProPay Physician Services, LLC, from October 24, 2000 to the present.
20 appropriate.
22 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO blood bank monthly reports, included but
23 not limited to reports generated by Michelle Burris, from January 2006 to present.
24

MTC000048
5 appropriate.
7 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO product chart copy-related quality assurance
8 reports from October 24, 2000 to the present.
18 appropriate.
20 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO prostate needle biopsy reports produced by
21 Dr. Elsa Ang for which Plaintiff had requested a lookback study in October 2005.
25

MTC000049

3 appropriate.
5 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO sign-in sheets for Kern Medical Center’s
6 Cancer Clinic from January 1, 2003 to the present.
10 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Workplace Violence or Threat Incident
11 Reports for all Kern Medical Center personnel from October 24, 2000 to the present.
13 Defendants object to this request to the extent it seeks documents that contain
14 confidential personnel information or information protected by the attorney-client privilege.
15 Defendants also object to the extent the documents contain information protected by the peer-
16 review privilege and on the grounds that the request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the
17 discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce
18 all documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007. Defendants will redact
19 confidential or privileged information as appropriate.
21 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Fine Needle Aspiration policies at Kern
22 Medical Center from October 24, 2000 to the present, including but not limited to
23 DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the outside consultant study conducted by Dr. David Lieu in
24 2004.
26 Defendants object to this request to the extent it seeks documents that contain
26

MTC000050
1 review privilege and on the grounds that the request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the
3 all documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007. Defendants will redact
4 confidential or privileged information as appropriate.
6 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Peter Bryan’s appointment calendar from
7 January 1, 2004 to September 1, 2006.
11 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO meeting minutes for the following Kern
12 Medical Center committees or groups from October 24, 2000 to the present:
13 a) Medical Executive Committee
14 b) Joint Conference Committee
15 c) Quality Management Committee
16 d) Cancer Committee
17 e) Second Level Peer Review Committee
18 f) Transfusion Committee
19 g) Executive Staff Meetings
22 confidential personnel information or information that is protected from disclosure by state or
23 federal law, including HIPAA and the peer review privilege, or documents that are subject to the
24 attorney/client privilege. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce documents
25 responsive to this request by December 21, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential or
26 privileged information as appropriate.
28
27

MTC000051
1 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO policies of Kern Medical Center’s

2 Pathology Department from October 24, 2000 to the present.
6 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO case send-out logs for Kern Medical
7 Center’s Pathology Department from January 1, 1999 to the present, including but not limited to
8 corresponding Kern Medical Center pathology reports and reports from outside consultants.
11 confidential personnel information or information that is protected from disclosure by state or
12 federal law, including HIPAA and the peer review privilege, or documents that are subject to the
13 attorney/client privilege. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce documents
14 responsive to this request by December 7, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential or
15 privileged information as appropriate.
17 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO monthly turn-around-time reports and logs
18 – by pathologist – for pathology reports processed at Kern Medical Center, including but not
19 limited to Pathology Department Semi-annual Reports to the Medical Staff, for the time period
20 from January 1, 1999 to the present.
23 privileged peer review information. Without waiving this objection Defendants will produce all
24 documents responsive to this request by December 7, 2007. Defendants will redact all privileged
27 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO monthly or semi-monthly turn-around-time
28 reports and logs – for Kern Medical Center’s Pathology Department as a whole – for pathology
28

MTC000052
1 reports processed at Kern Medical Center including but not limited to surgical pathology,
2 cytology and bone marrow reports, for the time period from January 1, 1999 to the present.
9 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO PATHOLOGY REPORTS authored,
10 reviewed or approved by Plaintiff which YOU sent to any outside pathologists for outside review
11 from June 14, 2006 to the present.
18 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO PATHOLOGY REPORTS RELATING TO
19 Case Numbers S06-4131, S06-4619, S06-5229, S06-73276.
22 information that is confidential under HIPAA. Defendants also object to the extent that it
23 requests documents that contain privileged peer-review information. Without waiving these
24 objections Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 7,
25 2007. Defendants will redact confidential and privileged information as appropriate.
27 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO peer review RELATING TO Kern Medical
28 Center’s Pathology Department during the time period from January 1, 1995 to the present,
29

MTC000053
1 including but not limited to computer-generated data, monthly peer review records completed by
2 pathologists, and peer review comment sheets that are completed by pathologists upon discovery
3 of a discrepancy.
5 Defendants object to this request on the ground that it requests privileged peer-review
6 information. Defendants also object on the ground that it requests information that is
7 confidential under HIPAA and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
8 evidence. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce documents responsive to
9 this request by January 7, 2008 if it is possible to redact the confidential and privileged
10 information without rendering the resulting document useless.
12 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO exceptional event logs for histology and
13 pathology on Kern Medical Center’s Pathology Department from January 1, 2006 to the present.
17 requests documents that contain privileged peer review information. Without waiving these
21 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO paper accession logs at Kern Medical
22 Center’s Pathology Department from January 1, 2006 to present.

30

MTC000054

2 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO tissue disposal records for skull-flaps from
3 January 1, 2006 to the present.
11 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO audits of Kern Medical Center’s Pathology
12 Department by outside consultants, including but not limited to Dr. Stacey Garry, from October
21 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Kern Medical Center laboratory personnel
22 defections from June 14, 2006 to the present, including but not limited to exit interview notes.
24 Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it is vague. Defendants do not know
25 what “personnel defections” means. If Plaintiff intends to request a list of employees who have
26 separated from County employment or transferred out of the laboratory, Defendants can prepare
27 such a list but Defendants believe such a list will need to be redacted to remove confidential
28 personnel information. Defendants will produce a list of employees who have separated from
31

MTC000055
1 County employment or transferred out of the laboratory by December 21, 2007 and will redact
2 the information as appropriate.
4 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO dictation transcription logs for Plaintiff
9 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO dictation transcription logs for Dr. Philip
10 Dutt from June 14, 2006 to the present.
14 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO placental evaluations conducted by Plaintiff
18 burdensome and less calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence than the original
19 request. Defendants object to it for that reason. Defendants object to this request because it is
20 not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and is burdensome.
21 Defendants also object to this request on the grounds that it seeks information that is shielded
22 from disclosure under HIPAA. There are thousands of placental evaluations for the time period
23 specified and they are not centrally filed or maintained. Locating ones conducted by Plaintiff
24 will require writing a computer program that will sort the files. After the files are sorted, it will
25 require a manual review of each file to find the placental evaluation. It will have to be copied
26 and redacted and copied again. Defendants estimate it will take approximately 90 days to
27 comply with this request. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will attempt to locate,
28 copy and produce the documents requested

32

MTC000056

2 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Golden Empire Pathology Associates.
4 After diligent search, Defendants’ have not been able to locate any documents that are
5 responsive to this request.
7 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Golden Empire Medical Group.
9 After diligent search, Defendants’ have not been able to locate any documents that are
10 responsive to this request.
11
12
13
14 Dated: November 20, 2007 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER
15
16 By: /s/ Mark A. Wasser
17 Mark A. Wasser
Attorney for Defendants, County of Kern, et al.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
33

MTC000057

11/22/07
MTC000058

ELEE@LOEL.COM
(213) 992-3299
TELEPHONE
LAW OFFICE OF EMAIL
E U G ENE L E E
FAX
Fax Number: 2135960487 Date: 11/22/2007
Re: Jadwin/KC: Meet and Confer re RPD1
Comments:
Mark,
Transmitted herewith is a meet and confer letter in regard to defendants'

responses to plaintiff's request for production of documents, set one. We
look forward to having a meet and confer phone call with you next Monday.
As we've mentioned previously, if we are unable to resolve these issues,
plaintiff intends to move to compel.
Happy Thanksgiving.
MTC000059
(213) 992-3299
TELEPHONE
E-MAIL
EUGENE LEE
November 22,2007
VIA FACSIMILE

Re: Defendants Responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Production, Set One

Dear Mark:
It was a pleasure speaking with you yesterday regarding my email of November 20.
I. OVERBROAD OBJECTION
As you know, in that email, we had explained that defendants' oft-used objection, "documents
protected from disclosure by state or federal law", does not comply with FRCP Rule 34 because
it (a) is too broadly stated and (b) fails to explain how the objection relates to the documents
demanded. During the call, you indicated that defendants would re-state this objection. We look
forward to discussing this further with you on Monday's call.
II. ISSUES RELATED TO SPECIFIC RESPONSES
Plaintiff also notes the following issues with defendants written responses to plaintiff requests
for production, set one:
Response Issue
to Doc
ReqNo.
23/24 December 21 seems to be an excessively long time. Also, to what extent are the
timesheets attorney-client privileged?
25 To what extent are these documents relating to plaintiff's job performance attorney-
client privileged?
32 These documents are essential to prove disparate treatment and
discriminatory/retaliatory intent. We intend to move to compel if we cannot resolve
this.
33 In past meet and confer calls, plaintiff had narrowed this request to complaints or
grievances relating to Kern Medical Center which had been made to a government
MTC000060
To: 213-596-0487 From: Law Office of Eugene Lee Pg 3/ 4 11/22/07 3:07 pm
agency or court. These documents are essential to prove disparate treatment and
this.
36 to 39 To what extent are these documents attorney-client privileged?
discriminatorylretaliatory
this.
42 To what extent are documents relating to the May 2005 oncology conference
presentation attorney-client privileged?
69 We still await defendants' response on the patient medical record number issue, both
for past and for future disclosures.
discriminatory/retaliatory intent. January 7, 2008 is an unacceptable length of time to
wait for these documents. We intend to move to compel if we cannot resolve this.
78 Defendants fail to indicate a date of production.
III. REQUEST 78
Regarding Request 78, as a means to save time, plaintiff proposes defendants produce the
following. We can discuss this at our next conference if you wish.
1. A printout of a list of all CPT code 88307 reports will produce all placentas.
There are less than 4,500 placentas per year. This process should require no more
than four hours.
2. A printout of all pathology reports appearing on the above list. At two reports per
minute, this should require approx. 40 hours.
3. Redaction of patient names (appearing in 3 places on each report) is a highly

repetitive task that should require far less than 40 hours. If automated using
scanning and Adobe Acrobat, it should take even less time.
These tasks are clerical and do not require a great deal of skill.
We look forward to our next meet and confer conference call with you at 10:00 a.ill. on Monday,
schedule.
MTC000061
MTC000062

11/27/07
MTC000063

ELEE@LOEL.COM
(213) 992-3299
TELEPHONE
LAW OFFICE OF EMAIL
E U G ENE L E E
FAX
Fax Number: 2135960487 Date: 11/27/2007
Re: Jadwin/KC: Meet and Confer re RPD1
Comments:
Dear Mark,
Transmitted herewith is a letter in followup to our meet and confer call

yesterday. Also enclosed is a draft stipulation as we discussed.
Sincerely.
MTC000064
(213) 992-3299
TELEPHONE
E-MAIL
EUGENE LEE
November 27,2007
VIA U.S. MAIL FIRST CLASS & FACSIMILE


Jadwin 1 County of Kern, et al. (USDC EDCA NO.1 :07-cv-00026-0WWITAG)
Dear Mark:
It was a pleasure speaking with you yesterday and today regarding my letter to you of November
22. We are writing this letter in follow-up to our discussion.
As you know, in that email, we had explained that defendants' oft-used objection, "documents
protected from disclosure by state or federal law", does not comply with FRCP Rule 34 because
it (a) is too broadly stated and (b) fails to explain how the objection relates to the documents
demanded. During the call, you indicated that the objection referred to HIPAA and peer review
privilege, and that defendants would revise the responses to state the objection accordingly by
Friday, November 30.
II. PRIVILEGE LOG
You stated that you intend to provide us with a privilege log for all requests by Friday,
November 30.
III. ISSUES RELATED TO SPECIFIC RESPONSES
Plaintiff also notes the following issues with defendants' written responses to plaintiff's requests
Response Issue
to Doc
ReqNo.
23/24 You stated that these are probably not attorney-client privileged and that defendants
may be able to produce them this week.
25 You stated that these are probably not attorney-client privileged.
33 We reiterated that we have already agreed to narrow this request to documents
MTC000065
relating to complaints or grievances relating to Kern Medical Center which had been
made to a government agency or court. We further explained that these documents
are essential to prove disparate treatment and discriminatory/retaliatory intent. You
requested and we agreed to send you revised response language which nails down
exactly what we are requesting. You confirmed that the documents are already in the
process of being collected and that, once the request language is revised, you will
produce responsive documents by December 7.
Following is the revised language narrowing the request:
"COMPLAINTS AGAINST COUNTY. 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 RELATING TO Kern Medical
Center and/or its officers or staff, including but not limited to any infermal sr
internal 6slfljllaints, grievances or charges to any state or federal agency, and
complaints filed in any state or federal court from October 24, 2000 to date."
36 to 39 You explained that some documents will be subject to attorney-client privilege.
40 We explained that these documents are essential to prove disparate treatment and
discriminatory/retaliatory intent. You maintain your objections that documents
requested are confidential personnel information and that the request is not
reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence because Dr. Royce's situation is
too dissimilar to plaintiff's. Therefore you stated that you do not intend to produce
any responsive documents. Since we are at an impasse, we will move to compel.
Note: becanse yon are refnsing this reqnest, we are reinstating onr reqnest in
Request 16 with respect to Dr. Royce Johnson's personnel fIle. Previously you
had objected that the personnel files of state employees are privileged official
information. Please see this case:
Garrett v. San Francisco, 818 F.2d 1515, 1518-1519 fnA (9th Cir. 1987)("This
court has held that personnel files are discoverable in federal question cases,
including Title VII actions, despite claims of privilege. Guerra v. Board ofTrustees,
567 F.2d 352 (9th Cir. 1977); Kerr v. United States District Court, 511 F.2d 192,
197 (9th Cir. 1975), aff'd, 426 U.S. 394, 48 L. Ed. 2d 725,96 S. Ct. 2119 (1976)).
Ibid. (where plaintiff sought personnel records of 16 named firefighters to prove

disparate treatment and defendants objected on grounds of privilege, confidentiality,
invasion of privacy, and irrelevance, the 9th Cir. opined "Without passing on the
merits of plaintiff's discovery motion (a matter which should be addressed first by
the district court), we note that the motion, on its face, does not appear to be entirely
without merit.").

69 You indicated that defendants will disclose patient medical record numbers by
December 7, and that you will look into the possibility of doing the same for
2
MTC000066
defendants' past Initial Disclosures.

discriminatory/retaliatory intent and that January 7,2008 is an unacceptable length
oftime to wait for these documents. You asked for legal authority establishing that
state privilege caselaw does not apply in federal court in cases involving a federal
question. We agreed to provide it. You also indicated that if we are able to
successfully meet and confer on this issue, that you would be able to produce
responsive documents by December 21.
Please see these cases:
Wm. T. Thompson Co. v. General Nutrition Corp., 671 F.2d 100,104 (3d Cir. 1982)
(We hold that when there are federal law claims in a case also presenting state law
claims, the federal rule favoring admissibility, rather than any state law privilege, is
the controlling rule. The question is one of first impression in this court, but our
holding is consistent with the legislative history n5 of Rule SOl and the decisions of
a number of trial courts. n6 It is also consistent with the general rule in federal
practice disfavoring privileges not constitutionally based.)
Kerrv. United States District Court, 511 F.2d 192, 196-198 (9th Cir.1975), affd,
426 U.S. 394, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976); (In federal question cases the
clear weight of authority and logic supports reference to federal law on the issue of
the existence and scope of an asserted privilege; The state's interest is that of a
litigant, and not, as in diversity cases, that of a sovereign whose law is being applied
in a foreign forum. Reference to federal law in this case is necessary on the issue of
the existence and scope ofthe claimed privilege.).
78 We explained that you failed to indicate a date of production. You said that you
would give us a date of production at our next call on November 30.
IV. REQUEST 78
Regarding Request 78, we explained that the task of producing these documents is clerical and
could be handled by an hourly-paid temporary hire, in one to two weeks. You said you were
discussing our latest suggestions with your clients.
V. RELEVANCY OBJECTION
During the call, a topic of discussion was defendants' objection that plaintiff's requests were not
reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Following is some caselaw regarding that.
In our view, defendants are adopting an overly expansive view of what the objection covers:
Royce Johnson is a fair comparator for Dr. Jadwin in terms of "seriousness" of

wrongdoing:
3
MTC000067
McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transp. Co., 427 U.S. 273, 283 n.ll, 49 L. Ed. 2d 493,96 S.
Ct. 2574 (1976) (In a Title VII case, plaintiff can meet its burden by showing that other
employees (firefighters) who engaged in similar acts of wrongdoing of comparable seriousness .
. . were nevertheless retained.)
Relevancy is not a proper objection:

United States v. Meyer, 398 F.2d 66, 72 (9th Cir. 1968). (In addition to discovering
information pertaining to a party's case in chief, it is entirely proper to obtain information for
other purposes such as cross-examination of adverse witnesses)
8 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, s 2008 at 41 (1970) (For the question
of relevancy is to be more loosely construed at the discovery stage than at the trial.)
Olympic Refining Company v. Carter,332 F.2d 260, 266 (9th Cir. 1964) (Thus under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1), it is no ground for objection that information sought in pretrial discovery
would not be admissible at trial, ifthe testimony sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence.).
VI. 12/4-12/6 DEPOSITIONS
We explained that we are incurring hotel, travel and court reporter costs in connection with the
upcoming depositions. You agreed to confirm with us shortly that the depositions can go forward
as scheduled. You had mentioned that, due to scheduling conflicts, Dr. Wrobel's deposition may
need to be moved from Tuesday afternoon to possibly Thursday. Please let us know.
VII. STIPULATION RE AUTHENTICATION OF DOCUMENTS
We asked if you would consider entering into a stipulation mutually authenticating documents
produced by the parties in discovery. You agreed to do so. A draft stipulation is attached for your
review.
We look forward to our next meet and confer conference call with you at 10:00 a.ill. on Friday,
schedule.
Very trul\ yours,
~,,---\-
i$ENE D. LEE
MTC000068
1 Eugene D. Lee SB# 236812

LAW OFFICES OF EUGENE LEE
2 555West Fifth Street, Suite 3100
3 Phone: (213) 992-3299
Fax: (213) 596-0487
4 E-mail: elee@LOEL.com
5 Joan Herrington SB# 178988

6 5032 Woodminister Lane
Oakland, CA 94602
7 Phone: (510) 530-4078
Fax: (510) 530-4725
8 E-mail: jh@baelo.com
9
Attorneys for Plaintiff
10 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.
II LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER
12 Sacramento,CA95814
Phone: (916) 444-6400
13 Fax: (916) 444-6405
E-mail: mwasser@markwasser.com
14
Bernard C. Barman, Sr.
16 1115 Truxtun Avenue, Fourth Floor
Bakersfield, CA 9330 I
17 Phone: (661) 868-3800
Fax: (661) 868-3805
18 E-mail: mnations@co.kern.ca.us
19 Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern, Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher,
Jennifer Abraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smith and William Roy
20
STIPULATION TO AUTHENTICATE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED IN DISCOVERY I

MTC000069
1 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and among the parties hereto through their respective
2 counsel, that any and all documents produced by plaintiff and/or by each of the defendants, or
3 any ofthem, in the Initial Disclosures, supplemental disclosures, or pursuant to discovery
4 requests or procedures in this action shall be deemed authentic under Federal Rule of Evidence
5 90 I, provided however that documents generated by third parties shall not be included in this
6 stipulation.
8 Dated: December , 2007 LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE
10 By:_--,E",u=e",n",e-=D,-,.~L=..:e,-"e'----- -----1
Eugene D. Lee
11 Attorney for Plaintiff, David F. Jadwin, D.O.
12
13 Dated: December , 2007 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER
14
IS By: _--,M""",a",rk,,--,-,A,,-.-,-W,-,a",s""se",r--,C."a,,-s",au",t""h",o",ri",,-ze"'d"--""on"----_ _L)_

Mark A. Wasser
16 Attorney for Defendants, County of Kern, et al.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION TO AUTHENTICATE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED IN DISCOVERY 2

MTC000070
1 ORDER
2 The parties having stipulated as hereinabove set forth and good cause appearing therefor;
3
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that that any and all documents produced by plaintiff and/or
4 by each ofthe defendants, or any ofthem, in the Initial Disclosures, supplemental disclosures or
pursuant to discovery requests or procedures in this action shall be deemed authentic under
5 Federal Rule of Evidence 901, provided however that documents generated by third parties shall
not be included in this stipulation.
6
7 Dated: December _ , 2007 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
By: _
9 The Honorable Theresa A. Goldner
United States District Judge
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION TO AUTHENTICATE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED IN DISCOVERY 3

MTC000071
11/30/07
MTC000072
(213) 992-3299
TELEPHONE
L A W O F F I C E O F ELEE@LOEL.COM
E-MAIL
E U G E N E L E E
(213) 596-0487 555 WEST FIFTH STREET, SUITE 3100 WWW.LOEL.COM
EUGENE D. LEE, ESQ. JOAN E. HERRINGTON, ESQ.
November 30, 2007

VIA E-MAIL

Re: Defendants Responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production, Set One

Jadwin / County of Kern, et al. (USDC EDCA No. 1:07-cv-00026-OWW/TAG)
Dear Mark:
It was a pleasure speaking with you today regarding our letter to you of November 27. We were
pleased to hear that you expected most if not all documents to be produced before December 21.
We are writing this letter in follow-up to our discussion.
We discussed defendants’ objection, “documents protected from disclosure by state or federal
law”, which is problematic because it (a) is too broadly stated and (b) fails to explain how the
objection relates to the documents demanded. During the call, you agreed to revise the responses
to state the objection accordingly by either today or next Monday.
II. PRIVILEGE LOG

You stated that you intend to provide us with a privilege log for all requests by either today or
next Monday.
III. ISSUES RELATED TO SPECIFIC RESPONSES

Plaintiff also notes the following issues with defendants’ written responses to plaintiff’s requests
Response Issue
to Doc
Req No.
23/24 You stated there would not likely be any issue producing these and you would have
a more definite idea as to production date by next Monday.
33 You confirmed that plaintiff’s revised request language is adequate and that you will
produce responsive documents tentatively by December 7, but you would have a
more definite idea as to production date by next Monday.
40 We discussed McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transp. Co., 427 U.S. 273, 283 n.11, 49
L. Ed. 2d 493, 96 S. Ct. 2574 (1976), establishing Dr. Royce is a fair comparator for
disparate treatment. You said you would do some further research and be ready to
MTC000073
discuss it with us further by next Monday.
I mentioned that if we are unable to resolve this issue, we would reinstate our
request in Request 16 with respect to Dr. Royce Johnson’s personnel file. I further
mentioned Garrett v. San Francisco, supporting our right to disclosure of personnel
files.
69 You stated you would probably have a decision on this by next Monday.
discriminatory/retaliatory intent. We also cited Wm. T. Thompson Co. v. General
Nutrition Corp., 671 F.2d 100, 104 and Kerr v. United States District Court, 511
F.2d 192, 196-198 (9th Cir.1975), establishing that federal privilege applies in
federal question cases.
You stated that you would research this further and that if we are able to successfully
meet and confer on this issue, you would be able to produce responsive documents
possibly by December 21.
78 You stated that you would produce possibly by December 21, but that this would be
decided by next Monday.
IV. STIPULATION RE AUTHENTICATION OF DOCUMENTS

We discussed the draft stipulation and mentioned that some language should be added to ensure
documents generated by KMC hospital staff and employees are covered by the stip (as opposed
to third parties outside of KMC). You said you would discuss this with your client and get back
to us with an answer by next Monday.
V. PRIVACY BALANCING TEST

You requested caselaw regarding the privacy balancing test for disclosure. We cited Tisdale v
Marin General Hospital, 138 FRD 696.
If any of the foregoing is inaccurate, please do not hesitate to let us know. We find these letters
serve as a useful way to track ongoing items of discussion.
We look forward to our next meet and confer conference call with you at 5:00 p.m. on Monday,
December 3, 2007. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions or if you need to re-
schedule. Have a nice weekend.
Very truly yours,
EUGENE D. LEE
2
MTC000074
12/10/07
MTC000075
To: 213-596-0487 From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee Pg 1/ 4 12/10/07 2:52 pm

ELEE@LOEL.COM
(213) 992-3299
TELEPHONE
LAW OFFICE OF EMAIL
E U G ENE L E E
FAX
Fax Number: 2135960487 Date: 12/10/2007
Re: Jadwin/KC: Deposition Meet and Confer
Comments:
Mark,
Transmitted herewith is a meet and confer letter regarding plaintiff's

requests for production, set one, upcoming depositions, and depositions
of last week.
Sincerely.
MTC000076
(213) 992-3299
TELEPHONE
E-MAIL
EUGENE LEE
December 10, 2007

VIA FACSIMILE & US MAIL

Re: Defendants' Instructions to Deponents Not to Answer

Dear Mark:
It was a pleasure seeing you at plaintiff's depositions on December 4, 5 and 6, 2007.
I. UPCOMING DEPOSITIONS
On last Friday, we served deposition notices for Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Renita Nunn and Patti
Perez on you. As you recall, plaintiff and defendants had stipulated to make every Tuesday,
Wednesday and Thursday available for depositions. Please confirm that the depositions as
scheduled do not raise any scheduling issues.
II. PRIVILEGE LOG
Earlier, on December 3, we had had a phone call to discuss our outstanding requests for
production of documents, set one. As you will recall, we had agreed that you would provide
privilege logs by December 6. At the depositions, you mentioned that your assistant had faxed
you the privilege logs, but you failed to give them to us. Please provide the privilege logs
immediately to us.
III. OBSTRUCTION OF PLAINTIFF'S DEPOSITIONS
At each ofthe depositions of Drs. Taylor and Naderi (core physicians at KMC), you improperly
instructed the deponent not to answer our questions and thereby obstructed the depositions.
With respect to Dr. Taylor, plaintiff had asked him to name the core physician at KMC whom he
considered to be "arrogant". This question is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible
evidence relating to defendants' fifth affirmative defense, which specifically alleges that plaintiff
Dr. Jadwin "was arrogant, disagreeable, uncooperative, intimidating, overbearing, self-righteous
and unfriendly". This question also relates to disparate treatment of comparators, which is the
gravamen of discrimination claims; hence, the identity ofthis comparator and his or her
MTC000077
treatment by KMC is subject to discovery. You instructed Dr. Taylor not to answer even though
no privilege was involved or invoked. This constitutes obstruction of plaintiff's deposition.
With respect to Dr. Naderi, plaintiff had asked him to discuss his reduced work schedule at KMC
over a roughly 2-month period in connection with his son's car accident in or about 1998.
Questions regarding Dr. Naderi's leave of absence are reasonably calculated to lead to
admissible evidence relating to plaintiff's claim that plaintiff's right to medical leave under
FMLA and CFRA were interfered with and that plaintiff suffered retaliation for exercising his
rights under FMLA and CFRA. You instructed Dr. Naderi not to answer this "line of
questioning" even though no privilege was involved or invoked. This constitutes obstruction of
plaintiff's deposition.
In addition, several times at plaintiff's depositions from December 4 to 6, 2007, you improperly
coached the deponents. In each instance, you were neither stating an objection nor instructing the
witness not to answer.
Once the deposition transcripts become available, plaintiff intends to move to compel responses
to its questions and seek appropriate sanctions for your obstruction of plaintiff's depositions.
If you wish to resolution ofthe above issues, please contact us. We would be open to your
suggestions.
IV. RECESS & CONTINUANCE OF DR. TAYLOR'S DEPOSITION
Despite the fact that plaintiff had scheduled Dr. Taylor's deposition almost one month ago,
plaintiff were forced to recess the deposition of Dr. Taylor after only 3 hours because Dr. Taylor
needed to return to the hospital. You stipulated to a continuance of Dr. Taylor's deposition to
another time.
Please let us know when would be mutually convenient for you and Dr. Taylor so that we can
avoid having the same problem arising again with Dr. Taylor's schedule.
V. POSSIBLE BREACH OF RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
During the deposition of Dr. Ravi Patel, you testified on the record that you had entered into an
oral agreement to represent Dr. Patel as his attorney mere minutes before he entered the
deposition room. As you know, Dr. Patel is not a director, officer or managing agent at KMC and
is instead the proprietor of an outside contractor laboratory which does business with KMC. Dr.
Patel stated on the record that he had not signed a conflict waiver with you.
I direct your attention to California Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3-31 O(B)(l):
(B) A member shall not accept or continue representation of a client without providing written
disclosure to the client where:
(l) The member has a legal, business, financial, professional, or personal relationship with a
party or witness in the same matter
2
MTC000078
To: 213-596-0487 From: Law Office
OFFice of Eugene Lee Pg 4/ 4 12/10/07 2:52 pm
Although I am not certain as to the above, I recommend you contact the California Ethics Board
Hotline and inquire as to whether you may be in breach of Rule 3-310(B)(l)
3-31 O(B)( 1) and what steps you
should undertake if such is the case. If! am incorrect, then I offer you my apologies.
Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions.
, \j1~
I \/1\ ,' JJ
~lJpENE
~iJpENE D. LEE
D.O., F.C.A.P.
David F. Jadwin, D.G.,
3
MTC000079
EXHIBIT 12. DEFENDANTS’ PARTIAL PRIVILEGE LOG, 12/13/07
MTC000080
Eugene D. Lee
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 5:36 PM
To: Eugene Lee
Subject: Prviilege log
Attachments: Priviledge Log 11.30.07.doc
Gene,
Here is the privilege log for the documents produced in the last production. We will update this for the documents we will
produce next week.
Mark
Law Offices of Mark A. Wasser

Office: 916-444-6400
Fax: 916-444-6405
1
MTC000081
PRIVILEDGE LOG
Jadwin v. County of Kern, et al.
Documents Produced in Response to Plaintiff’s Request for

Production of Documents (Set One)
BATES NO. DATE TO FROM CC DOCUMENT REASON FOR

TYPE WITHOLDING/
REDACTING
0005166 – 0005168 Medical Record Privileged Peer
Suspension List Review
0005169 2002- Intense Analysis Privileged Peer
2003 Action Plan Review
Completion
0005202 - 0005203 Medical Record Privileged Peer
Completion
0005233 - 0005234 Medical Record Privileged Peer
Completion
0005394 Medical Record Privileged Peer
1
MTC000082
TYPE WITHOLDING/
REDACTING
0007053 - 0007060 11/7/06 Deficient Charts Privileged Peer
by Days Review/Confidential
Outstanding Personnel
0007515 - 007521 3/6/06 Deficient Charts Privileged Peer
by Days Review/Confidential
Outstanding Personnel
0007747 - 0007749 11/7/07 Proctoring Privileged Peer
Progress Report Review/Confidential
Personnel
0007837 - 0007841 8/22/07 Jennifer Abraham Robert Wallace Letter Privileged
Confidential
Personnel
0007930 Provider License Privileged
Status Confidential
Personnel
0008718 - 0008722 2000- Summary of Privileged Peer
2001 Annual Review/Confidential
Competency Personnel
Ratings by
Classification
Ratings by
Classification
2
MTC000083
TYPE WITHOLDING/
REDACTING
Ratings by
Classification
Ratings by
Classification
0009336 - 0009337 7/2001 – Summary of Privileged Peer
6/2002 Action Plans for Review/Confidential
Unsatisfactory Personnel
Annual
Performance
Reviews
0009336 - 009337 2003 Disciplinary Privileged Peer
Actions and Review/Confidential
Involuntary Personnel
Terminations
0009341-0009342 2003 Summary of Privileged Peer
Annual Review/Confidential
Ratings by
Classification
3
MTC000084
TYPE WITHOLDING/
REDACTING
0010925 - 0010926 3/3/03 Peter H. Parra Peter K. Bryan Marvin Kolb Memorandum Privileged
Barbara Patrick Confidential
Personnel
0011034 - 0011038 Jose Perez Memorandum Privileged
Confidential
Personnel
0011039-0011042 3/19/07 Members, Board of David K. Ron Errea Memorandum Privileged
Supervisors Culberson Bernie Barmann and Handwritten Confidential
Karen Barnes Notes Personnel
0011044 1/5/07 Ron Errea David K. Irwin Harris Memorandum Privileged
Fred Plane Culberson Confidential
Personnel
0011048 12/7/06 Jon McQuiston David K. Ron Errea Memorandum Privileged
0011049-0011067 Don Maben Culberson E. Ladd Confidential
Not pulled Barbara Patrick Personnel
Ray Watson
Michael J. Rubio
0011068 3/16/07 David K. Culberson Irwin Harris Email Privileged
Confidential
Personnel
0011101 - 0011125 8/06 Paul Esselman Candidate Privileged
Presentation Confidential
Personnel
0011140 Memorandum re Privileged
Salary Confidential
Personnel
4
MTC000085
TYPE WITHOLDING/
REDACTING
011078 - 11080 David K. Culberson Memorandum Privileged
Confidential
Personnel
Not privileged 1/31/06 Agreement for Privileged
0011082 - 0011095 Professional Confidential
Services – Personnel
Independent
Contractor
5
MTC000086
12/14/07
MTC000087
Eugene D. Lee
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 11:10 AM
To: elee@LOEL.com
Subject: RE: Jadwin/KC: Discovery issues

Gene,
I expect to produce the remaining documents before December 21, as I have anticipated. Our written response will be
either before then or within a day or two after. I should know for sure early next week and will tell you.
Mark

Mark,
I understand and respect your position. But I ask your understanding that Plaintiff is under time constraints as well
and has a duty to move this action forward. I am merely putting you on notice that Plaintiff will file a motion to
compel if the dates previously mentioned are not adhered to. There is no ill will behind it, only increasing urgency
driven by defendants’ numerous and endless delays. A motion is a waste of everyone’s time, but plaintiff must do
what is necessary to prosecute this case diligently.
Sincerely,
Gene Lee

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EMPLOYMENT LAW
Tel: (213)992-3299
Fax: (213)596-0487

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Califocnia Laboc & Emplo,ment Law Bl09

The Real Meaning of the Holidays
O•••mb.c 25, 'II'
" . " " ,y "'''"'"''
1
MTC000088
To: elee@LOEL.com
Gene,
The only point I want to respond to is your statement that you must “resort to threats in order to resolve this situation.” I
was not aware that of your belief in this regard. Whatever “threats” you believe you are making have nothing to do with
our position. You tend to default to a “threat” mode but our production and response will occur as we are able to make
them and have nothing to do with whatever “threats” you perceive to be making. You should take whatever action you
believe is appropriate. We will produce the documents and serve an updated written response as I have indicated.
You have been flexible, yes. We appreciate that but, in a production the magnitude of this one, flexibility is required. It is
a big task and will not happen any faster just because you make what you refer to as threats.
Mark

Subject: Jadwin/KC: Discovery issues
Mark,
We served our document production requests on Kern County on October 11, 2007, more than 2 months ago. We
set a reasonable deadline of November 12, 2007. We have extended that deadline by more than a month to
December 21, 2007 in an attempt to accommodate Kern County. We also agreed to forego the partial production
deadline on December 5. I hope you will agree that we have tried to be flexible. Now you are saying that you may
not be able to give us a response until after Dec. 21.
We will extend the deadline for Kern County’s written responses to plaintiff’s production requests, set one to
December 21, 2007. If we are not in receipt of the responses (including privilege logs) AND production by
December 21, we will file a motion to compel. There will be no further extensions.
Today is also the deadline for Peter Bryan’s responses to plaintiff’s document production requests. This represents a
2-week extension of the original deadline. If we are not in receipt of the responses AND production by end of
business today, we will file a motion to compel.
It is unfortunate that we must resort to threats of a motion in order to resolve this situation. However, we have a
duty to prosecute this action diligently and we cannot allow discovery to drag on any more than it already has.
Sincerely,
Gene Lee

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EMPLOYMENT LAW
Tel: (213)992-3299
Fax: (213)596-0487
2
MTC000089

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
California Labor" Emplo,ment Law 0109

Dukes v, Wal-Mart: 9th Circuit Upholds Class
December 11, lOll
n."" ,y " ' ' ' ' ' " ' '
To: elee@LOEL.com
Subject: RE: Discovery issues.
Gene,
I know you need an updated formal response. I do not want to do two more responses, however, and would like to cover
everything in the next response. Since I have not had a chance to look through the 9 new boxes of documents the
County sent me, I do not know what our response will be yet. As I have explained, there may be some categories for
which there are no documents. I don’t know yet. I will give you a firm date for the next response when I see you on
Tuesday. Although it is not conventional, the response may be after the production. I don’t know that yet, either.
Mark

Subject: RE: Discovery issues.
Mark,
Thanks for the email it is helpful. However, we still need formal revised responses to plaintiff’s requests for
production, set one. Please let me know when you will provide these responses. We need a firm date.
Sincerely,
Gene Lee

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EMPLOYMENT LAW
Tel: (213)992-3299
Fax: (213)596-0487

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

California Labor" Emplo,ment Law 0109
December 11, 2111
n."" 'Y " ' ' ' ' ' " ' '
3
MTC000090
Subject: Discovery issues.
Gene,
My assistant is out today and I am not technically proficient enough to send letters in her absence. So, this e-mail will
have to suffice until she returns. I can put this in letter format then if you would prefer to have a letter.
With regard to your letter of December 10, I anticipate sending you the privilege log this afternoon. There has been no
“obstruction” of plaintiff’s depositions and your suggestion that there has been is not worthy of further comment. With
regard to the depositions of Dr. Taylor and Dr. Naderi, I disagree with your characterization of what happened but I will
review the transcripts when they become available and determine whether there is merit to your position. For example,
my recollection of your line of questioning to Dr. Naderi is substantially different than yours. Rather than debate it now, I
will look at the transcripts and address it then.
Dr. Taylor’s deposition will be reset at a mutually convenient time. As you know, we offered to set it for next week but you
decided – and I agreed – that doing so would be too ambitious given the other depositions that are already scheduled.
The deposition will be reset when we can agree on a date to reset it.
Regarding the objections we have asserted to some of your pending requests for production, I have read the cases you
cited. They are good cases but they do not help you very much. The Third Circuit decision in General Nutrition, for
example, recites the traditional rule that federal privileges apply to federal questions and state law privileges apply where
state law provides the rule of decision. (671 F.2d at 103) Although you have alleged violations of civil rights under 42
U.S.C. 1983 and violations of FMLA and FSLA, you have made no connection between the documents you want and a
federal question claim that would entitle you to have them. We find no authority that supports your broad contention that
state law privileges do not apply in federal court. The Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Garrett v. City and County of San
Francisco holds it is your burden to make the requisite showing. (818 F.2d at 1519) The contents of Royce Johnson’s
personnel file, to take one example, is privileged under state law and, since he was never a department chair at KMC,
cannot offer “comparator” information for any of your federal claims. The issues cannot be resolved by redaction because
the documents in the file are, obviously, personal to Dr. Johnson. We find nothing in the cases you cite that requires
disclosure of matters that are protected from disclosure by state-law privileges that apply to state-law claims just because
Dr. Jadwin’s complaint contains unrelated federal claims.
Although the Defendants will produce some documents in response to your requests No. 28, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40,
41, 52, 54, 60, 66, 67, 70, 71, 72 and 75, all those requests raise issues of state-law privilege and none appear to have
any connection to any of Dr. Jadwin’s federal claims. Hence, to the extent there are state-law privileges, we see no
reason why we cannot assert them. We are willing to discuss this with you and, if our analysis is incorrect, we will
reconsider it. Again, our reading of Garrett indicates it is your burden to make the showing.
Requests No. 55, 56, 57, 58, 65, 66, 67, 69, 70, 71, 72 and 78 all involve, at least to some extent, documents that contain
information that is confidential under HIPAA, which, as you know, is a federal privilege. In many instances, the
confidential information can be redacted and, where it can be, we will produce redacted documents. Where redaction will
not adequately protect patient confidentiality, we may have no alternative but to object to the request.
I received 8 more boxes of documents today and expect to receive another box tomorrow. I believe we remain on the
schedule I have previously described and expect to do a supplemental production next week. It remains my belief that
you will have all documents that are being produced before December 21.
You have asked the Defendants to clarify the “state and federal laws” they are relying on in their objections. We are
relying on California Evidence Code sections 1040 and 1157 and California authorities that establish the confidentiality of
personnel records, HIPAA and federal authorities that recognize the physician-patient and peer-review privileges. Our
analysis is basically set forth in this letter.
I think this sums of where things stand. If you want to discuss this further, let me know.
Mark
4
MTC000091

Office: 916-444-6400
Fax: 916-444-6405
5
MTC000092
12/17/07
MTC000093
Eugene D. Lee
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 1:47 PM
Subject: RE: Jadwin/KC: Depo Continuance

Mark,
Thank you for speaking with me by phone yesterday.
You never notified us in advance of the copy charge, which you have told me by phone is estimated to be $10,000
for copy costs associated with the Initial Disclosure, and the two document production installments. You are
springing this issue on us just days before the production is due, which production date was extended numerous
times from an original production date in November, and suggesting this as an excuse to hold up production yet
again. You never previously raised the issue of copy cost regarding the initial disclosure which was produced back
on August 6, 2006 (plaintiff’s Initial Disclosure was larger than defendants and should more than offset any cost
incurred regarding defendants’ Initial Disclosure). You never mentioned any copy cost associated with the first
production installment before yesterday on the phone (which was provided on CD-ROM – we’ve asked for the
second installment on CD-ROM as well). $10,000 itself seems an exorbitant amount.
I would also add that plaintiff has readily agreed to narrow the document production requests on numerous
occasions to expedite matters for defendants. I fail to understand how defendants could have incurred such a
substantial $10,000 copy charge without first meeting and conferring with plaintiff. Yesterday was the first I had
heard you mention any cost estimate, let alone $10,000.
Plaintiff will pay the copy cost reimbursement you have requested so that the production can proceed, but will do
so under protest, reserving the right to bring a motion regarding this issue at a later date.
Yesterday, I requested you send me the reimbursement receipts as soon as possible. You had stated you would not
produce any documents until you were in receipt of payment. I still have yet to receive them. Please send me the
invoice ASAP so we can remit payment immediately. You have repeatedly stated that defendants would produce the
documents before Friday, December 21. Let’s ensure that happens.
Sincerely,
Gene Lee

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EMPLOYMENT LAW
Tel: (213)992-3299
Fax: (213)596-0487

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1
MTC000094

Califocnia Laboc & Emplo,ment Law 0109
Background Checks What Are My Rights?
o•• emb.c U, 'II' " ... " ,y ...oo,,"..
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 10:24 AM
To: elee@LOEL.com
Subject: RE: Jadwin/KC: Depo Continuance
Gene,
Good point, I forgot that. I feel foolish.
We will produce the remaining 9 boxes of documents as soon as you reimburse the County for the photocopying charges
incurred to date. The cost of the reproduction for initial disclosures was $193.76. The cost of the first production, in
response to your request for production, which we have already made, was $3557.43. This second production, consisting
of 9 boxes, will be more than twice that. We will get an estimate of the reproduction costs of the second production today
or tomorrow and forward the estimate to you. Upon receipt of your check for $193.76 plus $3557.43 plus the estimate of
the cost of the second production, we will proceed to have the 9 boxes copied and delivered to you.
Also, Peter Bryan lives and works in Oakland, as you know. The County agreed to produce him, at the County’s cost, in
Bakersfield for his deposition tomorrow. As I told you when we talked on our cellphones over the weekend, Mr. Bryan
went to Bakersfield on Friday in anticipation of his deposition. He is there now. Since you did not cancel the depositions
until after he had arrived in Bakersfield, there was no way I could stop his trip. The County will not produce Mr. Bryan in
Bakersfield at County expense again. When you reset his deposition, it will either have to be in Oakland or the County will
require prepayment of his travel expenses to Bakersfield.
Mark

Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2007 1:22 PM
Subject: Jadwin/KC: Depo Continuance
Mark,
We spoke twice yesterday about this, but to remove all doubt – Plaintiff is continuing this week’s depositions to a
later date. Kinko’s is already working on creating new sets of deposition exhibits which should be ready by this
Friday.
The cost of the exhibits is roughly $1,400 for 3 sets of copies. One of those sets is for your use. We’ll send you an
invoice separately for roughly $470.
Have a good rest of the weekend.
Sincerely,
Gene Lee

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EMPLOYMENT LAW
2
MTC000095
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG TDocument
e l : ( 2 1 3 ) 9 983
2 - 3 2 9Filed
9 01/09/2008 Page 130 of 207
Fax: (213)596-0487

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

" ..." ,y "'oo,,"..
3
MTC000096
EXHIBIT 15. SUPPLEMENTED RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS

FOR PRODUCTION SET ONE (“Response 2”), 12/19/07
MTC000097
Dec
Dec 19
19 07
07 02:49p
02:49p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.1
p.1

400
Sacramento,
Office:
Office: 916-444-6400
Fax: 916-444-6405
Fax:
Fax
To: Eugene Lee From: MarkWasser
Fax:
Phone: (213) 992-3299 Date: December 19, 2007
Re: Jadwin v. County of Kern CC:
D Urgent
D D For Review D Please Comment 0 Please Reply D Please Recycle
• Conunents:
Please see attached Defendants' Supplemental Responses.
MTC000098
Dec 19 07 02:50p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.2
Mark 1\. Wasser CA S8 #60160

2 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 11 00
3 Phone: (916) 444-6400
Fax: (916) 444-6405
4 E-mail: mwasser@markwasseLcom
5 Bernard C. Barrnann, Sr,

KERN COUNTY COUNSEL
6 Mark Nations, Chief Deputy
1115 Truxtun Avenue, Fourth Floor
7 Bakersfield, CA 93301
Phone: (661) 868-3800
8 Fax: (661) 868-3805
E-mail: rnnations@co.kern.ca.us
9
10 Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern,
Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher,
II Jennifer Abraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smith
and William Roy
12
14 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORl\-IA
15
16 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O. ) Case No.: 1:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG
)
I7 Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL
5 RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S
18 vs. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
5
)
DOCUMENTS (SET ONE)
19 COUNTY OF KERN, et al.,
) Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007
Trial Date: August 26, 2008
l
20 Defendants.
21
22 )
)
23 )
24 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff DAVID F. JAD"WIN, D.O., F.C.A.P.
25 RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant COUNTY OF KER!'i
26 SET NUMBER: ONE (1)
27
28
I
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS MTC000099
Dec
Dec 19
19 07
07 02:50p
02:50p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405
916-444-6405 p.3
p.3
11 Defendants hereby submit these responses to PlaintifTDavid f. Jadwin's Request for

22 Production of Documents, Set One. Defendants have not located all the dlJ~uments that are
33 responsive to this request and, for that reason, many of the production dates set forth herein are
44 estimates.
estimates. Defendants will supplement or amend this response, if necessary, as additional
55 documents are located and reviewed.
66 REQUEST FQR PRQDUCTION NO.1
77 Any and all DOCUMEKTS RELATING TO the First Affirmative Defense listed in
88 Defendants'
Defendants' Answer to Plaintiffs Second Supplemental Complaint.
99 RESPONSE
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.1
10
11
12
12 Without waiving those objections, after diligent search, Defendants have not bcen able to locate
13
13 any documents Lhat are responsive to this request.
14
14 REQUEST FOR PRQDUCTION NO.2
REQUEST
15
15 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Second Affumative Defense listed in
16
16 Defendants' Answer to Plaintiffs Second Supplemental Complaint.
17
17 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO.2
18
19
20
20 Without waiving those objections, after diligent search, Defendants have not been able to locate
2I
2I any doclilllents that arc responsive to this request.
22
22 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.3
REQUEST
23
23 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Third Affirmative Defense listed in
24
24 Defendants' Answer to Plaintiff s Second Supplemental Complaint.
Defendants'
25
25 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NQ. 3
RESPONSE
26
27
27 documents that are protected by the attomey-work-product and attorney-client privileges.
documents
28
28
2

Dec 19 07 02:51 p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 pA
2 any documents that arc responsive to this request.
J REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.4

4 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATlNG TO the Fourth Affirmative Defense listed in

8 documents that ate protected by the attomey-work-product and attorney-client privileges.
11 REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.5

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

15 Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for thc production of
16 doclunents that are protected by the attorney-work-product and attorney-client privileges.
18 responsive to this request on or hefore December 21, 2007, depending on receipt of
19 reimbursement for estimated copy costs.. This request is duplicative of other requests contained
20 in Plaintiff's request for production, set one, and thc documents produced in response to this
21 request may refer to the documents produced in response to other requests.

,
23 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Sixth Affirmative Defense listed in
27 doclunents that ate protected by the attorney-work-product and attorney-client privileges.
28
3
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPOl\SES TO PLAINTIFF'S

REQUEST FOR PRODUCT10:-.J OF DOCUMEKTS MTC000101
Dec
Dec 19
19 07
07 02:51
02:51 pp Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.5
p.5
11 Without
Without waiving those objections, after diligent search, Defendants have not been able to locate
33 REOUEST FOR PRODUCTIOl'" NO.7

44 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Seventh Affirmative Defense listed in
55 Defendants'
Defendants' Answer to Plaintiffs Second Supplemental Complaint.
66 RESPONSE TO REQUEST l'0. 7
88 documents
documents that are protected by the attorney-work-product and attorney-client privileges.
99 Without
Without waiving those objections, after diligent search, Defendants have not been able to locate
10
10 any
any documents that arc responsive to this request.
11
12
12 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATIKG TO the Eighth Affinnative Defense listed in
13
Defendants'
14
14 RESPONSE TO REQVEST NO.8
15
16
16 documents that are protected by the attomey-work-product and attomey-client privileges.
documents
17
17 Without waiving those objections. Defendants will produce all non-privileged documents
Without
18
18 responsive to this request on or before December 21, 2007. depending on receipt of
responsive
19
19 reimbursement tor estimated copy costs. This request is duplicative of other requests contained
reimbursement
20
20 in Plaintiff s request for production, set one, and the documents produced in response to this
in
21
21 request may refl::r to the documents produced in response to other requests,
request
22
23
23 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Nintb Affirmative Defense listed in
24
24 Defendants' Answer to Plaintiff's Second Supplemental Complaint.
Defendants'
25
26
26 Defendants object to lhis request on the grounds that it calls for the production of
27
27 documents that are protected by the attomey-work-produet and attorney-client privileges.
documents
28
28
4

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUME:-lTS MTC000102
Dec
Dec 19
19 07
07 02:51
02:51 pp Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p,6
p,6
11 Without waiving those objections, after diligent search, Defendants' have not been able to locate
22 any documents that are responsive LO this request
any
33 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NQ. 10
44 Any and all DOCUYlENTS RELATING TO YOUR organizational structure during
55 Plaintiff's employment with YOU, including but not limited to organizational charts, diagrams
66 and drawings.
88 Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request. Production is expected
99 to be complete on or about December 21, 2007. depending on receipt of reimbursement for
10
10 estimated copy costs.
11
11 REQVEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11
12
12 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Kern Medical Center personnel directories
13
13 or lists, including but not limited to names, direct work phone numbers, departments, etc, which
14
14 were maintained by YOU during Plaintiff's employment with YOU.
15
15 RESPO:'llSE TQ REQVEST NO. 11
16
16 Defendants will produce all non-privileged documents responsive to this request.
17
17 Production is expected to be complete on or about December 21, 2007, depending on receipt of
Production
11R
R reimbursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants will redact privileged information as
19
19 appropriate,
20
21
21 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR persomlel policies, guidelines, fact
22
sheets,
23
23 employer manuals maintained by YOU that YOU c.ontend governed Plaintiffs terms and
24
24 conditions of employment at any time during the period from October 1, 2000 to October 4,
25
25 2007. These include but are not limited to YOUR ordinances, Kern Medical Center's
26
26 & Administrative Procedures
Administrative Procedures Manual, Kern Medical Center's Policy &
27
27 Manual, policies RELATING TO disabilily discrimination, reasonable accommodation,
28
28 interactive process, personal leave, administrative leave, medical leave, retaliation, investigations
5

Dec
Dec 19
19 07
07 02:52p
02:52p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405
916-444-6405 p.7
p.7
11 into complaints of un lawful employment practices, discipline of employees, investigation of

22 employees, appointment of Kern Medical Center acting department chairs, hiring of Kern
33 Medical Center department chairs, demotion of Kern Medical Center department chairs, and
44 policies
policies RELATING TO Kern Medical Center's Pathology Department.
77 confidential
confidential personnel infonnation, documents protected from disclosure by state or federal law,
SS including HIPAA, the peer-review privilege and the personnel privilege, and documents that are
99 subject to the attorney-client privilege. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will
10
10 produce
produce documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007, depending on receipt of
11
11 reimbursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants will redact confidential peer review and
12
12 personnel
personnel information as appropriate.
13
14
15
sheets,
16
16 employer manuals maintained by YOU that YOU contend was distributed or made available to
employer
17
17 YOUR employees, whether management or non-management, from October 24,2000 to the
YOUR
18
18 present and the date of such asserted distribution. These include but are not limited to YOCR
present
19
19 ordinances, Kern Medical Center's Administrative Procedures Manual, Kern Medical Center's
ordinances,
20
20 Policy & Administrative Procedures Manual, policies RELATING TO disability discrimination,
Policy
21
21 reasonable accommodation, interactive process, personal leave, administrative leave, medical
reasonable
22
22 leave, retaliation, investigations into complaints of unlawful employment practices, discipline of
leave,
23
23 employees, investigation of employees, appointment of Kern Medical Center acting department
employees,
24
24 chairs, hiring of Kern Medical Center department chairs, demotion of Kern Medical Center
chairs,
25
25 department chairs, and policies RELATING TO Kern Medical Center's Pathology Departmcnt.
department
26
RESPONSE
27
28
28 confidential personnel infonnation, documents protected from disclosure by state or federal law,
6

Dec
Dec 19
19 07
07 02:52p
02:52p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.8
p.8
11 including HIPAA, the peer-review privilege and the personnel privilege, and documents that are
22 subject to the attorney-clicnt privilege_ Without waiving these objections, Defendants will
33 produce documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007, depending on receipt of
55 personnel information as appropriate.
66 REQUEST FQR PRODUCTION NO. 14
77 Any and all DOCU::VrENTS RELATING TO peer review, quality management and
88 quality assurance policies and procedures at Kern Medical Center, included but not limited to
99 Kern Medical Center's Quality Management and Performance Improvement Plan, from October
10
10 24, 2000 to thc present, and the effective dates.
II
II RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 14
12
13
14
15
15 subject to the attorney-client privilege. Without waiving these objections, Defendanls will
16
17
18
19
20
20 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any training provided by YOU to YOUR
21
21 officers, directors, agents or employees on the following subjects:
officers,
22
23
23 b) accommodation of an employee's disability
24
24 c) the interactive process regarding accommodation of an employee's disability
25
25 d) medical leave rights
26
27
27 f)f) l11edicalleavc retaliation
28
28 g) due process required for demotion
7
h) due process required for pay cut

2 i) due process required for termination of employment
3 j) defamation
4 k) Fair Labor Standards Act
11 reimbursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants will redact privileged information, if any,
12 as appropriate.
14 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATIKG To the PERSONNEL FILES ofthe following
15 people.
16 a) Plaintiff David F. Jadwin
17 b) ElsaAng
18 c) Ellen B1Jllyi-Teopengco
19 d) Philip Dutt
20 e) Carol Gates
21 f) Adam Lang
22 g) Fangluo Liu
23 h) Savita Shertukde
24 i) Navin Amin
25 j) Kathy Griffith
26 k) Alice Hevle
27 I) Denise Long
28 m) Gilbert Martinez
8
DEFENDA~TS' SUPPLEME'HAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S

Dee 19 07 02:53p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.10
n) Albert McBride
2 0) Javad Naderi
3 p) Jane Thornton
4 q) Nitin Athavale
5 r) ChesterLau
6 s) Jennifer J. Abraham
7 t) Bernard C. Barmann
8 u) Karen S. Barnes
9 v) Peter K. Bryan
10 w) David Culberson
11 x) Irwin E. Harris
12 y) Royce Johnson
13 z) Eugene K. Kercher
14 aa) Alan Scott Ragland
15 bb) William Roy
16 ee) Maureen Martin
17 dd) Steven O'Connor
18 ee) Antoinette Smith
19 ff) Edward Taylor
20 gg) Marvin Kolb
21 00) Dianne MeConnehey
22 ii) RenitaNunn
23 jj) Ravi Patel
24 kk) Jose Perez
25 11) Evangeline Gallegos
26 nun) Sergio Pertieueci
27 illl) Bonnie Quinonez
28 00) James Sproul

pp) Rebecca Rivera
2 qq) Sheldon Freedman
3 rr) Joseph Mansour

4 ss) George Alkouri
5 tt) Nicole Sharkey
6 RESPONSE TO REQUEST ~Q. 16

7 Defendants have already produced the personnel file of David F. Jadwin. Defendants
8 will confirm 1hat the personnel file previously produced was complete as of the time of its
9 production and, on or before December 21, 2007, will augment the documents previously
10 produced with any additional materials, if any, that have been added into Dr. Jadwin's pcrsonnel
II file since the file was produced. Plaintiff has narrowed the scope oftrus request by eliminating
12 all other documents initially requested.
13 REQUEST FOR l'RODLTTIQN NQ. 17

14 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the search, recruitment, application,
IS interviewing, and hiring process that resulted in Plaintiffs employment by YOU.
16 RESPONSE TO REOUEST ~O. 17

]9 including HIPAA, the peer·rcview privilege and the personnel privilege, and documents that are
20 subject to the attomey·client privilege. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will
21 produce all documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007, depending on receipt of
23 as appropriate.
24 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION ~O. 18
25 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATl)lG TO the tem1s, conditions and privileges of
26 Plaintiff's employment with YOU.
28
10
DEFENDA='fTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S

Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 21,2007,
2 depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs.
3 REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19
4 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Plaintiff's job duties and responsibilities for
5 each position held by Plaintiff during this employment with YOU.
6 RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 19
7 Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 21,2007,
10 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Plaintiffs payroll, compensation, base
11 salary and "professional fee payments", as that term is defined in Plaintiffs employment
12 contracts with YOU, including but not limited to any and all changes in compensation and the
13 reasons for changes, throughout Plaintiffs employment with YOU.
18 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR policies, guidelines and practices
19 regarding base salary steps, salary guidelines, deferred compensation plans, pension plans, health
20 insurance and employment benefits applicable to Plaintiffs position s held throughout his
21 employment with YOU.
23 Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007,
24 depending all receipt of reimbursement for estimalcd copy costs.
26 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATr:.JG TO Plaintiffs work schedule and/or removal
27 there from, including but not limited to timesheets, from October 24,2000 to present.
11
DEFENDANTS' S1JPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S

Dec
Dec 19
19 07
07 02:54p
02:54p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.13
p.13
Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 21,2007,
33 REQUEST FOR PRODVCTION NO. 23
REQUEST
44 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Dr. Phillip Dutt's timesheets, from April 20
55 2005
2005 to the present.
66 RESPONSE TO REOUEST KO. 23
RESPONSE
88 depending
depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants will redact
99 privileged
privileged information, if any, as appropriate.
10
10 REQUEST
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24
11
11 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Dr. Savita Sheltukde's timesheets, from
JJ22 January 4, 2005 to present.
13
RESPONSE
14
15
15 depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants will redact
depending
16
16 privileged infonnation, if any, as appropriate.
privileged
17
REOUEST
18
19
19 complaints, warnings, reprimands, counseling, advisory notices or evaluations of Plaintiffs
complaints,
20
20 performance of his job duties throughout his employment with YOU, whether formal or
performance
21
21 informal.
informal.
22
RESPONSE
23
23 Defendants object to this reql~esllo the extent it requests documents that contain
24
24 information protected by the attorney-client privilege. Without waiving that objection,
information
25
Defendants
26
26 depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants will redact
depending
27
27 privileged infonnation, if any, as appropriate.
privileged
28
28
12
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLANTIFF'S

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUYIENTS MTC000110

3 employment by YOU, including any and all e-mails, Groupwise calendars, memoranda, wrillen
4 materials, and computer files stored on Plaintiffs computer at Kern Medical Center's servers.

7 confidential persoIlllel information, documents protected from disclosure by state or federal law,
8 including HIP AA, the peer-review privilege and the persoIlllel privilege, and documents that are
9 subject to the attorney-client privilege. After diligent search, Defendants believe Groupwise
10 calendar information was deleted many months ago as part of the routine 90-day cycling of the
11 Groupwise software. Defendants are continuing to search for matcrials that were on the
12 computer that was assigned to Plaintiff. Some material was archived before the computer was
13 reassigned and Defendants will produce copies of the material that was archived by December
14 21,2007, depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants ...'ill
""ill
15 redact privileged information, if any, as appropriate.

17 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATII\G TO any meetings RELATING TO Plaintiff or
18 Plaintiff s employment at Kern Medical Center.

20 Defendants object to this request to the extent il requests documents that contain
22 Defendants will produce documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007, depending
23 on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants "Will redact privileged
24 information, if any, as appropriate.

26 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO perfonnance reviews, comments,
27 complaints, warnings, reprimands, counseling, advisory notices or evaluations of the Kern
28
13

Medical Center Pathology Department, whether formal or informal, from October 24, 1995 to
2 the present.
4 Defendants object to this request to the extent it Jequests documents that contain
6 including HIPAi"., the peer-review privilege and the personnel privilege, and documents that are
7 subject to the attorney-client privilege. Without waiving that objection, Defendants will produce
8 documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007, depending on receipt of
10 as appropriate.
II REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29
12 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Plaintiff's complaints of:
14 b) failure to accommodate
15 c) failure to engage in an interactive process
16 d) violation of medical leave rights
19 g) deprivation of property without due process
20 h) defamation
21 i) Fair Labor Standards Act violations
25 Defendants will produce documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007, depending
26 on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants will redact confidential peer
27 review and persomlel information as appropriate.
28
14

REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30

2 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any investigation of Plaintiffs complaints
3 of disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in an interactive process,
4 violation of medical leave rights, whistleblower retaliation, medical leave retaliation, defamation,
5 and/or deprivation of property \vithout due process.
6 RESPONSE TO REOL~ST NO. 30

7 Defendants object to tbis request to the extent it requests documents that contain
9 Defendants wiII produce documents responsive to this request by December 21,2007, depending
10 on receipt ofreimbursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants will redact confidential peer
11 review and personnel information as appropriate.

13 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATIKG TO any procedures available to YOUR
14 employees to complain of corruption, fraud and other wrongful, illegal or unethical conduct, that
15 YOU contend was distributed or made available to YOUR employees, whether management or
16 non-management, from October 24,2000 to the present, and the date of such asserted
17 distributi on(s).
19 Defeudants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 21,2007,
20 depending on receipt ofreimbursement for estimated copy costs.

22 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR discipline of any employee against
23 whom a complaint or grievance of discrimination, harassment, defamation, retaliation, failure to
24 accommodate, and/or failure to engage in an interactive process in their employment was made
25 from October 24, 2000 to date.

27 Defendants objccllo this request all the grounds that it requests documents that contam
28 confidential personnel information, documents protected from disdosure by state or federal law,
15

including H[P1\1\, the peer-review privilege and the personnel privilege, and documents that
2 contain information protected by the attorney-client privilege. Defendants do not believe these
3 objections can be resolved by redaction. Defendants also object on the grounds that the request
4 is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
7 past or present employees against YOU for defamation, retaliation, disability discrimination,
S failure to accommodate, and/or failure to engage in an interactive process, including but not
9 limited to any infonnal or internal complaints, grievances or charges to any state or federal
10 agency, and complaints filed in any state or federal court from October 24,2000 to date.
II RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 33
14 this case, Consequently, this request is not reasonably calculated to lcad to the discovery of
15 admissible evidence. Defendants also object on the ground that the phrase, "informal or internal
16 complaints" is vague and, depending on interpretation, could include any off-hand gripe by any
17 employee, to the extent it was memorialized in writing. Defendant County of Kcrn employs
18 several thousand employees. In the past seven years, there could be many documents that fit the
19 description of this request yet none have anything to do with the issues in this case. This request
20 is, accordingly, overbroad and burdensome. Defendants do not believe redaction would resolve
21 these objections.
23 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATI'JG TO any complaints or grievances made to YOU
24 by Plaintiff.
26 Defendants believe all documents responsive to this reques! have been previously
27 produced. Defendants will confirm this or prodnce additional documents, if there arc any, by
28 December 21,2007, depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs.
16


2 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Plaintiff which YOU sent to or received
3 from any governmental or regulatory authority, including but not limited to the California
4 Department of Fair Employment and Housing, the California Labor and Workforce Developmen
5 Agency, and the U.S. Department of Labor.
8 produced. Defendants will confirm this or produce additional documents, if there are any, by
9 December 21, 2007, depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs.
12 evaluation of candidates for the position of staff pathologist at Kern Medical Center during the
13 period from January 1, 2006 to present.
14 RESPONSE TO REQUEST ]\"0. 36
15 Defendants object to tllis request on the grounds that it calls for the production of
16 documents that contain confidential personnel infonl1ation that is not relevant to any issues in
19 disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA, the peer-review privilege and the personnel
20 privilege, and documents that contain information protected by tht: attorney-client privilege.
21 After review of the documents potentially responsive to this request, Defendants have
22 detennined that the burden of redacting privileged information outweighs the l11atginal relevancy
23 of the remaining information in the documents.

26 evaluation of candidates for the position of Chair or Chief of Pathology at Kern Medical Center
28
17


3 documents that contain confidential personnel infOlmation that is not relevant to any issues in
7 privilege, and documents that contain information protected by the attorney-client privilege.
S \Vithout waiving those objectiono, after diligent scarch, Defendants have not been able to locate
11 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR search for, recruitment, of and
12 evaluation of candidates for the position oflocum tenens pathologist at Kern Medical Center
IS Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of
16 documenlo that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in
22 determined that the burden of redacting privileged information outweighs the marginal relevancy
26 evaluation of candidates for the position of Chair or Chief of OB-G YN at Kern Medical Center
27 during the period trom January 1, 2006 to present.
28
18

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMEKTS MTC000116
RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 39

7 privilege, and documents that contain infonnation protected by the attorney-client privilege.
S After review of the documents potentially responsive to this request, Defendants have
9 determined that the burden of redac1ing privileged information outweighs the marginal relevancy
11 REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION :\'0.40
12 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TOYOURremoval of Dr. Royce Johnson from
13 the position of Chair or Chief of Medicine at Kern Medical Cmter.
16 documents that contain confidential personnel information Ihat is not relevant to any issues in
l7 this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
19 disclosure by state or federal law, including HIP AA and the peer review privilege, and
20 documents that are subject to the attomey-client privilege.

22 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATL"lG TOYOUR search for, recruitment, of and
23 evaluation of candidates for the position of Chair or Chief of Medicine at Kern Medical Center
24 during the period from October 24, 2000 to present.
27 documents that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any Issues in
2~ this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
19
DEFENDA:\iTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S
1 Delendants also object to this request to the extent i1 requests information protected from
2 disclosurc by statc or federal law, including HIPAA, the peer-review privilege and the personnel
7 REOUEST FORPRODlJCTION NO. 42

8 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO presentations made at the Kern Medical
9 Center oncology conference in May 2005, including but not limited to participant evaluation
10 forms.
II RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 42
13 documents that contain contidential personnel infonnation that is not rclcvant to any issues in
IS Defendants also object to this request to the extent it requests information protected from
18 Defendants will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this request. if any, by
19 December 21, 2007. Defend,mb will redact privileged, ifany, information as appropriate.
21 Any and all DOCU.\1EKTS RELATINO TO Plaintiffs presentations made at the Kern
22 Medical Center oncology conference on or about October l2, 2005.
23 RESPQ:'-[SE TQ REQUEST NO. 43

27 Defendants also object to this request to the extent it requests infonnation protected from
28 disclosure by state or federal law, including HIP AA and the peer review privilege, and
20
DEFENDANT~' ~UPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMEKTS MTC000118
documents that are suhject to the attorney-client privilege. Without waving these objeclions,
3 December 21,2007. Defendants will redact privileged, if any, information as appropriate,
5 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR decision to demote Plaintifffrorn
6 Chair ofKem Medical Center's Pathology Department to staff pathologist.
8 Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that are privileged
9 under the attorney-client privilege. Without waiving this objection Defendants will produce all
10 non-privileged documents responsive to this request by December 21,2007, depending on
II receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs.
12 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4S
13 Any and all DOCU:v.lENTS RELATING To the "packets containing information about
14 Dr. Jadwin" which Peter Bryan collected at the end of Kern Medical Center's Joint Conference
ofKem
15 Committee discussion and vote on removal of Plaintiff from Chair of Pathology on July 10,
16 2006.
18 Defendants are searching for documents responsive to this request. Because of
19 administrative and management changes at Kern Medical Center, it may not be possible to
20 reconstruct the "packets" requested. Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests
21 information protected by the peer-review or attorney-client privileges, Defendants also object to
22 this request to the extent it seeks documents thal contain confidential persoIUlel information.
23 Without waiving these objections, and to the extent that the "packets" can be reconstructed,
24 Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request, if any, by December 21,2007,
27 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR decision to place Plaintiff on
28 administrative leave on or about December 7, 2006.
21


2 Defendnnts object to this request to the extent it requests information protected by the
4 responsive to this request have been previously produced. Defendants will confirm this or
5 produce additional documents, if mere are any, by December 21, 2007, depending on receipt of
6 reimbursement for estimated copy costs.
8 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR decision to restrict Plaintiff to his
9 home during working hours from on or about December 7, 2006 to on or about May 1,2007
10 while he was on administrative leave.
13 produced. Defendants will confinll this or produce additional documents, ifthere are any, by
14 December 21,2007, depending on receipt of rei mbursement for estimated copy costs.
16 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR decision to lift me restriction of
17 Pillintiffto his home during working hours from on or about December 7, 2006 to on or about
IS May 1, 2007 while he was on administrative leave.
21 produced. to Plaintiff. Defendants will confirm this or produce additional documents, ifthere arc
22 any, by December 21,2007, depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs.
23 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIOI'I NO. 49
24 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR decision not to renew Plaintitf's
25 employment contract with YOU that was purportedly made on or about May 1,2007.
27 Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests information protected by thc
22

responsive to this request have been previously produced. Dcfcndants v.rill confirm this or
2 produce additioual documents, if there are any, by December 21,2007, depending on receipt of
3 reimbursement for estimated copy costs.
5 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELA TING TO any disciplinc, coaching, reprimand or
6 corrective action taken against Plaintiff by YOU.
10 December 21, 2007, depending on receipt of reimbmsement for estimated copy costs.
II REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 51
12 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Kern Medical Center's Disruptive Physician
13 Policy, including but not limited to Bylaw Committee meeting minutes.
17 including HIPAA and the peer-review privilege, and documents protected by the attorney-client
18 privilege. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce documents responsive to
19 this request by December 21,2007, depending on receipt ofreimhursement for estimated copy
20 costs. Defendants will redact confidential peer review and personnel information as appropriate.
21 This request is also vague because Defendants are not aware of any connection between the
22 Disruptive Physician Policy and the Bylaw Committee meeting minutes.
24 Any and all DOCUME}.'TS RELATING TO Dr. Rebecca Rivera's lawsuit against Kern
25 Medical Center filed in Kern County California Superior Court.
26 RESPQNSE TO REQUEST NO. 52
27 Plaintiff has narrowed this request to eliminate any documents that have been filed with
28 the Kern County Superior Court. As so limited, this request seeks documents in the County
23
DEFEiIDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIOK OF DOCUMENTS MTC000121
Counsel's litigation file, many of which are protected by the attorney work-product and attorncy-
2 client privileges. To the extent this request seeks information that is protected by the attomey-
3 client privilege, Defendants object to it. Defendants also object to this request on the grounds
4 tha1 it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants
5 are in the process of reviewing documents that may be responsive to this request and, without
6 waiviug these objections, 'Will produce non-privileged documents, if any, by December 21, 2007,
7 depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants may redact
8 privileged information if appropriate.

10 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO services provided to YOU by the Camden
11 Group RELATlNG TO Kern Medical Center.

13 Defcndants believe all documents responsive to this request have been previously
15 December 21,2007, depending on receipt of reimbursement for estim<tted copy costs.
16 REQUEST FOR PRODVCTIOl'l NO. 54

17 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO statistics maintained by YOU RELATING
18 TO patient fatalities at Kern Medical Center from October 24,2000 to the present.

22 this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of <tdmissible evidence.

24

Dec 19 07 03:00p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p,26

2 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the review of Kern Medical Center's
3 placental evaluations and billing activity as conducted by outside consultants, including but not
4 limited to ProPay Physician Services, LLC, from October 24, 2000 to the present.
8 this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence,
9 Defendants also object to this request to the extent it requests irrformation protected from
11 privilege, and documents that contain information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
12 After review of thc documents potentially responsive to this request, Defendants have
13 determined that the burden ofredacting privileged information outwt:ighs the marginal relevancy
14 of the remaining irrformation in the documents.
16 .Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO blood bank monthly reports, included but
17 not limited to reports generated by Michelle Burris, from January 2006 to present.
20 documents that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to anv issues in
26 determined that the burden of redacting privileged infonnation outweighs the marginal relevancy
28
25

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIOK OF DOCUMENTS MTC000123
Dec 19 07 03:01 p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.27
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIOK NO. 57

2 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO product chart copy-related quality assurance
3 reports from Oc10ber 24,2000 to the present.

9 disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA, the peer-review privilege and the personncl
10 privilege, and documents that contain infonnation protected by the attorney-client privi lege.
II After review of the documents potentially responsive to this request, Defendants have
13 of Ihe remaining information in the documents.

14 REQUEST FQR I'RODUCTION NO. 58
15 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO prostate needle biopsy reports produced by
16 Dr. Elsa Ang for which Plaintiff had requested a lookback study in Oe1ober 2005.

18 Defendants object to this request {)f1 the grounds that it calls for the production of
20 Ihis case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
21 Defendants also objeelto this request to the extent it requests information protected from
22 disclosure by state or federal law, including HIP AA, the peer-review privilege a11d the personnel
24 After review of the documents potentially responsive to this reques" Defendants have
25 determined that the burden ofredaeting privileged information outweighs the marginal relevancy
26 of the remaining information in thc documents.
27
28
26
DEFENDANTS' SL'PPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S
Dec 19 07 03:01 p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.28

2 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELA TING TO sign-in sheets for Kern Medical Center'~
3 Cancer Clinic from January 1, 2003 to the present.
4 RESPONSE TQ REQUEST NO. 59

7 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NQ. 60
8 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Workplace Violence or Threat Incident
9 Reports for all Kern Medical Center personnel from October 24, 2000 to the present.

11 Defendants object to this request to 1he extent it seeks documents that contain
14 review privikgc and on the grounds that the request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the
16 all documents responsive to this request by December 21,2007, depending 011 receipt of
17 reimbursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants will redact confidential or privileged
20 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Fine Needle Aspiration policies at Kern
21 Medical Center from October 24, 2000 to the present, including but not limited to
22 DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the outside consultant study conducted by Dr. David Lieu in
23 2004.
25 Defendants object to this request to the extent it seeks doemnents that contain
26 confidential personnel infonnation or information protected by the attorney-client privilege.
28 review privilege and on the grounus that the request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the
27
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLENlENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S
discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce
2 all documents responsive to this request by December 21,2007, depending on receipt of
3 reimbursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants will redact confidential or privileged
5 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIOK NO. 62
6 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Peter Bryan's appointment calendar from
7 January 1, 2004 to September 1, 2006.
9 After diligent search, Defendants have determined that the Groupwise calendar
10 information was deleted many months ago as part of the routine 90-day cycling of the Groupwise
11 software. Defendants believe there are no documents responsive to this request.
13 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATTl\'G TO meeting minutes tor the following Kern
14 Medical Center committees or groups from October 24, 2000 to the present:
15 a) :YIedical Executive Committee
16 b) .Joint Conference Committee
17 c) Quality Management Committee
18 d) C811cer Committee
19 c) Second Level Peer Review Committee
20 f) Transfusion Committee
21 g) Executive Staff Meetings

23 Defendants object to this request to the extcnt it requests documents that contain
24 confidential personnel information, docmnents protected from disclosure by state or federal law,
26 subject to the attorney-client privilege. Without waiving these objections, DcfcmIanls will
27 produce doemnents responsive to this request by Decemher 21, 2007, depending on receipt of
28
28

4 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO policies of Kern Medical Center's
5 Pathology Department from October 24, 2000 to the present.
6 RESPO~SE TO REOLEST NO. 64
10 Any and all DOCU1vfENTS RELATING TO case send-out logs for Kern Medical
II Center's Pathology Department from January I, 1999 to the present, including but not limited to
12 corresponding Kern Medical Center pathology reports and reports from outside consultants.
IS confidential personnel information, documents protected from disclosure by state or federal law,
19 reimbursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants will redllct confidentilll peer review and
22 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO monthly turn-arol.lIld-lime reports and logs
23 - by pllthologist - for pathology reports processed lit Kern Medical Center, including but not
24 limited to Pathology Department Semi-annual Reports to the Medical Staff, for thc time pcriod
25 [Tom January 1, 1999 to the present.
2~ confidential personnel information, documents protected from disclosure by state or federal law.
-------------------~---------------__t
29
2 subject to the attorney-client pri vilege. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will
7 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO monthly or semi-monthly turn-around-time
8 reports and logs - for Kern Medical Center's Pathology Department as a whole - for pathology
9 reports processed at Kern Medical Center including but not limited to surgical pathology,
10 cytology and bone marrow reports, for the time period from January I. 1999 to the present.

13 confidential persOlmel information, documents protected from disclosure by state or fcdcrallaw,
16 produce documents responsive to this request by December 21,2007, depending on receipt of
17 reirnborsement for estimated copy costs. Defendants will redact confidential peer review and
19 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO_ 68
20 Anv and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO PATHOLOGY REPORTS authored,
21 reviewed or approved by Plaintiff which YOU sent to any outside pathologists for outside review

25 privileged peer review information. Without waiving this objection Dcf~ndants will produce all
26 documents responsive to this request by December 21,2007, depending on receipt of
27 reimbursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants will redact all privileged information as
211 appropriate.
30
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTlfWS


2 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO PATHOLOGY REPORTS RELATING TO
3 Case Numbers S06-4131, S06-4619, S06-5229, S06-73276.
4 RESPONSE TO REQ1JEST NO. 69

5 Plaintiff has amended this request by clarifYing that Case No. S06-73276 relates to Case
6 Nos. 806-495, 806-3511 and S06-4619. Defendants renew their objections to this request on the
7 grounds that it requests documents that contain confidential information under HIPAA.
8 Defendants also object to the extent that it requests documents that contain privileged peer-
9 review information. Without waiving these objections Defendants will produce all documents
10 responsive to this request by December 21,2007, depending on receipt of reimbursement for

II estimated copy costs. Defendants will redact confidential and privileged information as
12 appropriate.

14 Any and all DOCU!vIENTS RELATING TO peer review RELATr.-JG TO Kern Medical
15 Center's Pathology Department during the time period from January I, 1995 to the present,
16 including but not limited to computer-generated data, monthly peer review records completed by
17 pathologists, and peer review comment sheets 1hat are completed by pathologists upon discovery
18 of a discrepancy.

21 documents that contain confidential personnel information that is not rdevant to any issues in
23 Defendants also object to this request to the extent it requests information protectcd from
24 disclosure by state or federal law, including H1PAA, the peer-review privilege and the personnel
25 privilege, and documents that conlain information protected by the attorney-client privilege.
26 After review of lhe documents potentially responsive to this request, Defendants have
27 determined that the burden of redacting privileged infonnation outweighs the marginal relevancy

3]
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIff'S

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCU.'vIENTS MTC000129

2 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO exceptional event logs for histology and
3 pathology on Kern Medical Center's Pathology Depaltment from January 1, 2006 to the present.

9 disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA, the peer-review privilege and tbe persOImel
11 After review oftbe documents p01entially responsive to this request, Defendants have
12 determined tbat the burden of redacting privileged information outweighs the marginal relevancy

15 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATI1\G TO paper accession logs at Kern Medical
16 Center's Pathology Department from January 1,2006 to present.

21 Defendants also object to tbis request to the extent it requests information protected from
24 After review of the documents potentially responsive to this rcquest, Defendants have
25 deternlined that the burden of redacting privileged information outweighs the marginal relevancy
26 of the remaining information in the docwnents.
27
28
32
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAI::-ITIFF'S


2 i\ny and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO tissu<;: disposal r<;:cords for skull-flaps from
3 January I, 2006 to the present.

6 docum<;:nts that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in
S Defendants also object to this request to the extent it requests information prot<;:eted from

15 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO audits of Kern Medical Ccnler's Pathology
16 Department by outside consultants, including but not limited to Dr. Stacey Garry, from October

18 RE81'ONSE TO REOUEST NO. 74
19 Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests docu.ments that contain
21 requests documents that contain privileged peer·review information. Without waiving these
23 2007, depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants will redact
24 confidential and privileged information as appropriate.
2S REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 75

26 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Kern Medical Center laboratory personnel
27 defections from June 14,2006 to the present, including but not limited to exit interview notes,
2S
33
DEFE0JDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPO~SES TO PLAINTIFF'S


2 Defendan1~ object to thi~ request on the ground~ that it is vague. Defendants do not knO\~
3 what "personnel defections" means. If Plaintiff intends to request a list of employees who have
4 separaled from Counly employment or transferred out of the pathology laboratory. Defendants
5 can prepare such a list but Defendants believe such a list will need to be redacted to remove
6 confidential personnel information. Defendants will produce a list of employees who have
7 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
II Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO dictation transcription logs for Plaintiff
12 from June 14,2006 to the present.
IS depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants will redact
16 privileged information, if any, as appropriate.
17 REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NQ. 77
1& Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO dictation transcription logs for Dr. Philip
19 Dutt from June 14, 2006 to the present.
21 Defendants will prodnce all documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007,
22 depending on receipt ofreimbursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants will redact
23 privileged information, if any, as appropriate.

25 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO placental evaluations conducted by Pl ai ntitf
27
28
34
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAI.'JTIFF'S

Dec 19 07 03:05p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p,36
RESPONSE TO REQUEST i'i0. 78

3 burdensome and less calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence than the original
4 request. Defendants object to this request because it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the
5 discovery of admissible evidence and is burdensome. Defendants object to this reques1 on the
6 grounds that it calls for the production of documents that contain confidential personnel
7 information that is not relevant to any issues in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead
8 to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also object to this request to the extent it
9 requests information protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA, the
10 peer-review privilege and the personnel privilege, and documents that contain information
11 protected by the attorney-client privilege. After review of the documents potentially responsive
12 to this request, Defendants have determined that the burden of redacting privileged information
13 outweighs the marginal relevancy of the remaining information in the documents,
14 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION :\f0. 79
15 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATL'lG TO Golden Empire Pathology Associates.
17 After diligent search, Defendants have not been able to locate any documents responsive
18 to this request.
20 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Golden Empire Medical Group,
22 After diligent search, Defendants have not been able to locate any documents responsive
23 to this reguest.
24 Dated: December 19, 2007 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER
25
26 By:,~Z-4£~_OLP~~~"'==- -----1
'Mark A. Wasser
27 Attorncy for Defendants, County of Kern, et aI.
28
35
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAIKTIFF'S

1 Mark A. Wasser CA SB #060160

2 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 11 00
3 Phone: (916) 444-6400
Fax: (916) 444-6405
4 E-mail: mwassertg)markwasser.com
5 Bernard C. Barmann, Sr.

KERN COUNTY COUNSEL
6 1115 Truxtun Avenue, Fourth Floor
7 Phone: (661) 868-3800
Fax: (661) 868-3805
8 E-mail: mnations@co.kern.ca.us
9
Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern,
10 Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher,
Jennifer Abraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smith
II and William Roy

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

16
~
Plaintiff, PROOF OF SERVICE
~
17 vs.
18 COUNTY 0 F KERN, et aI.,
~
)
19 Defendants.)
20 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - )
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
MTC000134
1 I, Amy Remly, declare:
2 I am a resident of the State of California and over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to
the within action; my business address is 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100, Sacramento, CA 95814. On
3 December 19, 2007, 1 served the within documents: Defendants' Snpplemental Responses to
Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents (Set One).
4
by transmitting via facsimile from (916) 444-6405 the above listed document(s)
5 without 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
6
o by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully
7 prepaid, in the United States mail at Sacramento, California addressed as set forth
below.
8
9
o by causing personal delivery by of the document(s) listed above to the
person(s) at the address (es) set forth below.
10
by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed Federal Express Overnight Delivery
11 envelope 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.
12
Eugene Lee
13 Law Offices of Eugene Lee
14 Los Angeles, California 90013-1010
Facsimile: (213) 596-0487
15
I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for
16 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. 1 am aware that on motion of the party
17 served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one
18 day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
19 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califomia that the above is true
and correct.
20
Executed on December 19, 2007, at Sacramento, California. ()
21
Uv'N'V-\ 'h,\[Y\J0'v\ ~
22 AMY REM1(1' '(
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2- PROOF OF SERVICE
MTC000135
12/19/07
MTC000136

Office: 916-444-6400
Fax: 916-444-6405
Fax
Phone: (213) 992-3299 Date: December 19,2007
Re: Jadwin v. County ofKem cc:
o Urgent o For Review 0 Please Comment 0 Please Reply 0 Please Recycle
• Comments;
MTC000137
Law Offices of
MARKA. WASSER
Office: 916-444·6400 Fax; 916-444-6405
mwasser@markwasser.com
December 19, 2007
VIA FACSIMILE AND FIRST CLASS MAIL
Eugene Lee
Los Angeles, California 90013-1010
Re: Jadwin v. County ofKern, et af.
Dear Gene:
This is to follow up on our recent telephone conversations and e-mails regarding

the Defendants' continuing efforts to respond to your request for production of
documents.
You are correct that we did not raise the issue of costs earlier. I was remiss in not
raising it earlier and it needs to be raised now. You are also correct that you produced
documents as part of the initial disclosures. Although the Defendants ultimately
produced many more documents that you did, the County is willing to defer recovery of
those costs until the case is resolved. They can be claimed in a cost bill. However, the
copy charges incurred in responding to your request for production are substantial and
cannot be deferred, The first installment of the Defendants' response consisted of 12,500
pages and your copy cost $1765.00 (12,500 X .14 + 15.00 for the CD). The 14 cents per
page charge was for one electronic copy and Bates numbering. Our copy was an
additional cost. The number I included in my e-mail to you a couple of days ago was for
the entire reproduction and does not represent an amount you should pay.
The second installment, which we are preparing now. 'Will be larger than the first.
Our copy service has estimated that one electronic copy with Bates numbering will cost
about $2,000. The actual cost may be more or less. Please send me a check for $3,765
to cover the cost of the first installment and the estimated cost of the second. If the actual
cost of the second installment is less than $2,000, we will refund the surplus to you. If it
is more, we will send you a request for the difference. I am glad you recognize the
Defendants' right to reimbursement for these costs. Case authority, as you know, is
Admitted to P(actice in California and Nevada MTC000138


Eugene Lee
December 19,2007
Page 2
clear. Dr. Jadwin has the same right and, were it not for the fact that the County seems to
have the bulk of the documents in the case, I am sure Dr. Jadwin would have demanded
reimbursement long before your e-mail Monday morning.
On the subject of copies at depositions, it has been my practice to supply three

copies of any documents that will be marked as exhibits at a deposition as a courtesy to
opposing counsel. That is part of the cost of taking a deposition. If you intend to start
"billing" the Defendants for the courtesy copy that you give me, you may dispense with
my copy. I will get a copy of all the exhibits when I get my copy of the deposition
transcript and I see no reason to pay for the documents twice. I will provide you with a
courtesy copy of any documents I mark as exhibits at depositions I take without charge.
Your statement in yesterday's e-mail that Dr. Jadv,:in "has readily agreed to
narrow the document production requests on numerous occasions" requires a response
because you have taken it out of context, as you have done before, in an attempt to make
your position look more sympathetic than it is. Dr. Jadwin revised a few of the requests
in his Request for Production in order to expedite the Defendants' response. For
example, without referencing your many letters, I recall that you revised Requests Nos.
33 and 68 in an attempt to address the Defendants' objections and accelerate production.
At no time did you ever suggest that the cost of the production was a concern. You may
recall, in one letter or e-mail (I forget which), you even suggested how Kern Medical
Center should staff the production effort and opined as to how many hours of staff time
Dr. Jadwin believed the production should take. Throughout the process, you and Ms.
Herrington insisted that all requested documents be produced as quickly as possible, even
mentioning in a recent e-mail that you had to "resort to threats" to make Defendants work
faster and harder. Do not suggest that Dr. Jadwin was willing to reduce the burden of his
production demands to keep costs down. That is a fiction. You cooperated ",i.th us on
the dates of our response because, given the magnitude of the task, you had no choice but
you never even hinted at any interest in controlling cost.
Which brings us to the last point. Many of the documents you have requested
have, at most, a very tenuous connection to any issues in the case. The blood product
chart copy documents are a good example. It is unclear what relevancy they have or how
their production will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The County has
iden1ified approximately 12,000 pages in this category. The documents consist almost
entirely of patient records and will require many hours of tedious redaction to prepare
them for production. The redacted documents will be of little, if any, use. The County is
unwilling to incur the cost of redacting those documents. As you know, there is authority
that the requesting party may be required to bear the financial burden of producing
documents where the burden of production outweighs the benefits of the information to
be produced. We think this is the case with regard to the blood product chart copy
documents. It may be the case with other documents, as well, but the blood product chart
copy documents are the most voluminous.
MTC000139
Dec 19 07 02:25p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 pA

Eugene Lee
December 19, 2007
Page 3
We remain on track to produce the final installment of documents on December

21, asswning you can deliver a check in the amount of$3,765 before then. The check
should be payable to my office. I have finished drafting a Supplemental Response and
will e-mail that to you shortly. We will send a hard, service copy by mail today.
Let me know if you want to discuss any of this.
Very Truly Yours,
Mark A. Wasser
cc: Karen Bames (via facsimile)
MTC000140
12/20/07
MTC000141
Eugene D. Lee
To: elee@LOEL.com
Subject: RE: The production

Gene,
Only one point warrants response. The documents that I described in my letter yesterday as having a tenuous
relationship to the issues in the case are the approximately 12,500 pages of blood product chart copies that we are
neither producing nor changing you for. I wrote that we will expect a cost-shift on the production expenses for those. The
$3765 expense I quoted only covers the copies we were intending to produce. As far as authority for reimbursement for
costs goes, you can start at page 11-236, section 11:1937 of the Schwarzer, Tashima and Wagstaffe handbook on federal
practice. The following paragraph discusses cost-shifting. That may bear on the blood product chart copies but they are
not the issue today. We are only talking about reimbursement for actual copies produced.
Mark

Mark,
Your email neglects to mention your faxed letter of yesterday. May I suggest you re-read it and the subsequent
communications.
The last two “different positions” are not different and reflect another misunderstanding of something I’ve written.
Plaintiff’s original request for production, which was served on October 11, 2007, stated that defendants should
“produce and permit the inspection and copying of documents”. I did not intend this to involve two “different
positions”. If that sentence was confusing for you, my apologies. My understanding is that this is fairly standard
language in a production request.
Plaintiff still awaits defendants’ caselaw which, as you say, is “clear” in establishing defendants’ right to
reimbursement for production and right to condition production on payment of such reimbursement. My reading
of the FRCP and related caselaw establishes that defendants have no such rights. As I said before, if the caselaw
truly is clear that you are right, plaintiff will be happy to reconsider its position.
Otherwise, plaintiff is not willing to pay defendants nearly $4,000 in actual and “estimated” costs for documents
which, according to your fax of just yesterday, “have, at most, a very tenuous connection to any issues in the case.”
It is unfortunate that this dispute has arisen so late in the day. Had defendants met and conferred with plaintiff on
the issue of cost reimbursement earlier than 3 days ago, perhaps this dispute could’ve been averted. Now it appears
plaintiff has no choice but to file a motion to compel in order to obtain the discovery which defendants are now
withholding based upon a last minute request for $4,000.
Sincerely,
1
MTC000142
Gene Lee

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EMPLOYMENT LAW
Tel: (213)992-3299
Fax: (213)596-0487

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Decembec U, 'II' n ..." 'Y "'",," ..
To: elee@LOEL.com
Gene,
In the last few days, you have written that you will send a check for payment as soon as we request it, that you don’t really
want the copies after all and just want to inspect the originals, and that you now want the originals in your office
tomorrow. By my count, that is three different positions.
We were on-track to send you Bates numbered, electronic copies of all the documents tomorrow, as we have been
discussing with you, in writing, for weeks. We also relied on your letter earlier in the week that you would pay the
reasonable production cost.
Today, you have changed your position and want original patient records and other privileged documents produced in
your office tomorrow.
We will not produce original patient records in your office. That would be a violation of federal law. We remain willing to
produce an electronic copy of the redacted records but expect reimbursement for the reasonable copy cost.
That is where things sit. If you believe a motion to compel will be more efficient and cost-effective, I suppose you should
file it.
It is a shame all this has apparently developed over a request for reimbursement for reasonable copy costs.
Mark

Mark,
I do not understand what you mean by “discussions with you on your interest in inspection.” What are you
requesting? Tomorrow is the deadline for production. Plaintiff awaits production of the documents. Plaintiff will
2
MTC000143
not pay nearly $4,000 for actual and “estimated” costs which were never discussed or brought to plaintiff’s attention
until just three days ago.
As for objecting to the manner, time and place of production, defendants waived those objections.
Since our meet and confer discussions are at an impasse and defendants will not be producing the documents,
plaintiff will file a motion to compel tomorrow.
Sincerely,
Gene Lee

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EMPLOYMENT LAW
Tel: (213)992-3299
Fax: (213)596-0487

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Decembec U, 'II' n ..." 'Y "'",," ..
To: elee@LOEL.com
Gene,
I am satisfied, having reviewed our communications, that there was neither miscommunication nor misunderstanding
between us regarding the nature of our production. It is sufficiently documented. Your suggestion, today, that we
produce documents in your office tomorrow is in response to the recognition that you have to pay for the copies. We are
not producing originals in your office. The originals contain thousands of patient records, among other privileged
documents. The County will not violate HIPAA in such a flagrant way.
We have suspended production, as I wrote earlier, pending discussions with you on your interest in inspection.
Mark

Hi Mark,
3
MTC000144
As stated in our document production request, we’d like to have the original documents produced at my office by
Dec. 21, 2007 for inspection and copying. Please refer to the production request if you require further details.
Also, please feel free to contact me if you still require further clarification.
Sincerely,
Gene Lee

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EMPLOYMENT LAW
Tel: (213)992-3299
Fax: (213)596-0487

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Decembec U, 'II' " ... " ,y "'oo,,"..
To: Eugene Lee
Subject: The production
Gene,
The documents are in my office and we will suspend further production pending discussions with you on inspection. Let
me know how you want to proceed.
Mark

Office: 916-444-6400
Fax: 916-444-6405
4
MTC000145
12/20/07
MTC000146

ELEE@LOEL.COM
(213) 992-3299
TELEPHONE
LAW OFFICE OF EMAIL
E U G ENE L E E
FAX
Fax Number: 2135960487 Date: 12/20/2007
Re: Jadwin/KC: MNC RFD1
Comments:
Mark,
Please see attached.
MTC000147
(213) 992-3299
TELEPHONE
E-MAIL
EUGENE LEE
December 20, 2007

VIA U.S. MAIL FIRST CLASS & FACSIMILE


Dear Mark:
Thank you for your fax of yesterday.
I. PRODUCTION COST REIMBURSEMENT
I am pleased to see that you admit you did not raise the issue of costs until December 17, just
four days before the December 21 document production deadline, which was itself extended
from November 16, 2007.
You say "I am glad you recognize the Defendants' right to reimbursement for these costs."
Plaintiff has never made any such recognition and in fact disagrees. Plaintiff is unaware ofthe
basis for your statement that "Case authority, as you know, is clear". Please provide us with the
case authority you refer to and plaintiff will be pleased to consider it. If it truly is "clear",
plaintiff will reconsider its position.
Pursuant to FRCP Rule 34, Plaintiff's request for production, set one specifically requests
defendants "produce and permit inspection and copying ofthe documents described below [at
the office of plaintiff's counsel]." Defendants have acted on their own initiative in processing the
document production at a cost of 14 cents per page. As you yourself admit, defendants never met
and conferred with plaintiff on the cost issue until just a couple of days ago. Had defendants
informed plaintiff earlier of the substantial cost involved, plaintiff would certainly have worked
with defendants to suggest other less costly alternatives. As it is, plaintiff has no choice but to
adhere to its original request that defendants produce the original documents for inspection and
copying at the address for the Law Office of Eugene Lee by December 21,2007.
Plaintiff is especially hesitant to pay defendants' requested cost reimbursement because, as you
say, "Many ofthe documents you have requested have, at most, a very tenuous connection to any
issues in the case", Plaintiff is an individual and, unlike the County of Kern, is not in a position
to easily absorb $3,765 in document processing costs. It would be far more cost-efficient for
MTC000148
plaintiff to review the originals, discard the chaff, and copy only the pertinent documents at a
cost that should ultimately be substantially less than defendants' requested $3,765.
II. CLARIFICATION OF SOME MISUNDERSTANDINGS
I would like to take a moment to clarifY some confusion in your fax. You say I mentioned in an
email that I had to "resort to threats". The complete statement I had made was: "It is unfortunate
that we must resort to threats of a motion in order to resolve this situation". Leaving out the "of
a motion" could be misleading.
You say "Do not suggest that Dr. Jadwin was willing to reduce the burden of his production
demands to keep costs down. That is a fiction". Again, it appears there has been a
misunderstanding. Here is what I had in fact written, "plaintiff has readily agreed to narrow the
document production requests on numerous occasions to expedite matters for defendants." I
assume you know what the term "expedite" means. I never suggested the narrowing of requests
was a method to "keep costs down" because Defendant never raised the issue of costs.
You and I seem to suffer these miscommunications from time to time. In the future, if you
misunderstand something I write, please pick up the phone and consult me. I would welcome the
opportunity to clear up any confusion so that we can avoid more misguided tirades.
Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions.
Happy Holidays.
V~ry t~ yours,
/
! /
ENED. LEE
2
MTC000149
12/20/07
MTC000150
Dec
Dec 20
20 07
07 04:06p
04:06p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.1
p.1

400
400 Capitol
Capitol Mall, Suite 1100
Sacramento,
Office:
Office: 916-444-6400
Fax: 916-444-6405
916-444-6405
Fax
To:
Fax:
D Urgent D For Review D Please Comment D Please Reply D Please Recycle
• Comments:
PIease see attached letter.
MTC000151
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Law Offices

Document 83 of Filed 01/09/2008 Page 186 of 207
lv1ARKA. WASSER
400 C'piro! Mall. Suite 1: 00
Office: 9] 6-444-6400 Fax, 916-444-6405
m.. .'. ra.sscr@m~.rkv . ,:1s.ser.com
December 20, 2007
VIA FACSIMILE .~,,{D FIRST CLASS MAIL
Eugene Lee
Los Angeles, California 90013 -1 010
Re: Jadwin v. County ofKern, et al.
Dear Gene:
With regard to your letter of this afternoon, I do not understand the

miscommunication you reference. We have already produced electronic copies of the
first installment of the production. You complemented us on the "good faith" of that
production and we have had several conversations with you about our production of the
second instalhnent in the same way. It carne as a surprise to read, in your letter, that you
really just want to inspect the documents. You have never suggested that before now.
In any event, we have suspended all further production efforts and will await
discussions with you regarding inspecting the documents. They are in my office.
Very Truly Yours,
Mark A. Wasser
cc: Karen Barnes (via facsimile)
Admitted co Practice in California and Nevada MTC000152

12/21/07
MTC000153

Office: 916-444-6400
Fax: 916-444~405
Fax
Fax: (213)596-0487 Pages: 4 (including cover page)
o Urgent o For Review 0 Please Comment 0 Please Reply 0 Please Recycle
• Comments:
MTC000154
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Law Offices

Document 83 of Filed 01/09/2008 Page 189 of 207
MARKA. WASSER
Sacramento) Californi::;. 95814
Office: 916-444-6400 Fax: 916-444-6405
mwasser@marlo:liasser.com
December 21, 2007
VIA FACSIMILE ONLY
Eugene Lee
Los Angeles, California 90013-1010
Re: Jadwin v. County ofKern, et ai.
Dear Gene:
Our copy service has delivered a CD to us that contains electronic, Bates

numbered copies of the documents we are producing in the second installment of our
production. We also have an invoice for $1,167, which represents the cost of preparing
one set of copies for you. This amount is not an estimate. It is the actual cost incurred.
Upon receipt of payment in the amount of $2,932, to cover the copy cost of this
installment and the first one ($1,167 + $1,765 = $2,932; I am enclosing copies of both
invoices for your reference.), we will FedEx the CD to you. That will conclude our
produJtion of all documents in response to your Request for Production. If you want to
discus~ the 12,500 pages of blood product chart copy reports and patient records, let me
know. We are not producing them for the reasons I have explained in my previous e-
I
mails and letters.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Very Truly Yours,
Mark A. Wasser
cc: Karen Barnes (via facsimile)
Admitted to Practice in California and Nevada MTC000155


INVOICE
DATE INVOICE #
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 690 12/21/2007 39724
Tel (916) 444-1414
Fax (916) 444-1011
E3ILL TO YOUR BIL.L.ING REFERENCE
Mark Wasser Jadwin v. County of Kern

400 Capitol MaJI, 11th Floor
Attn: Mark Wasser
TERMS DUE DATE DELIVERY DATe;
Net 10 12/31/2007 12/21/2007
QUANTITY DESCRIPTION RATE AMOUNT
7,635 Scan Documents 8NV to PDF 0.12 916.20T
7,635 Electronic Bates Numbering Documents 0.02 152.70T
1 Burn CD 15.00 15.00T

CA Sales Tax 7.75% 84.00
$1,167.90
Federal Tax 10 No. 94-33B3741 IPlease Reference Invoice No. with Payment
MTC000156
Dec 21 07 05:11 p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 pA

INVOICE
~IlDFESS IONI\l COpy & PRINT SERVICES DATE INVOICE #
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 690 11f30/2007 39400
Tel (916) 444-1414
Fax (916) 444-1011
BILL TO YOUR BILLING REFERENCE
Mark Wasser Jadwin v. County of Kern

400 Capitol Mall, 11th Floor Response to Plaintiffs First Request for
Sacramento, CA 95814 Production
Attn: Amy
TERMS DUE DATE DELIVERY DATE
Net 10 12/1012007 11/30f2D07
QUANTITY DESCRIPTION RATE AMOUNT
12,506 Scan Documents 8fW Tiff- Summation/OCR Format 0.14 1,750.84T
12,506 Electronic Bates Numbering Documents 0.02 250. '12T
12,506 Digital Prints from DiskJEmail (B&W) 0.10 1,250.60T
1 Burn CD 15.00 15.00T
1 Copy DVD 35.00 35.00T

CA Sales Tax 7.75% 255.87
$3,557.43
Federal Tax 10 No. 94-3383741 I Please Reference Invoice No. with Payment
MTC000157
12/31/07
MTC000158
Eugene D. Lee
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 5:25 PM
Subject: RE: Jadwin/KC: Deposition of Dr. Jadwin

Mark,
Your understanding and our understanding of what was agreed to are in conflict. That’s what I would call a
“misunderstanding”. Saying that “there was no misunderstanding” and then to follow that by saying “the
misunderstanding had to do with your and Ms. Herrington’s decision…” (besides being contradictory) is just your
way of saying “I’m right and you two are wrong”. Our recollection is that we DID discuss the creation of a
common set of deposition exhibits for everyone’s use. Just because you claim your recollection to be the definitive
one doesn’t make it so. Joan and I recollect differently what was said.
The second production was due on December 21, 2007. You were supposed to produce the privilege log then as
well. The fact that we are now having a motion dispute over that production does not excuse your obligation to
provide us with the final privilege log. I assume you aren’t asking us to pay you for the copy costs associated with
printing out the privilege log, correct? We will address this refusal to give us a privilege log in our motion to compel.
As for my sending emails to you, I only do so as a means of confirming our oral communications. There appear to
be a lot of “misunderstandings” whenever we speak so I feel it is necessary to try to combat that by following up
our calls in writing.
Sincerely,
Gene Lee

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EMPLOYMENT LAW
Tel: (213)992-3299
Fax: (213)596-0487

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

O•••mb.c 25, 'II'
" . " " ,y "'''"'"''
To: elee@LOEL.com
1
MTC000159
Gene,
It requires some diligence to keep us on the same page.
There was no misunderstanding about our agreement to prepare a common set of deposition exhibits for everyone’s use
and I very clearly and repeatedly told you so. We are having the reporter sequentially number all deposition exhibits and
put them in a binder for that reason. The misunderstanding had to do with your and Ms. Herrington’s decision to copy all
the documents produced in the initial disclosures, put them in binders, tab them and treat THEM as the common set of
deposition exhibits. We never discussed that and I see no reason to do that. Now that I understand that is what you are
propose to do, I will think about how useful it will be and let you know about paying for one set of the binders. At present,
I see no advantage to it. I have no interest in marking all the documents produced at the initial disclosures as deposition
exhibits.
We have already produced the privilege log and will supplement it to reflect the second production.
My reference to our position “evolving” was in the context of Royce Johnson’s personnel file. I told you I have learned of
new documents I have not yet seen on Friday. Whether they change our position remains to be seen. I will let you know.
I also told you that KMC continues to find documents and send them to me. Some of those may need to be produced. I
don’t know yet because I have not seen them.
I do not recall saying that I intend to examine Dr. Jadwin on “thousands of documents.” I do not. I will examine him on
some documents, maybe dozens, but far less than “thousands.” I am not aware of “thousands” of documents that even
interest me in this case. If our past history is any indicator of the future, you will now send me an e-mail thanking me for
promising to not ask Dr. Jadwin questions about more than a dozen documents.
Mark

Mark,
I think the talk was useful in that at least it established that there was misunderstanding between the parties as to the
deposition exhibits that plaintiff was preparing for everyone’s use. I agree we should review the transcript because
my co-counsel, Joan Herrington, and I had understood that plaintiff was preparing a set of common deposition
exhibits for the use of each party at all depositions, which is why we were asking for defendants to pay for a portion
of the costs. You say your understanding was different.
In any case, the call also established that there is no misunderstanding regarding numerous other issues which are
the subject of plaintiff’s motion to compel. For instance, plaintiff’s review of the caselaw shows that responding
party, not requesting party, should bear the costs of copying responsive discovery documents, and that responding
party is not permitted to withhold document production pending a demand for reimbursement of copying costs. I’ll
look for the caselaw, but I can’t name them off the top of my head.
Also, as I had mentioned, defendants were supposed to produce a privilege log to plaintiff but never did. Contrary
to what you said on the call, production of the privilege log should not be made contingent on actual production of
the documents.
I had mentioned to you numerous other issues: 1) defendants’ continued use of an overbroad objection referring
generally to “federal and state law”, 2) defendants raising of numerous additional objections which had not
2
MTC000160
appeared in the initial responses and were thus waived, 3) defendants’ inappropriate citation to state privileges in a
federal court involving federal question jurisdiction, 4) defendants’ refusal to produce any documents in response to
numerous requests, 5) defendants’ refusal to produce any documents relating to Dr. Royce Johnson based upon the
erstwhile distinction that he was only an “acting chair” and hence not a comparator for plaintiff (when in fact he
had been for many many years, and continues to be, a chair in all but title only), etc.
I had also mentioned to you that I am presently drafting the joint statement. You stated that defendants’ position
continues to “evolve” and it’s possible defendants may change their stance on some of the above disputed issues.
Plaintiff is certainly pleased to hear that, but until defendants actually commits to a change in position, plaintiff has
no choice but to go ahead and observe the January 9 filing deadline for the joint statement.
On a final note, your email mentions “thousands of documents” on which presumably you intend to examine Dr.
Jadwin at his deposition. I would remind you of defendants’ ongoing duty under FRCP R 26 to supplement the
initial disclosures on an ongoing basis. This duty is separate and apart from the discovery dispute we are having
regarding plaintiff’s requests for production, set one. You should not expect to unfairly surprise plaintiff with
documents at Dr. Jadwin’s deposition that you were under an ongoing duty to disclose but did not. If this scenario
materializes, we intend to cease defendants’ deposition of Dr. Jadwin and immediately file a motion for protective
order.
Sincerely,
Gene Lee

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EMPLOYMENT LAW
Tel: (213)992-3299
Fax: (213)596-0487

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

o ••emb.c 25, 'II' " ..." ,y ...oo,,"..
To: elee@LOEL.com
Gene,
So, we talked, the talk was pleasant although we did not resolve much. We can review the transcript, if you want, but I do
not recall any communication when you explained that you were going to copy all the initial disclosures and tab them and
put them in binders and make me a set. I had no understanding that you were doing that. Now that we have discussed it,
the question arises as to why we would do that with the initial disclosures and not the rest of the thousands of documents
that have been produced. There is nothing special about the initial disclosures that I know of.
You told me the cases do not support our request that you reimburse the copy costs. Although you did not cite any case,
I will look at it further and let you know what I find.
3
MTC000161
Mark

Mark,
My view is different from yours. I have always understood that a phone call would clarify where written
communications fail.
In any case, we will be sending you the joint statement shortly. If you wish to discuss it (via written
communications, per your wishes), please do not hesitate to let me know.
Sincerely,
Gene Lee

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EMPLOYMENT LAW
Tel: (213)992-3299
Fax: (213)596-0487

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Decembec 25, 'II' n ..." ,y "'",," ..
To: elee@LOEL.com
Gene,
I think this issue is best left to written communications. I know what I have written to you and you do not read what I have
written the same way I do. That miscommunication is enough. I do not want to risk compounding it with an oral
conversation.
I expect our written communications will be provided to the Court and I have written them with that in mind. I agree with
you that this detour is unfortunate and a waste of time but you are the moving party. The documents remain available
upon payment of the cost cost.
Mark
4
MTC000162
Mark,
Regarding accommodations for Dr. Jadwin at trial, I suggest we cross that bridge when the time comes. Trial is still
a year off and Dr. Jadwin’s condition is subject to change. Are you claiming that the accommodations needed by
Dr. Jadwin for a deposition in January 2008 will be exactly the same as those required for a trial in December 2008?
I hope you will agree that we should leave those kinds of determinations to the medical professionals.
As for your inability to comprehend the issue regarding the copies, please give me a call. I’ve already tried to explain
the issue to you on numerous occasions in numerous ways and at this point, I think your confusion would best be
remedied by a call. Also, I would kindly ask that you review your own emails to me before asking me to refresh your
recollection for you as to your role in the discovery cost dispute. They will be attached to the joint statement. If you
still require clarification, please give me a call. I would be happy to try to explain the content of your emails to you.
Sincerely,
Gene Lee

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EMPLOYMENT LAW
Tel: (213)992-3299
Fax: (213)596-0487

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

O•••mb.c 25, 'II'
" . " " ,y "'''"'"''
To: elee@LOEL.com
Gene,
Be sure you ask Dr. Jadwin’s treating physician to address the accommodations that will be necessary when he testifies
in court. I know you won’t request accommodations in his deposition that you won’t also be requesting from Judge
Wanger at trial. I expect Dr. Jadwin’s trial testimony will last more than one day, so we should discuss that, as well.
The last part of your message does not make sense to me as I understand we are having a common set of deposition
exhibits with a consistent numbering system. Have you changed that? Perhaps you can explain what you mean. Also, I
do not recall creating a dispute about discovery costs. Clarification on that will be helpful, too.
Mark
5
MTC000163

Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 6:15 PM
Mark,
Thank you for your email.
I do not recollect Dr. Jadwin behaving in anything close to the manner you describe. We can get a declaration from
the court reporter, if you wish. Also, unless you have a background in disabling depression and its symptoms, I
would submit that your clinical observations are in any event irrelevant. I happened to notice you and Ms. Barnes
dozing off from time to time during the depositions; perhaps that might explain the discrepancies in your
recollection. At other times, you were nearly supine in your chair as you stretched your feet under the table toward
the deponent during testimony; perhaps as a result you didn’t have a good vantage point to notice what Dr. Jadwin
was doing. I recommend we wait and see what restrictions Dr. Jadwin’s treating psychiatrist prescribes and then we
can discuss reasonable accommodations. I just wanted to give you the courtesy of advance notice.
I assume you are just as interested as we are in ensuring Dr. Jadwin’s best testimony.
Regarding the copies of deposition exhibits, we had agreed to create a single common set of deposition exhibits
(comprised of all Rule 26 Initial Disclosures in chronological order) for the use of BOTH plaintiff and defendants,
i.e., you would have had the use of this set for your deposition of Dr. Jadwin and any other depositions you choose
to conduct in the future. This way, we could’ve ensured a consistent exhibit numbering system and easily avoided
duplicates of exhibits, not to mention made things more efficient for all future depositions for all parties. However,
you changed your mind about bearing a portion of the photocopy cost (which does not even account for the time
spent by plaintiff to create the set, work with Kinko’s and proof it) and decided to turn it into a broader dispute
about discovery costs.
That’s too bad – I fail to see how this has benefitted anybody.
In any case, no hard feelings. I hope you have a good weekend.
Sincerely,
Gene Lee

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EMPLOYMENT LAW
Tel: (213)992-3299
Fax: (213)596-0487

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
6
MTC000164

Decembec 25, 'II' " ..." ,y "'oo,,"..
To: elee@LOEL.com
Gene,
With regard to Dr. Jadwin’s deposition, his disabling depression did not seem to interfere with his ability to sit through 10
hours of back-to-back depositions in one day that exhausted the reporter a few weeks ago. In fact, he remained quite
animated all day as he worked his laptop computer with you. He even left in the middle of one deposition to attend to
other business. I am confident we can work something out to allow him to cope with his disabling depression in his
deposition. I will not go past 5:00 and we can take more and longer breaks. We will not be going into the evening hours
as you did. We will do our best to help him through it.
With regard to the cost of deposition exhibits, we will be pleased to reimburse each other for all copies. Wanting us to pay
your copy costs while balking at paying ours is not particularly consistent. Let us know what your position on copy costs is
going to be.
Mark

Subject: Jadwin/KC: Deposition of Dr. Jadwin
Mark:
With Dr. Jadwin’s deposition coming up, I need to discuss a couple of things with you.
As you know, Dr. Jadwin has disabling depression for which he continues to receive medication and treatment. He
is consulting his treating psychiatrist but it appears he may have difficulty sitting through more than 3 or 4 hours of
deposition in a single day. We will let you know what his psychiatrist determines. If we can’t finish it this time
around, it may be necessary as a reasonable accommodation to resume his deposition at a time in the near future.
Also, as you know, we have already prepared a set of deposition exhibits that originally had been intended for the
use of all parties (but you refused to pay any of the associated cost). Please note that our exhibits run from exhibit
no. 27 to exhibit no. 558. Please begin the numbering of your deposition exhibits for the Dr. Jadwin deposition at
exhibit no. 559.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
Otherwise, I hope you have a good weekend.
Sincerely,
Gene Lee

7
MTC000165
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EMPLOYMENT LAW
Tel: (213)992-3299
Fax: (213)596-0487

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Decembec 25, 'II' n ..." ,y "'",," ..
8
MTC000166
1/2/08
MTC000167
Eugene D. Lee
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 3:53 PM

Flag Status: Flagged
Mark,
I’m glad to see that you admit that my December 28 email had slipped your mind. But now you say, definitively,
“That was the first time”. Again, my recollection is different. We had mentioned the initial disclosures as “common
exhibits” to you several times both during the depositions and afterwards. It appears these other instances have
slipped your mind as well.
As for your confusion about “nondisclosure” of documents, I refer you to FRCP Rule 26 and its attendant caselaw.
If you still remain confused about what Rule 26 and its ongoing duty to supplement entails, please feel free to give
me a call and I will do my best to explain the issue to you. Given the way in which our written communications
tend to get bogged down in mis-recollections of events, I believe a call would be more efficient. My cell is 213-453-
1781, please call me any time.
Sincerely,
Gene Lee

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EMPLOYMENT LAW
Tel: (213)992-3299
Fax: (213)596-0487

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Decembec 25, 'II' " ..." ,y "'oo,,"..


To: elee@LOEL.com
Gene,
1
MTC000168
My mistake, you did mention using the initial disclosures as “common exhibits” on December 28. That was the first time.
The issue remains that you did not inform me of your decision to use them earlier. When you write that “it is only natural
that we had discussed them,” you lose me. Why is that only natural? The fact is, we did not discuss using the initial
disclosures as a common set of exhibits. I am tired of this topic and will not go round and round with you on it any more.
It is pointless. As I recall, the discussion originated in your request that I pay for one set of binders. I still do not see their
utility.
The rest of your message, about the “nondisclosure” of documents to Dr. Jadwin, loses me, again. I have no idea what
you are referring to.
Mark

Mark,
Your email states: “At no point before our communications on Monday did either you or Ms. Herrington ever
disclose that you had decided to mark all the documents produced at the initial disclosures as deposition exhibits.”
By Monday, I assume you are referring to last Monday, December 31, 2007.
As has so often been the case, regrettably, your recollections are flawed.
I refer you to my email to you of December 28, 2007, where I stated: “Regarding the copies of deposition exhibits,
we had agreed to create a single common set of deposition exhibits (comprised of all Rule 26 Initial Disclosures
in chronological order) for the use of BOTH plaintiff and defendants, i.e., you would have had the use of this set
for your deposition of Dr. Jadwin and any other depositions you choose to conduct in the future.”
We had also discussed the above at the last set of depositions and on the phone afterwards. But perhaps you don’t
recollect that either.
I would also remind you that Rule 26 requires that the parties produce to each other all documents which are
relevant to any claims or defenses in the action. Rule 26 also imposes on all parties a continuing duty to supplement
their Initial Disclosures. Assuming defendants have complied with Rule 26, it’s only natural that we had discussed
and agreed to turn the Initial Disclosures into a common set of deposition exhibits. You say you now disagree.
May I ask what documents you intend to examine Dr. Jadwin on at his deposition outside of the Initial Disclosures
and whether they have been disclosed to plaintiff as required by Rule 26? If they have not been disclosed, plaintiff
intends to file a motion for protective order to ensure Dr. Jadwin is not unfairly surprised at his deposition.
I had already mentioned this nondisclosure issue in a previous email, but I remind you again given the difficulties
we are having with your ability to comprehend sentences and recollect events accurately.
Sincerely,
Gene Lee

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2
MTC000169
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
E M PDocument
L O Y M E83
N T Filed
L A W01/09/2008 Page 204 of 207
Tel: (213)992-3299
Fax: (213)596-0487

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

o ••emb.c 25, 'II' " ..." ,y ...oo,,"..


Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 9:39 AM
To: elee@LOEL.com
Gene,
Why is it so hard to communicate with you? You write in this message, again, that you and Ms. Herrington recall that “we
DID discuss the creation of a common set of deposition exhibits for everyone’s use.” Yes. I know. I agree. There
is no disagreement over that. Why do you insist on restating that which we agree on? The disagreement is over
your undisclosed decision to make the initial disclosures the common set of exhibits. That is the issue. We have
exchanged several e-mails about this and spoken about it but you still do not seem to get it. No one is disputing the
wisdom of making a common set of exhibits. The issue is your decision to use the documents produced at the
initial disclosures as the common set. I don’t know how to write that more clearly. As I wrote on Monday, I see no
utility to marking all the initial disclosures as deposition exhibits. Why does that seem like a good idea? Perhaps
you can explain that. Our agreement was to have the reporter prepare a binder with the sequentially marked
deposition exhibits. That is the “common set.” She has done that. That is what we agreed to. At no point before
our communications on Monday did either you or Ms. Herrington ever disclose that you had decided to mark all the
documents produced at the initial disclosures as deposition exhibits. If you can refer to me to any communication
where you did, please do so.
Mark
MTC000170
1/4/08
MTC000171
Eugene D. Lee
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 10:00 AM
To: elee@LOEL.com
Subject: RE: Photocopy costs.
Gene,
No. I am not researching this for you. I have done my research. It is your motion to compel. I presume you have
authority to support your motion. If not, too bad. If so, proceed with your motion. I am satisfied with my position.
Mark

Subject: RE: Photocopy costs.
Mark,
I would appreciate the case citations. I look forward to receiving them.
Sincerely,
Gene Lee

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EMPLOYMENT LAW
Tel: (213)992-3299
Fax: (213)596-0487

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Minimum Wage IS Now $8,00 per Hour
Janua..... , '00' n ..." 'Y "'",," ..


To: Eugene Lee
Subject: Photocopy costs.
Gene,
1
MTC000172
I have found cases that say the requesting party must pay the cost of photocopying documents. I have found no cases
that hold otherwise.
You said you had some. If you do, give me the cites. So far, I find no support for your position.
Mark

Office: 916-444-6400
Fax: 916-444-6405
2
MTC000173

83 MTC Declaration Re Joint Statement

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

83 MTC Declaration Re Joint Statement

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 83 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 1 of 207

1 Eugene D. Lee SB#: 236812

1 I, Eugene D. Lee, declare as follows:

1 Eugene D. Lee SB#: 236812

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 1

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 2

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 3

1 “Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO complaints or

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 4

1 of its estimated copy costs of $3,765.

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 5

1 2007, Defendants did not renew Plaintiff’s employment contract.

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 6

1 b. Defendants Rely upon a Misreading of Caselaw

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 7

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 8

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 9

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 10

1 disclosure by state or federal law, including . . . the peer-review privilege.”

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 11

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 12

1 D. Defendant’s Objection of Personnel Privilege

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 13

1 E. Defendant’s Refusal to Produce Due to Marginal Relevancy

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 14

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 15

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 16

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 17

1 January 1, 2006 to present.

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 18

1 January 1, 2006 to present.

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 19

1 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 40

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 20

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 21

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 22

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 23

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 24

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 25

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 26

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 27

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 28

1 Eugene D. Lee SB#: 236812

EXHIBITS TO JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT

EXHIBIT 1. Meet and confer letter faxed by Defendants’ to Plaintiff’s attorney,

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 83 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 36 of 207

Fax: (213) 596-0487 Pages: 2 (including cover page)

Phone: (213) 992-3299 Date: October 31, 2007

Re: Jadwin v. County of Kern cc:

o Urgent o For Review 0 Please Comment 0 Please Reply D Please Recycle

Please see attached letter.

October 31, 2007

VIA FACSIMILE & FIRST CLASS MAIL

Re: Jadwin v. County ofKern, et at.

Dear Mr. Lee:

We request an extension of time until December 21,2007 to respond to your

Let me know your position.

Very Truly Yours,

cc: Karen Barnes (via first class mail)

Admitted to Practice in California and Nevada MTC000003

EXHIBIT 2. Meet and confer letter faxed by Plaintiff’s to Defendants’ attorney,

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 83 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 39 of 207

Transmitted herewith is a letter in followup to our meet and confer call