103 Mtc Rog1 - Dfj Declaration Re Joint Statement

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103

4

Eugene D. Lee SB#: 236812 LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Phone: (213) 992-3299 Fax: (213) 596-0487 email: [email protected]

5

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

1 2 3

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 1 of 16

6 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

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

10 v. 11

COUNTY OF KERN, et al., 12 Defendants.

Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE re: INABILITY TO SECURE COOPERATION OF DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL TO PREPARE AND EXECUTE JOINT STATEMENT re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES

13 Date: April 28, 2008 Time: 9:30 a.m. Place: U.S. District Court, Bankruptcy Courtroom 1300 18th St., Bakersfield, CA

14 15

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

16 17 18 19

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

20

I, Eugene D. Lee, declare as follows:

21

1.

22 23

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

below and I could and would competently testify thereto if called as a witness in this matter. 2.

On January 2, 2008, plaintiff served Interrogatories, Set One on defendant County of

24

Kern. Defendant served responses on February 1 which were deficient in numerous respects. The parties

25

met and conferred several times by phone and in writing on the interrogatories which are at issue in this

26

motion. Defendant initially agreed to supplement its responses to the interrogatories accordingly.

27

Defendant later changed its mind. Plaintiff was left no choice but to bring a motion to compel on the

28

DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE re: INABILITY TO SECURE COOPERATION OF DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL TO PREPARE AND EXECUTE JOINT STATEMENT re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 1

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

1

remaining issues.

2

3.

3 4

Document 103

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 2 of 16

Briefing regarding Plaintiff’s above-referenced contentions is contained in the draft Joint

Statement, attached hereto as Attachment A. 4.

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

5

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

6

Thursday, April 17, 2008, I both mailed (via certified mail with return receipt requested) and faxed Mr.

7

Wasser a draft version of the Joint Statement re: Discovery Disagreement (with all exhibits attached),

8

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

9

subject to change. Attached hereto as Attachment A is a true and correct copy of the draft Joint

10

Statement which I had prepared.

11

5.

In my rush, I unintentionally included the draft Declaration of Inability to Secure

12

Cooperation of Defendants’ Counsel which I had prepared ahead of time and was future-dated to April

13

23 (today’s date) in the fax to defense counsel. By accusing me of making representations about defense

14

counsel’s refusal to cooperate that were “both misleading and false”, defense counsel makes much ado

15

over nothing. (Doc. 101, 2:5-14). A simple email exchange would have cleared up this confusion over

16

the accidentally included document.

17

6.

I sent the draft joint statement to Mr. Wasser by both mail and fax a full week prior to

18

today in the expectation that he would review it and provide comments to me via email. Most of

19

counsels’ communications have taken the form of writing rather than phone calls, and this meet and

20

confer over the joint statement was no exception. To date, I did not receive any response from Mr.

21

Wasser regarding the draft Joint Statement I had sent him a week ago, other than to receive electronic

22

notification that he had filed the Declaration of Mark A. Wasser re Inability to Prepare Joint Statement

23

on Discovery Dispute (Doc. 101), accusing me of failing to “attempt to discuss his proposed joint

24

statement with me”. (Doc. 101, 2:21-22).

25

7.

Despite Mr. Wasser’s accusations to the contrary (Doc. 101, 2:15-20), I did not know that

26

defense counsel was unavailable to accept service of filings and documents on April 17 and 18 and

27

never received a Notice of Unavailability to that effect. Defense counsel had told me in emails that for

28

DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE re: INABILITY TO SECURE COOPERATION OF DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL TO PREPARE AND EXECUTE JOINT STATEMENT re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 2

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 3 of 16

1

deposition scheduling purposes only he would not be able to attend full days on April 17 and 18. He

2

never once notified me that his office, which includes his assistant Ms. Amy Remly, was not receiving

3

faxes, emails and mail during those days. I also had no knowledge of Mr. Wasser’s speech and, frankly,

4

fail to see its relevance. Presumably, Mr. Wasser was aware that the deadline to file the joint statement

5

for the instant motion to compel was today and planned his time accordingly as any responsible attorney

6

would have.

7

8.

Mr. Wasser accuses me of not referencing his letter of March 5 in my moving papers.

8

(Doc. 101, 2:26-28). I had attached Mr. Wasser’s March 5 letter as Exhibit 4 in the draft I sent to Mr.

9

Wasser a week ago. In any case, despite what Mr. Wasser insinuates, the March 5 Letter can not and

10

does not constitute binding responses by defendant to plaintiff’s interrogatories; it is not evidence upon

11

which plaintiff can rely. It is nothing more than part of the extensive meet and confer effort between

12

counsel leading up to the motion. As plaintiff has repeatedly told defendants, what plaintiff wants are

13

defendants’ responses to his interrogatories on the record, nothing more.

14

9.

It is hard to believe that defendants are “bewildered” by this latest motion to compel.

15

(Doc. 101, 3:6-7). Plaintiff repeatedly told defendants verbally and in written meet and confer that

16

plaintiff would be filing a motion to compel. In my email to Mr. Wasser of March 5, 2008, I wrote: “I

17

explained [to you] that Plaintiff intends to immediately file a motion to compel regarding any

18

unresolved requests for production and/or interrogatories.” (See Exhibit 4 attached hereto). To date,

19

defendants have failed to fully respond to plaintiff’s interrogatories. Hence, more than a month later,

20

plaintiff is bringing this motion.

21

10.

Mr. Wasser claims plaintiff has served 91 interrogatories on defendants. (Doc. 101, 3:9-

22

13). As I have explained at great length to Mr. Wasser already, subparts do NOT count as separate

23

interrogatories under Rule 33 unless they are so logically discrete from the main inquiry as to constitute

24

a separate interrogatory. Still Mr. Wasser, true to form, continues to count the subparts to plaintiff’s

25

interrogatories so as to insinuate plaintiff has been abusive with its “91 interrogatories”.

26 27 28

11.

Plaintiff agrees that the parties are presently negotiating a stipulation and order to limit

plaintiff’s interrogatories, deem documents business records and authenticated, etc. Assuming the DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE re: INABILITY TO SECURE COOPERATION OF DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL TO PREPARE AND EXECUTE JOINT STATEMENT re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 3

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 4 of 16

1

negotiations are successful and the parties reach an agreement, the parties will be filing the stipulation

2

and order with the Court shortly. Defendants have also agreed to stipulate to leave for plaintiff to file a

3

supplemented complaint. Assuming defendants remain true to their word, the parties will be filing this

4

shortly as well.

5 6 7

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the United States that the foregoing is true and correct.

8 9 Executed on: April 23, 2008 10 11 12

/s/ Eugene D. Lee

13

EUGENE D. LEE Declarant

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE re: INABILITY TO SECURE COOPERATION OF DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL TO PREPARE AND EXECUTE JOINT STATEMENT re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 4

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 5 of 16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

ATTACHMENT A DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE re: INABILITY TO SECURE COOPERATION OF DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL TO PREPARE AND EXECUTE JOINT STATEMENT re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 5

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103

4

Eugene D. Lee SB#: 236812 LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Phone: (213) 992-3299 Fax: (213) 596-0487 email: [email protected]

5

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

6

Mark A. Wasser CA SB #06160 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 444-6400 Fax: (916) 444-6405 Email: [email protected]

1 2 3

7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 6 of 16

Bernard C. Barmann, Sr. KERN COUNTY COUNSEL Mark Nations, Chief Deputy 1115 Truxton Avenue, Fourth Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Phone: (661) 868-3800 Fax: (661) 868-3805 Email: [email protected]

14 15

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

16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

18

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

19 v. 20

COUNTY OF KERN, et al.,

Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES

21 Defendants. 22 23 24

Date: April 28, 2008 Time: 9:30 a.m. Place: U.S. District Court, Bankruptcy Courtroom 1300 18th St., Bakersfield, CA Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007 Date Set for Trial: December 3, 2008

25 26 27 28 JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 1

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

1

Document 103

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 7 of 16

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

2

advance of the April 28, 2008 hearing on Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to interrogatories and

3

for sanctions.

4 I.

DETAILS OF THE PARTIES’ DISCOVERY CONFERENCES

5 6

On January 2, 2008, plaintiff served Interrogatories, Set One (“Interrogatories”) on defendant

7

County of Kern. Defendant served responses on February 1 which were deficient in numerous respects.

8

The parties met and conferred several times by phone and in writing on the interrogatories which are at

9

issue in this motion. Defendant initially agreed to supplement its responses to the interrogatories

10

accordingly. Defendant later changed its mind. Plaintiff was left no choice but to bring a motion to

11

compel.

12 II.

A STATEMENT OF THE NATURE OF THE CASE AND FACTUAL DISPUTES

13 14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

contract.

26

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

27

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

28

procedural due process. JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 2

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 8 of 16

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

environment existed, it was caused by Plaintiff.

5 III.

THE CONTENTION OF EACH PARTY AS TO EACH CONTESTED ISSUE

7

A.

INTERROGATORY NO. 1

8

State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Third Affirmative Defense.

9

DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1

10

The Third Affirmative Defense is a legal defense. Defendants object to it to the extent it seeks

6

11

information protected under the attorney/client privilege and attorney work product privilege.

12

PLAINTIFF’S POSITION

13

The U.S. Supreme Court has stated in United States v. Procter, 356 U.S. 677 (U.S. 1958):

14

16

Modern instruments of discovery serve a useful purpose, as we noted in Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495. They together with pretrial procedures make a trial less a game of blindman's buff and more a fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent. Only strong public policies weigh against disclosure. Id. at 682 [citations omitted][emphasis added].

17

Discovery in this action has been ongoing for eight months. Defendant has already completed its

15

18

(four-day long) deposition of plaintiff. Tens of thousands of documents have been produced.

19

Presumably defendant has had ample time to develop facts supporting its affirmative defenses.

20

Defendant’s refusal to state a single fact responsive to this interrogatory despite numerous meet and

21

confer efforts is a violation of discovery rules.

22

Moreover, as plaintiff has already communicated to defendant several times, contention

23

interrogatories are not objectionable on the ground that they encroach on attorney work product. See

24

Security Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Trustmark Ins. Co. (D CT 2003) 218 FRD 29, 34; United States v.

25

Boyce, 148 F. Supp. 2d 1069, 1086 (S.D. Cal. 2001) (“Under Rule 33(c), a party can serve an

26

interrogatory the answer to which involves ‘an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the

27

application of law to fact.’. The Government's contention interrogatories are not directed to issues of

28

‘pure law’ that would infringe on the attorney-work product doctrine as codified in Rule 26(b)(3). JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 3

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 9 of 16

1

Rather, they seek the facts upon which the Boyces' relied for their defense to the Forms 4340. As such,

2

the contention interrogatories were permissible and the Boyces were required to respond to them.”

3

[citations omitted]).

4 5

Defendant refuses to state a single fact. Defendant further asserts privilege objections. These objections are improper as is defendant’s refusal to respond.

6

Rule 37 states:

7

9

a party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection. This motion may be made if … (iii) a party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 33…. For purposes of this subdivision (a), an evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or respond. [emphasis added].

10

By failing to state a single fact in response to this interrogatory, defendant has engaged in

8

11 12

behavior which this court is required to sanction pursuant to Rule 37. Defendant’s conduct is particularly hypocritical considering defendant showed no hesitance in

13

asking plaintiff countless contention interrogatories at defendant’s 4-day long deposition of plaintiff.

14

Despite the fact plaintiff has no legal training and was being placed on the spot in a videotaped

15

deposition, plaintiff responded fully.

16

DEFENDANT’S POSITION

17

[INSERT HERE]

18 B.

INTERROGATORY NO. 2

19 State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Fourth Affirmative Defense. 20 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2 21 The Fourth Affirmative Defense is a legal defense. Defendants object to it to the extent it seeks 22 information protected under the attorney/client privilege and attorney work product privilege. 23 PLAINTIFF’S POSITION 24 See “Plaintiff’s Position” regarding Interrogatory No. 1 above. 25 DEFENDANT’S POSITION 26 [INSERT HERE] 27 28 JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 4

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 10 of 16

1

C.

2

State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Fifth Affirmative Defense.

3

DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3

4

Defendants will rely on the testimony of persons who worked with Plaintiff regarding the nature

5

of his interpersonal communications and relationships with co-workers; his overbearing and dismissive

6

attitude towards other members of the hospital staff; his intimidating style; his disrespectful and

7

disagreeable interpersonal dealings, and his physical confrontations with other persons in the hospital.

8

The Defendants will offer testimony about the efforts members of the medical staff and management

9

made to counsel Plaintiff and his angry and dismissive responses to those efforts. Defendants will show

10

how Plaintiff’s working relationships in the hospital steadily eroded and unraveled as a result of

11

Plaintiff’s behavior. The testimony will be supported by letters, e-mails and other writings, all of which

12

have been previously produced.

INTERROGATORY NO. 3

13

PLAINTIFF’S POSITION

14

The U.S. Supreme Court has stated in United States v. Procter, 356 U.S. 677 (U.S. 1958):

15

17

Modern instruments of discovery serve a useful purpose, as we noted in Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495. They together with pretrial procedures make a trial less a game of blindman's buff and more a fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent. Only strong public policies weigh against disclosure. Id. at 682 [citations omitted][emphasis added].

18

Defendant’s response is incomplete and evasive. It is devoid of any facts and consists only of

16

19

general themes. It fails to specify, among other things (i) what efforts were made to “counsel Plaintiff”,

20

by whom, at whose direction, etc., (ii) what physical confrontations Plaintiff allegedly had with other

21

persons and with whom, (iv) to whom plaintiff was “overbearing and dismissive”, (v) which of

22

plaintiff’s “interpersonal dealings” were “disrespectful and disagreeable”, (vi) which of plaintiff’s

23

“working relationships” “steadily eroded and unraveled”, with whom, and what behavior by plaintiff

24

allegedly caused that.

25

Discovery in this action has been ongoing for eight months. Defendant has already completed a

26

(4-day long) deposition of plaintiff. Presumably defendant has had ample time to develop facts

27

supporting its affirmative defenses. Defendant’s one paragraph response, devoid of any facts, is an effort

28

to hide the ball from plaintiff and surprise plaintiff at trial. JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 5

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

1 2

Document 103

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 11 of 16

Defendant initially agreed in meet and confer to supplement its response accordingly. As has often been the case in this action, defendant changed its mind.

3

Rule 37 states:

4

6

a party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection. This motion may be made if … (iii) a party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 33…. For purposes of this subdivision (a), an evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or respond. [emphasis added].

7

By giving an evasive and incomplete response to this interrogatory which fails to state any facts,

5

8

defendant has engaged in behavior which this court is required to sanction pursuant to Rule 37.

9

DEFENDANT’S POSITION

10

[INSERT HERE]

11 D.

INTERROGATORY NO. 4

12 State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Sixth Affirmative Defense. 13 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4 14 The Sixth Affirmative Defense is a legal defense. Defendants object to it to the extent it seeks 15 information protected under the attorney/client privilege and attorney work product privilege. 16 PLAINTIFF’S POSITION 17 See “Plaintiff’s Position” regarding Interrogatory No. 1 above. 18 DEFENDANT’S POSITION 19 [INSERT HERE] 20 21

E.

22

State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Seventh Affirmative Defense.

23

DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5

24

The Seventh Affirmative Defense is a legal defense. Defendants object to it to the extent it seeks

25

INTERROGATORY NO. 5

information protected under the attorney/client privilege and attorney work product privilege.

26

PLAINTIFF’S POSITION

27

See “Plaintiff’s Position” regarding Interrogatory No. 1 above.

28

DEFENDANT’S POSITION JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 6

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

1

Document 103

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 12 of 16

[INSERT HERE]

2 F.

INTERROGATORY NO. 6

3 State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Eighth Affirmative Defense. 4 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6 5 The Eighth Third Affirmative Defense is a legal defense. Defendants object to it to the extent it 6 seeks information protected under the attorney/client privilege and attorney work product privilege. 7 PLAINTIFF’S POSITION 8 See “Plaintiff’s Position” regarding Interrogatory No. 1 above. 9 DEFENDANT’S POSITION 10 [INSERT HERE] 11 12

G.

13

State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Ninth Affirmative Defense.

14

DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7

15

The Ninth Affirmative Defense is a legal defense. Defendants object to it to the extent it seeks

16

INTERROGATORY NO. 7

information protected under the attorney/client privilege and attorney work product privilege.

17

PLAINTIFF’S POSITION

18

See “Plaintiff’s Position” regarding Interrogatory No. 1 above.

19

DEFENDANT’S POSITION

20

[INSERT HERE]

21 H.

INTERROGATORY NO. 46

22 IDENTIFY each DOCUMENT or portion thereof contained in PLAINTIFF's FRCP Rule 26 23 Initial Disclosures that YOU contend is privileged; state the nature of each privilege asserted; and state 24 in detail the factual bases for each such asserted privilege. 25 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 46 26 We do not understand this Interrogatory and are, consequently, unable to answer it. What is 27 privileged about the documents Plaintiff produced? 28 JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 7

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 13 of 16

1

PLAINTIFF’S POSITION

2

Rule 37 states:

3

5

a party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection. This motion may be made if … (iii) a party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 33…. For purposes of this subdivision (a), an evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or respond. [emphasis added].

6

After meet and confers which addressed defendant’s “confusion”, defendant still has not

7

supplemented this evasive and incomplete response which fails to state even any objection. Plaintiff had

8

explained to defendant several times during meet and confers that this interrogatory is intended to

9

determine which documents in the Rule 26 Initial Disclosures will be subject to privilege-based

10

admissibility challenges by defendant. Defendant had subsequently agreed to supplement its response.

11

Defendant had further acknowledged at the time that the meaning of the term “IDENTIFY” as used in

12

plaintiff’s interrogatory includes the name(s) of the author(s), name(s) of recipient(s), date of creation,

13

date of modification, date of delivery, date of execution, effective date, subject matter, bates numbers,

14

page numbers, paragraph numbers, line numbers and/or section numbers.

4

15

To date, defendants have not carried through on their promises. This has been characteristic

16

throughout this action. By effectively failing to respond to the interrogatory, defendant has engaged in

17

behavior which this court is required to sanction pursuant to Rule 37.

18

DEFENDANT’S POSITION

19

[INSERT HERE]

20 I.

INTERROGATORY NO. 47

21 IDENTIFY each DOCUMENT or portion thereof contained in YOUR FRCP Rule 26 Initial 22 Disclosures that YOU contend is privileged; state the nature of each privilege asserted; and state in 23 detail the factual bases for each such asserted privilege. 24 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 47 25 We do not understand this Interrogatory and are, consequently, unable to answer it. What is 26 privileged about the documents Plaintiff produced? 27 PLAINTIFF’S POSITION 28 JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 8

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103

Filed 04/23/2008

1

See “Plaintiff’s Position” regarding Interrogatory No. 46 above.

2

DEFENDANT’S POSITION

3

[INSERT HERE]

Page 14 of 16

4 J.

INTERROGATORY NO. 48

5 State each and every job function which YOU contend were the essential functions of 6 PLAINTIFF'S position as Chair of Pathology at KMC. 7 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 48 8 The essential functions of Plaintiffs position are set forth in the KMC Medical Staff Bylaws at 9 page 46, section 9.7, Department Chairs; section 9.7-1, Qualifications and pages 48- 50, section 9.7-5, 10 Responsibilities and Duties of Department Chairs and Plaintiffs job description. 11 PLAINTIFF’S POSITION 12 As plaintiff repeatedly explained to defendant during meet and confer, an answer to an 13 interrogatory should be complete in itself and should not refer to the pleadings, or to depositions or other 14 documents, or to other interrogatories. See Scaife v. Boenne (N.D. Ind. 2000) 191 FRD 590, 594. 15 Moreover, it is the employer’s burden to state what the essential functions of an employee’s 16 position are. 17 Defendant initially agreed in meet and confer to supplement its response accordingly. As has 18 often been the case in this action, defendant changed its mind, necessitating this motion. 19 Rule 37 states: 20 21 22

a party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection. This motion may be made if … (iii) a party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 33…. For purposes of this subdivision (a), an evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or respond. [emphasis added].

23 By giving an evasive and incomplete response to this interrogatory which fails to state any facts, 24 defendant has engaged in behavior which this court is required to sanction pursuant to Rule 37. 25 DEFENDANT’S POSITION 26 [INSERT HERE] 27 28 JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 9

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

1

Document 103

IV.

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 15 of 16

CONCLUSION

2 The party who prevails on a motion to compel is entitled to his or her expenses, including 3 reasonable attorney fees, unless the losing party was substantially justified in making or opposing the 4 motion (or other circumstances make such an award unjust). FRCP 37(a)(5); H. K. Porter Co., Inc. v. 5 Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (6th Cir. 1976) 536 F2d 1115, 1124–1125. 6 Plaintiff has met and conferred several times with defendant by phone and in writing, clearing up 7 any “confusion” and responding to any concerns. Despite this, defendant has insisted on maintaining 8 incomplete and evasive responses which violate discovery rules. Plaintiff requests this court compel 9 defendant to fully and properly respond to the above disputed interrogatories without further delay. 10 Due to motion practice which has thus far required upwards of 5 months and counting to resolve, 11 defendant has had the benefit of lengthy delays in providing responses to plaintiff’s discovery responses. 12 With less than 3 months remaining before the discovery cutoff, time is of the essence to ensure plaintiff 13 is not further prejudiced than he already has been in this action. 14 Pursuant to Rule 37, plaintiff further seeks attorney fees in the amount of $2,000 in consideration 15 of 5 of the hours which plaintiff has spent meeting and conferring, preparing this motion and anticipates 16 spending attending the hearing on this motion. Finally, plaintiff requests whatever other sanctions this 17 court deems proper and just. 18 19 Respectfully submitted, 20 21 22

Dated: April __, 2008

LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER

23 24 25 26 27

By:__________________________________________ Mark A. Wasser, Attorney for Defendants COUNTY OF KERN, PETER BRYAN, IRWIN HARRIS, EUGENE KERCHER, JENNIFER ABRAHAM, SCOTT RAGLAND,TONI SMITH, AND WILLIAM ROY

28 JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 10

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

1

Dated: April___, 2008

Document 103

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 16 of 16

LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE

2 3 4

By:__________________________________________ Eugene D. Lee Attorney for Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 11

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

4

Eugene D. Lee SB#: 236812 LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Phone: (213) 992-3299 Fax: (213) 596-0487 email: [email protected]

5

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

6

Mark A. Wasser CA SB #06160 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 444-6400 Fax: (916) 444-6405 Email: [email protected]

1 2 3

7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 1 of 130

Bernard C. Barmann, Sr. KERN COUNTY COUNSEL Mark Nations, Chief Deputy 1115 Truxton Avenue, Fourth Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Phone: (661) 868-3800 Fax: (661) 868-3805 Email: [email protected]

14 15

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

16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

18

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

19 v. 20

Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG EXHIBITS TO JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT re: INTERROGATORIES

COUNTY OF KERN, et al., 21 Defendants. 22

Date: April 28, 2008 Time: 9:30 a.m. Place: U.S. District Court, Bankruptcy Courtroom 1300 18th St., Bakersfield, CA

23 24

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

25 26 27 28 EXHIBITS TO JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT re: INTERROGATORIES

1

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 2 of 130

1 2

EXHIBIT 1: Plaintiff’s Interrogatories, Set One – served 1/2/08

3

EXHIBIT 2: Defendant’s Responses to Interrogatories – served 2/1/08

4

EXHIBIT 3: Defendant’s Supplemental Responses to Interrogatories – served 3/5/08

5

EXHIBIT 4: Meet and confer correspondence between the parties

6

EXHIBIT 5: Declaration of Eugene Lee in Support of Motion

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 EXHIBITS TO JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT re: INTERROGATORIES

2

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 3 of 130

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

EXHIBIT 1:

27

Plaintiff’s Interrogatories, Set One – served 1/2/08

28 EXHIBITS TO JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT re: INTERROGATORIES

1

From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee

To: 213-596-0487

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

(213) 992-3299 TELEPHONE

LAW

Document 103-2

OFFICE

E U G ENE (213) 596-0487

555

FACSIMILE

Los

Pg 1/26 01/02/08 3:58 pm

Filed 04/23/2008 [email protected] Page 4 of 130

OF

EMAIL

L E E

WEST FIFTH STREET SUITE 3100 ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9001 3-1 01 0

WWW.LOEL.COM WEBSITE

FAX To: Fax Number: 2135960487 Pages: 26 (including cover page) Re: Jadwin/KC: Interrogatories 1

Comments:

Mark: Please see the attached.

From: Law Office of Eugene Lee Date: 01/02/2008

From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee

To: 213-596-0487

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

1

2 3 4

5 6

7 8 9

10

Pg 2/26 01/02/08 3:58 pm

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 5 of 130

Eugene D. Lee SB# 236812 LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100 Los Angeles, California 90013 Telephone: (213) 992-3299 Facsimile: (213) 596-0487 Email: [email protected] Joan Herrington, SB# 178988 BAY AREA EMPLOYMENT LAW OFFICE 5032 Woodminster Lane Oakland, CA 94602-2614 Telephone: (510) 530-4078 Facsimile: (510) 530-4725 Email: [email protected] Of Counsel to LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE Attorneys for Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.

11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13 14

DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.,

15 16 17

Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG

Plaintiff,

INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT COUNTY OF KERN (SET ONE).

v.

Date Action Filed: Date Set for Trial:

COUNTY OF KERN; et aI.

18

January 6, 2007 December 3 , 2008

Defendants.

19 20 PROPOUNDING PARTY:

Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., F.C.A.P.

RESPONDING PARTY:

Defendant COUNTY OF KERN

SET NO.:

One

21 22

23 24 Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff David F. Jadwin requests 25 that you serve written answers to the following interrogatories under oath within thirty (30) days of 26 service hereof 27 III 28 INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT KERN COUNTY (SET ONE)

From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee

To: 213-596-0487

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 6 of 130

DEFINITIONS

1 2

Document 103-2

Pg 3/26 01/02/08 3:58 pm

A.

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

3

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

4

other entity.

5

B.

The term "PLAINTIFF" means plaintiff David F. Jadwin, D.O., F.C.A.P.

6

C.

The term "DEFENDANT" means defendant County of Kern.

7

D.

The term "KMC" means Kern Medical Center, a hospital owned and operated by

8 9

DEFENDANT. E.

The terms "YOU" and "YOUR" as used herein include DEFENDANT and include

10

without limitation each predecessor and successor-in-interest, as well as any officer, agent, employee,

11

attorney, representative of DEFENDANT and/or any other PERSONS acting under the control of

12

DEFENDANT or on behalf of DEFENDANT.

13

F.

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

internal or external to

23

G.

you. Electronically-stored information should be printed for production.

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

24

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

25

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

26

and pertaining to, whether in whole or in part.

27 28

H.

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

DOCUMENTS RELATING TO an process improvement file; employee's credentials; medical staff file, INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT KERN COUNTY (SET ONE)

2

From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee

To: 213-596-0487

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

Pg 4/26 01/02/08 3:58 pm

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 7 of 130

1

qualifications for employment, promotions, transfers, salary, raises, pension eligibility, discipline,

2

separation or other employment action; as well as the "folder", "jacket" or other container of each such

3

file and any attachments thereto and all files maintained by PERSONS employed by

r.

4

you.

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

reports.

1.

14

The term "IDENTIFY" when used in connection with natural PERSONS includes the

15

name, address, phone number, the current or most recent position held with YOU ifthe PERSON is or

16

was employed with YOU as ofthe date these interrogatories are answered, and the last day of the

17

PERSON's employment with

18

"IDENTIFY" includes the name(s) of the author(s), name(s) ofrecipient(s), date of creation, date of

19

modification, date of delivery, date of execution, effective date, subject matter, bates numbers, page

20

numbers, paragraph numbers, line numbers and/or section numbers.

you.

When used in connection with DOCUMENTS, the term

21

K.

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

22

L.

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

23

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

24

versa.

INSTRUCTIONS

25

26

A.

YOU are required to answer each interrogatory separately and fully in writing under oath.

27

If YOU cannot answer an interrogatory in full, YOU must answer as fully as possible, specify the reason

28

for YOUR inability to fully answer, and state any information YOU have concerning the unanswered INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT KERN COUNTY (SET ONE)

3

From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee

To: 213-596-0487

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

1 2

Document 103-2

Pg 5/26 01/02/08 3:58 pm

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 8 of 130

portion.

B.

In answering an interrogatory, YOU are required to furnish not only such information as

3

is within YOUR own personal knowledge, but also any and all information which is in the possession of

4

YOUR officers, agents, employees, attorneys, representatives and/or any other PERSONS acting under

5

YOUR or their control or on YOUR or their behalf, or which is otherwise available to you.

6

C.

Whenever YOU refuse to answer any interrogatory based upon an objection, YOU are

7

required to (l) fully answer the interrogatory to the extent it is not objectionable, (2) meaningfully state

8

the nature of YOUR objection, (b) meaningfully set forth each and every ground for YOUR objection,

9

and (c) meaningfully describe the factual basis, if any, upon which YOU rely in making such objection.

10 11 12

D.

An answer to an interrogatory should be complete in and of itself and should not refer to

the pleadings, or to depositions or other documents, or to other interrogatories. E.

YOU are under a duty to supplement and/or correct these responses upon learning that

13

the earlier answers were in some material respect incomplete or incorrect when made or are no longer

14

true, pursuant to Rule 26(e) ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

INTERROGATORIES

INTERROGATORY NO. 1: State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Third Affirmative Defense. INTERROGATORY NO.2: State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Fourth Affirmative Defense. INTERROGATORY NO.3: State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Fifth Affirmative Defense. INTERROGATORY NO.4: State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Sixth Affirmative Defense. INTERROGATORY NO.5: State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Seventh Affirmative Defense. INTERROGATORY NO.6: State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Eighth Affirmative Defense. INTERROGATORY NO.7: INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT KERN COUNTY (SET ONE)

4

From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee

To: 213-596-0487

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

1 2

Document 103-2

Pg 6/26 01/02/08 3:58 pm

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 9 of 130

State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Ninth Affirmative Defense. INTERROGATORY NO.8:

3

IDENTIFY any and all ofthe following PERSONS whom YOU contend were not employees

4

while they worked at KMC at any time from October 24,2000 to the present; for each such PERSON,

5

state all facts on which you base YOUR contention:

6

a) Peter Bryan;

7

b) Irwin Harris;

8

c) Eugene Kercher;

9

d) Jennifer Abraham;

10

e) Scott Ragland;

11

f)

12

g) William Roy;

13

h) Philip Dutt.

14

Toni Smith;

INTERROGATORY NO.9:

15

IDENTIFY any and all of YOUR current and former employees listed in the "WITNESSES"

16

section (Section 1 and Appendix 1) of PLAINTIFF's FRCP Rule 26 Initial Disclosures, dated August 6,

17

2007.

18

INTERROGATORY NO. 10:

19

For each ofthe PERSONS YOU listed in the "WITNESSES" section (Section 1 and Appendix

20

1) of YOUR FRCP Rule 26 "Supplement to Defendants' Rule 26(a)(l) Initial Disclosures", dated

21

September 13, 2007, state the following:

22 23 24 25 26 27 28

a) Whether each PERSON is YOUR current employees or former employees, and ifso, their dates of employment and job titles; b) For each PERSON who is YOUR former employees, the date and reason for their separation from employment. c) For each PERSON who is YOUR former employees, whether the employee resigned, abandoned his job, was fired, was laid off, or was otherwise terminated. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT KERN COUNTY (SET ONE)

5

To: 213-596-0487

From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

Pg 7/26 01/02/08 3:58 pm

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 10 of 130

1

IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who are or were members of each ofthe following

2

committees at KMC from October 4, 2001 to the present, their roles on each such committee, and the

3

dates oftheir membership:

4

a) Medical Executive Committee

5

b) Joint Conference Committee

6

c) Quality Management Committee

7

d) Cancer Committee

8

e) Second Level Peer Review Committee

9

f) Transfusion Committee

1 0 9 ) Executive Staff Meetings 11 12 13

INTERROGATORY NO. 12: State the dates, times and locations of each meeting held by the following committees from October 4, 2001 to the present:

14

a) Medical Executive Committee

15

b) Joint Conference Committee

16

c) Quality Management Committee

17

d) Cancer Committee

18

e) Second Level Peer Review Committee

19

f) Transfusion Committee

20

g) Executive Staff Meetings

21

INTERROGATORY NO. 13:

22

IDENTIFY all PERSONS to whom the Cancer Committee at KMC sent a DOCUMENT

23

requesting such PERSONS refrain from exceeding presentation time limits at the "ONCOLOGY

24

CONFERENCE" (as that term is used in the memo from Dr. Albert McBride to Dr. David Jadwin, dated

25

May 9,2005 [DFJ381]) from October 4, 2001 to the present.

26

INTERROGATORY NO. 14:

27 28

IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who conducted any investigations for or on YOUR behalf into any aspect of PLAINTIFF's claims against YOU that are alleged in the Second Supplemental INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT KERN COUNTY (SET ONE)

6

From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee

To: 213-596-0487

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

Pg 8/26 01/02/08 3:58 pm

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 11 of 130

1

Complaint; state the claims each such PERSON investigated; and IDENTIFY any written reports

2

RELATING TO said investigations that each such PERSON produced, authored or otherwise

3

contributed to.

4

INTERROGATORY NO. 15:

5

IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS whom YOU contend participated in any "PEER REVIEW"

6

(as that term is defined in the KMC Bylaws) of PLAINTIFF's work from April 15,2005 to the present,

7

describe each such PERSON's role in the PEER REVIEW, and IDENTIFY the work and/or

8

PATHOLOGY REPORTS each such PERSON peer reviewed.

9

INTERROGATORY NO. 16:

10

IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC other than

11

PLAINTIFF whom YOU removed or suspended from the position of Chair ofa Department at KMC

12

since October 4, 1996; state the date and any and all reasons for each and every such removal or

13

suspension; and describe the opportunities provided to such former or current employees to defend

14

themselves, present evidence and/or cross-examine witnesses RELATING TO their removal or

15

suspensIOn.

16

INTERROGATORY NO. 17:

17

IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who held the position of Acting Chair of a Department at

18

KMC since October 24, 1995; state the dates of their tenure in said position; and state any and all

19

reasons for the end oftheir tenure in said position.

20

INTERROGATORY NO. 18:

21

IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS other than PLAINTIFF who took or were placed on

22

"PERSONAL NECESSITY LEAVE" (as that term is used in Rule 1202.20 ofthe Civil Service

23

Commission Rules for the County of Kern) in excess of one month while holding the position of Chair

24

of a Department at KMC since October 24, 1995; state any and all reasons for each such period of

25

PERSONAL NECESSITY LEAVE; and state the dates of each and every such period of PERSONAL

26

NECESSITY LEAVE.

27

INTERROGATORY NO. 19:

28

IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC other than INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT KERN COUNTY (SET ONE)

7

From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee

To: 213-596-0487

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

Pg 9/26 01/02/08 3:58 pm

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 12 of 130

1

PLAINTIFF who were not reinstated to their same position following a period of PERSONAL

2

NECESSITY LEAVE taken since October 24, 1995; state any and all reasons for each such non-

3

reinstatement.

4

INTERROGATORY NO. 20:

5

IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC who were

6

demoted during the pendency of, or within one month after their return to work from, a period of

7

PERSONAL NECESSITY LEAVE taken since October 24,2005.

8

INTERROGATORY NO. 21:

9

IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC other than

10

PLAINTIFF who took "SICK LEAVE" (as that term is used in the Civil Service Commission Rules for

11

the County of Kern) in excess of one month while holding the position of Chair of a Department at

12

KMC since October 24, 1995; and for each such PERSON state the dates of each and every such period

13

of SICK LEAVE.

14

INTERROGATORY NO. 22:

15

IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC other than

16

PLAINTIFF who were not reinstated to their same position following a period of SICK LEAVE since

17

October 24, 1995.

18

INTERROGATORY NO. 23:

19

IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC who were

20

demoted during the pendency of, or within one month after their return to work from, a period of SICK

21

LEAVE since October 24, 1995.

22

INTERROGATORY NO. 24:

23

IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC other than

24

PLAINTIFF who took leave pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act or California Family Rights

25

Act since October 24, 1995; and state the dates of each and every such period of leave.

26

INTERROGATORY NO. 25:

27 28

IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC other than PLAINTIFF who were not reinstated to their same position following a period of leave taken pursuant to INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT KERN COUNTY (SET ONE)

8

To: 213-596-0487

From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

Pg 10/26 01/02/08 3:58 pm

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 13 of 130

1

the Family and Medical Leave Act or California Family Rights Act since October 24, 1995.

2

INTERROGATORY NO. 26:

3

IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC who were

4

demoted during the pendency of or within one month after their return to work from a period of leave

5

taken pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act or California Family Rights Act since October 24,

6

1995.

7

INTERROGATORY NO. 27:

8

IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC other than

9

PLAINTIFF who took or were placed on "ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE" (as that term is used in David

10

Culberson's letter to PLAINTIFF, dated December 7, 2006 [DFJO 1482]) in excess of one month while

11

holding the position of Chair ofa Department at KMC since October 24,1995; for each such PERSON

12

state the dates of each and every such period of ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE; state whether each such

13

period of ADMINSTRATIVE LEAVE was paid or unpaid; and state any and all reasons for each such

14

period of ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE.

15

INTERROGATORY NO. 28:

16

During the period from October 24,2000 to the present, IDENTIFY any and all former members

17

ofthe "MEDICAL STAFF" at KMC (as that term is defined in the Bylaws of KMC) other than

18

PLAINTIFF whose employment contract with YOU was not renewed or extended; state whether the

19

contract expired or was terminated; state the date each such contract expired or was terminated; and state

20

any and all reasons for non-renewal or non-extension of each such contract.

21

INTERROGATORY NO. 29:

22

IDENTIFY any and all of YOUR former or current members of the MEDICAL STAFF other

23

than PLAINTIFF whose employment contract was extended or renewed for a contract term ofless than

24

five years during the period from October 24,2000 to November 16,2006.

25

INTERROGATORY NO. 30:

26

IDENTIFY any and all of YOUR former or current members ofthe MEDICAL STAFF whose

27

employment contract was extended or renewed for a contract term offive or more years during the

28

period from October 24,2000 to November 16,2006. INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT KERN COUNTY (SET ONE)

9

To: 213-596-0487

From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

1 2

Document 103-2

Pg 11/2601/02/08 3:58 pm

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 14 of 130

INTERROGATORY NO. 31: IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked as a staff pathologist

3

at KMC after October 24, 2000 other than PLAINTIFF whose job description or employment contract

4

contained a provision requiring him or her to be responsible for providing onsite shift coverage during

5

specifically stated hours, unless otherwise assigned or excused by the department chairman.

6

INTERROGATORY NO. 32:

7

IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked as a staff pathologist

8

at KMC after October 24, 2000 other than PLAINTIFF whose job description or employment contract

9

contained a provision requiring him or her to carry a pager when on call and respond to KMC within a

10

specific number minutes of being called.

11

INTERROGATORY NO. 33:

12

IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who worked as a staff pathologist at KMC after October 24,

13

2000 other than PLAINTIFF whose job description or employment contract contained a provision

14

requiring him or her to perform according to productivity standards set by the department chairman, but

15

at no time read out and report less than an average of a specified number cases per day, for "County

16

Responsible" (which means medically indigent adults pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section

17

17000 et seq., and adult inmates and juvenile detainees in custody in County-owned or operated

18

detention facilities) undercompensated and uninsured patients.

19

INTERROGATORY NO. 34:

20

IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to solicit and/or collect

21

"LETTERS OF DISSATISFACTION" (as that term is used in the letter from Drs. Eugene Kercher,

22

Scott Ragland, Jennifer Abraham and Irwin Harris to PLAINTIFF, dated October 17,2005 [DFJ588]) in

23

on or about October 12,2005; and state the date that such decision was made.

24

INTERROGATORY NO. 35:

25

IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the initial decision to place LETTERS

26

OF DISSATISFACTION in PLAINTIFF'S PERSONNEL FILE on or about October 17, 2005; and state

27

the date that decision was made.

28

INTERROGATORY NO. 36: INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT KERN COUNTY (SET ONE)

10

From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee

To: 213-596-0487

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

1

Document 103-2

Pg 12/26 01/02/08 3:58 pm

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 15 of 130

IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to convert PLAINTIFF's

2

reduced work schedule leave to full-time leave on or about April 28, 2006; and state the date that

3

decision was made.

4

INTERROGATORY NO. 37:

5

IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to recommend removal of

6

PLAINTIFF from his position as Chair of Pathology at KMC in 2006; and state the date that decision

7

was made.

8

INTERROGATORY NO. 38:

9

IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decisions RELATING TO each and

10

every provision contained in the DOCUMENT entitled "Amendment NO.1 to Agreement for

11

Professional Services" [DFJl416]; and state the date each such decision was made.

12

INTERROGATORY NO. 39:

13

IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to recommend reduction

14

of PLAINTIFF's base salary in 2006; and state the date that decision was made.

15

INTERROGATORY NO. 40:

16

IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in calculating the amount of the reduction

17

of PLAINTIFF's base salary in 2006.

18

INTERROGATORY NO. 41:

19

State the manner in which YOU calculated the amount of the reduction of PLAINTIFF's base

20

salary in 2006; and state all factual bases on which YOU relied in support thereof.

21

INTERROGATORY NO. 42:

22

IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to place PLAINTIFF on

23

administrative leave with pay on or about December 7, 2006; and state the date that decision was made.

24

INTERROGATORY NO. 43:

25

IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to lift the restrictions on

26

PLAINTIFF's administrative leave (as that term is used in the letter of April 30, 2007 from Mark

27

Wasser, DEFENDANT'S counsel [DFJ7101]); and state the date that decision was made.

28

INTERROGATORY NO. 44: INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT KERN COUNTY (SET ONE)

11

To: 213-596-0487

From: Law Office OFFice of Eugene Lee

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

1

Document 103-2

Pg 13/26 01/02/08 3:58 pm

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 16 of 130

IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to propose to PLAINTIFF

2

2007 from Mark Wasser, DEFENDANT'S 1,2007 a "BUYOUT" (as that tenn is used in the email of May 1,

3

[DFJOI482]); and state the date that decision was made. counsel [DFJ01482]);

4

INTERROGATORY NO. 45:

5

IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision not to renew

6

PLAINTIFF's employment contract with YOU; and state the date that decision was made.

7

INTERROGATORY NO. 46:

8 9

IDENTIFY each DOCUMENT or portion thereof contained in PLAINTIFF's FRCP Rule 26 Initial Disclosures that YOU contend is privileged; state the nature of each privilege asserted; and state

lOin detail the factual bases for each such asserted privilege. 11

INTERROGATORY NO. 47:

12

IDENTIFY each DOCUMENT or portion thereof contained in YOUR FRCP Rule 26 Initial

13

Disclosures that YOU contend is privileged; state the nature of each privilege asserted; and state in

14

detail the factual bases for each such asserted privilege.

15

INTERROGATORY NO. 48:

16 17 18

State each and every job function which YOU contend were the essential functions of PLAINTIFF'S position as Chair of Pathology at KMC.

Date: January 2, 2008

19 20 21 22 23 24

QgeneD. Lee LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE

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

25 26 27 28 INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT KERN COUNTY (SET ONE)

12

To: 213-596-0487

From: Law Office OFFice of Eugene Lee

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

Pg 14/26 01/02/08 3:58 pm

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 17 of 130

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8 9

10 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

I, the undersigned, hereby declare: I am a resident of Los Angeles in the State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the action described herein. I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, California. My business address is LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE, 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100, Los Angeles, CA 90013. On the date of execution ofthis DOCUMENT, I served the following: INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT COUNTY OF KERN (SET ONE). on the following parties in this action by and through their attorneys addressed as follows: Mark A. Wasser LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100 Sacramento, CA 95814 Fax: (916) 444-6405 Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern, Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher, Jennifer Abraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smith and William Roy ~ BY UNITED STATES MAIL: I enclosed the DOCUMENT(s) listed above in a sealed envelope [2J with postage thereon fully prepaid, addressed to the PERSON(s) listed above, and deposited the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service at Los Angeles, California. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.

[2J ~ BY FACSIMILE: I transmitted via facsimile the DOCUMENT(s) listed above to the fax number(s) set forth above on this date before 5:00 p.rn. p.m. The outgoing facsimile machine telephone number in this office is (213) 596-0487. The facsimile service used in this office creates a transmission report for each outgoing facsimile transmitted. A copy ofthe transmission report(s) for the service of this DOCUMENT, properly issued by the facsimile service that transmitted this DOCUMENT and showing that such transmission was (transmissions were) completed without error, is attached hereto. [2J ~ FEDERAL: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe United States of America that the above is true and correct and that I took said actions at the direction of a licensed attorney authorized to practice before this Federal Court. Executed on January 2, 2008, at Los Angeles, California.

-A~

24

~ V0}':U

25

\ Eugene D. Lee

26 27 28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 18 of 130

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

EXHIBIT 2:

27

Defendant’s Responses to Interrogatories – served 2/1/08

28 EXHIBITS TO JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT re: INTERROGATORIES

2

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 19 of 130

Eugene D. Lee From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments:

Mark Wasser [[email protected]] Friday, February 01, 2008 5:28 PM Eugene Lee Response to Plaintiffs Interrogatories 1.16.08 Response to Plaintiffs Interrogatories 1.16.08.doc

Gene, Here are Defendants' responses to Plaintiff's first set of interrogatories. A hard copy is in the mail. Mark

1

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 20 of 130

Mark A. Wasser CA SB #60160 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 444-6400 Fax: (916) 444-6405 E-mail: [email protected] Bernard C. Barmann, Sr. KERN COUNTY COUNSEL Mark Nations, Chief Deputy 1115 Truxtun Avenue, Fourth Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Phone: (661) 868-3800 Fax: (661) 868-3805 E-mail: [email protected]

9 10 11

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

12 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15 16

Plaintiff,

17 18 19 20

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.

vs. COUNTY OF KERN, et al., Defendants.

21 22 23

Case No.: 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTEROGATORIES (SET ONE) Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007 Trial Date: August 26, 2008

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 INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

1

Document 103-2

Plaintiff David F. Jadwin’s Interrogatories, Set One.

3

INTERROGATORY NO. 1

5 6

Page 21 of 130

Defendants hereby submit these responses, consisting of answers and objections, to

2

4

Filed 04/23/2008

State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Third Affirmative Defense. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1 The Third Affirmative Defense is a legal defense. Defendants object to it to the extent it

7

seeks information protected under the attorney/client privilege and attorney work product

8

privilege.

9

INTERROGATORY NO. 2

10 11 12

State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Fourth Affirmative Defense. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2 The Fourth Affirmative Defense is a legal defense. Defendants object to it to the extent it

13

seeks information protected under the attorney/client privilege and attorney work product

14

privilege.

15

INTERROGATORY NO. 3

16 17 18

State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Fifth Affirmative Defense. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3 Defendants will rely on the testimony of persons who worked with Plaintiff regarding the

19

nature of his interpersonal communications and relationships with co-workers; his overbearing

20

and dismissive attitude towards other members of the hospital staff; his intimidating style; his

21

disrespectful and disagreeable interpersonal dealings, and his physical confrontations with other

22

persons in the hospital. The Defendants will offer testimony about the efforts members of the

23

medical staff and management made to counsel Plaintiff and his angry and dismissive responses

24

to those efforts. Defendants will show how Plaintiff’s working relationships in the hospital

25

steadily eroded and unraveled as a result of Plaintiff’s behavior. The testimony will be supported

26

by letters, e-mails and other writings, all of which have been previously produced.

27

INTERROGATORY NO. 4

28

State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Sixth Affirmative Defense. 2 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

1 2

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 22 of 130

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4 The Sixth Affirmative Defense is a legal defense. Defendants object to it to the extent it

3

seeks information protected under the attorney/client privilege and attorney work product

4

privilege.

5

INTERROGATORY NO. 5

6

State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Seventh Affirmative

7

Defense.

8

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5

9

The Seventh Affirmative Defense is a legal defense. Defendants object to it to the extent

10

it seeks information protected under the attorney/client privilege and attorney work product

11

privilege.

12

INTERROGATORY NO. 6

13 14 15

State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Eighth Affirmative Defense. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6 The Eighth Third Affirmative Defense is a legal defense. Defendants object to it to the

16

extent it seeks information protected under the attorney/client privilege and attorney work

17

product privilege.

18

INTERROGATORY NO. 7

19 20 21

State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Ninth Affirmative Defense. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7 The Ninth Affirmative Defense is a legal defense. Defendants object to it to the extent it

22

seeks information protected under the attorney/client privilege and attorney work product

23

privilege.

24

INTERROGATORY NO. 8

25

IDENTIFY any and all of the following PERSONS whom YOU contend were not

26

employees while they worked at KMC at any time from October 24, 2000 to present; for each

27

such PERSON, state all facts on which you base YOUR contention:

28

a)

Peter Bryan; 3 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

1

b)

Irwin Harris;

2

c)

Eugene Kercher;

3

d)

Jennifer Abraham;

4

e)

Scott Ragland;

5

f)

Toni Smith;

6

g)

William Roy;

7

h)

Philip Dutt.

8 9

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 23 of 130

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8 William Roy was an independent contractor who served under contract from about

10

September 1, 2005 to about March 30, 2007.

11

INTERROGATORY NO. 9

12

IDENTIFY any and all of YOUR current and former employees listed in the

13

“WITNESSES” section (Section 1 and Appendix 1) of PLAINTIFF’s FRCP Rule 26 Initial

14

Disclosures, dated August 6, 2007.

15

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9

16

Leonard Perez, Adam Lang, Elsa Ang, Fangluo Liu, Savita Shertukde, Gilbert Martinez,

17

Royce Johnson, Irwin Harris, Antoinette Smith, Susie Price, Evangeline Gallegos, Yolanda

18

Figueroa, Tracy Lindsey, Catrina Manuel, Denise Rhynes, Tracy Subriar, Carol Wedding, Rae

19

McDonald, Arlene Ramos-Aninion, Jane Thornton, Kathy Griffith, David Hill, Bernard

20

Barmann, Marvin Kolb, Nitin Athavale, Margo Raison, Jennifer Abraham, Eugene Kercher,

21

Scott Ragland, Jose Perez, Peter Bryan, Edward Taylor, Michelle Burris, Javad Naderi, Maureen

22

Martin, Navin Amin, Chester Lau, Steve O’Connor, Renita Nunn, Albert McBride, Alice Hevle,

23

Dianne McConnehey, Philip Dutt, Mary Cortez, Karen Barnes, Ronald Errera, Jordan Kaufman,

24

Tai Yoo, Aaron Baldwin, Linda Nipper, Bonnie Quinonez, Patricia Parada, Serena Sepulveda-

25

Rini, Carol Gates and Denise Long.

26 27 28 4 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

1 2

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 24 of 130

INTERROGATORY NO. 10 For each of the PERSONS YOU listed in the “WITNESSES” section (Section 1 and

3

Appendix 1) of YOUR FRCP Rule 26 “Supplement to Defendants’ Rule 26(a)(1) Initial

4

Disclosures”, dated September 13, 2007, state the following:

5

a)

so, their dates of employment and job titles;

6 7

b)

10 11 12

For each PERSON who is YOUR former employees, the date and reason for their separation from employment;

8 9

Whether each PERSON is YOUR current employees or former employees, and if

c)

For each PERSON who is YOUR former employees, whether the employee resigned, abandoned his job, was laid off, or was otherwise terminated.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10 Defendants object to this Interrogatory, to the extent it requests the dates of employment

13

of current and former employees, on the grounds it is burdensome and oppressive and is not

14

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving that

15

objection, Defendants answer as follows: Leonard Perez (former), Adam Lang (former), Elsa

16

Ang (former), Fangluo Liu (former), Savita Shertukde (current), Gilbert Martinez (current),

17

Royce Johnson (current), Irwin Harris (former), Antoinette Smith (current), Susie Price (former),

18

Evangeline Gallegos (current), Yolanda Figueroa (current), Tracy Lindsey (current), Catrina

19

Manuel (former), Denise Rhynes (former), Tracy Subriar (current), Carol Wedding (current),

20

Rae McDonald (current), Arlene Ramos-Aninion (current), Jane Thornton (current), Kathy

21

Griffith (current), David Hill (former), Bernard Barmann (current), Marvin Kolb (former), Nitin

22

Athavale (former), Margo Raison (current), Jennifer Abraham (current), Eugene Kercher

23

(current), Scott Ragland (current), Jose Perez (former), Peter Bryan (former), Edward Taylor

24

(current), Michelle Burris (current), Javad Naderi (current), Maureen Martin (current), Navin

25

Amin (current), Chester Lau (former), Steve O’Connor (current), Renita Nunn (current), Albert

26

McBride (current), Alice Hevle (current), Dianne McConnehey (current), Philip Dutt (current),

27

Mary Cortez (current), Karen Barnes (current), Ronald Errera (current), Jordan Kaufman

28

(current), Tai Yoo (current), Aaron Baldwin (former), Linda Nipper (former), Bonnie Quinonez 5 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 25 of 130

1

(former), Patricia Parada (current), Serena Sepulveda-Rini (former), Carol Gates (current) and

2

Denise Long (former).

3

Defendants object to the balance of this Interrogatory on the grounds it requests

4

confidential personnel information about employees or former employees that is protected under

5

California Evidence Code section 1040 and case authority. In some cases, it also requests

6

personal medical information that is protected from disclosure under HIPAA and Defendants

7

object on that ground, as well.

8

INTERROGATORY NO. 11

9

IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who are or were members of each of the following

10

committees at KMC from October 4, 2001 to the present, their roles on each such committee,

11

and the dates of their membership:

12

a) Medical Executive Committee;

13

b) Joint Conference Committee

14

c) Quality Management Committee

15

d) Cancer Committee

16

e) Second Level Peer Review Committee

17

f) Transfusion Committee

18

g) Executive Staff Meetings

19

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11

20

a) Medical Executive Committee:

21

October 2001 – June 2002

22

Jose A. Perez, Jr., MD

President

23

Navin Amin, MD

President-Elect, Chair, Department of Family Practice

24

Royce Johnson, MD

Past President, Chair, Department of Medicine

25

James Sproul, MD

Member At Large

26

Augustine Munoz, MD

Member At Large

27

Soheil Etesham, MD

Chair, Department of Anesthesiology

28

Eugene Kercher, MD

Chair, Department of Emergency Medicine 6

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 26 of 130

1

Parameswaran Aiylam, MD

Division Chief, Pediatrics

2

Leonard Perez, MD

Chair, Department of OB/GYN

3

David Jadwin, DO

Chair, Department of Pathology

4

Tai Yoo, MD

Chair, Department of Psychiatry

5

Javad Naderi, MD

Chair, Department of Radiology

6

Jack Bloch, MD

Chair, Department of Surgery

7

NON-VOTING MEMBERS

8

Peter Bryan

Chief Executive Officer

9

Marvin Kolb, MD

Chief Medical Officer

10

Toni Smith, RN

Nursing Administrator

11

Holly Gallagher

County Counsel

12

Vipul Dev, MD

President, Resident Staff

13

A. Scott Ragland, DO

Chair, Quality Management Committee

14

July 2002 – June 2003

15

Navin Amin, MD

President, Chair, Department of Family Practice

16

Jennifer Abraham, MD

President-Elect

17

Jose A. Perez, Jr., MD

Past President

18

William Meyer, MD

Member At Large

19

Augustine Munoz, MD

Member At Large

20

Royce Johnson, MD

Chair, Department of Medicine

21

Soheil Etesham, MD

Chair, Department of Anesthesiology

22

Eugene Kercher, MD

Chair, Department of Emergency Medicine

23

Parameswaran Aiylam, MD

Division Chief, Pediatrics

24

Leonard Perez, MD

Chair, Department of OB/GYN

25

David Jadwin, DO

Chair, Department of Pathology

26

Tai Yoo, MD

Chair, Department of Psychiatry

27

Javad Naderi, MD

Chair, Department of Radiology

28

Maureen Martin, MD

Chair, Department of Surgery 7

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 27 of 130

1

NON-VOTING MEMBERS

2

Peter Bryan

Chief Executive Officer

3

Marvin Kolb, MD

Chief Medical Officer

4

Toni Smith, RN

Nursing Administrator

5

Karen Barnes

County Counsel

6

John Ngoi

Associate Director, Medical Education

7

Amit Shah, MD

President, Resident Staff

8

A. Scott Ragland, DO

Chair, Quality Management Committee

9

July 2003 – June 2004

10

Jennifer Abraham, MD

President

11

Eugene Kercher, MD

President-Elect, Chair, Deparmtent of Emergency Medicine

12

Navin Amin, MD

Past President, Chair, Department of Family Practice

13

David Moore, MD

Member At Large

14

James Sverchek, MD

Member At Large

15

Royce Johnson, MD

Chair, Department of Medicine

16

Soheil Etesham, MD

Chair, Department of Anesthesiology

17

Parameswaran Aiylam, MD

Division Chief, Pediatrics

18

Leonard Perez, MD

Chair, Department of OB/GYN

19

David Jadwin, DO

Chair, Department of Pathology

20

Tai Yoo, MD

Chair, Department of Psychiatry

21

Javad Naderi, MD

Chair, Department of Radiology

22

Maureen Martin, MD

Chair, Department of Surgery

23

NON-VOTING MEMBERS

24

Peter Bryan

Chief Executive Officer

25

Marvin Kolb, MD

Chief Medical Officer

26

Toni Smith, RN

Nursing Administrator

27

Karen Barnes

County Counsel

28

Jose A. Perez, Jr., MD

Director, Medical Education 8

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 28 of 130

1

John Ngoi

Associate Director, Medical Education

2

Brian Penton, MD

President, Resident Staff

3

A. Scott Ragland, DO

Chair, Quality Management Committee

4

July 2004 – June 2006

5

Eugene Kercher, MD

President, Chair, Deparmtent of Emergency Medicine

6

A. Scott Ragland, DO

President-Elect

7

Jennifer Abraham, MD

Past President

8

Navin Amin, MD

Chair, Department of Family Practice

9

David Moore, MD

Member At Large

10

James Sverchek, MD

Member At Large

11

Royce Johnson, MD

Chair, Department of Medicine

12

Soheil Etesham, MD

Chair, Department of Anesthesiology

13

Parameswaran Aiylam, MD

Division Chief, Pediatrics

14

Leonard Perez, MD

Chair, Department of OB/GYN

15

David Jadwin, DO

Chair, Department of Pathology

16

Tai Yoo, MD

Chair, Department of Psychiatry

17

Javad Naderi, MD

Chair, Department of Radiology

18

Maureen Martin, MD

Chair, Department of Surgery

19

NON-VOTING MEMBERS

20

Peter Bryan

Chief Executive Officer

21

Marvin Kolb, MD

Chief Medical Officer (until 9/2004)

22

Irwin Harris, MD

Chief Medical Officer (As of 7/2005)

23

Toni Smith, RN

Nursing Administrator

24

David Hill

Director of Ambulatory Care (As of 9/2004)

25

Karen Barnes

County Counsel

26

Jose A. Perez, Jr., MD

Director, Medical Education

27

John Ngoi

Associate Director, Medical Education

28

Murali Naidu, MD

President, Resident Staff 9

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 29 of 130

1

A. Scott Ragland, DO

2

July 2006 – December 2007

3

A. Scott Ragland, DO

President

4

Eugene Kercher, MD

Past President, Chair, Deparmtent of Emergency Medicine

5

Jose A. Perez, Jr., MD

President-Elect (until 6/2007)

6

Jennifer Abraham, MD

President-Elect (As of 8/2007)

7

Navin Amin, MD

Chair, Department of Family Practice

8

Vasanthi Srinivas, MD

Member At Large

9

E. William Taylor, MD

Member At Large

10

Royce Johnson, MD

Chair, Department of Medicine

11

Soheil Etesham, MD

Chair, Department of Anesthesiology (until 6/2007)

12

Thomas Schares, MD

Chair, Department of Anesthesiology (until 7/2007)

13

Parameswaran Aiylam, MD

Division Chief, Pediatrics

14

Leonard Perez, MD

Chair, Department of OB/GYN (until 8/2007)

15

Robert Wallace, MD

Chair, Department of OB/GYN (As of 8/2007)

16

Philip Dutt, MD

Chair, Department of Pathology (As of 8/2006)

17

Tai Yoo, MD

Chair, Department of Psychiatry

18

Javad Naderi, MD

Chair, Department of Radiology

19

Maureen Martin, MD

Chair, Department of Surgery

20

NON-VOTING MEMBERS

21

Peter Bryan

Chief Executive Officer (until 9/2006)

22

David Culberson

Interim, Chief Executive Officer (9/2006-5/2007)

23

Paul Hensler

Chief Executive Officer (As of 5/2007)

24

Irwin Harris, MD

Chief Medical Officer (7/2005-9/2007)

25

Toni Smith, RN

Nursing Administrator

26

David Hill

Director of Ambulatory Care (9/2004-12/2006)

27

Karen Barnes

County Counsel

28

John Ngoi

Associate Director, Medical Education

Chair, Quality Management Committee

10 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

1

Tony Hoang, MD

Co-President, Resident Staff

2

Anthony Maldonado, MD

Co-President, Resident Staff

3

A. Scott Ragland, DO

Chair, Quality Management Committee

4

Page 30 of 130

b) Joint Conference Committee:

5

October 2001-November 2007

6

Supervisor Barbara Patrick

7

Supervisor Ken Peterson

8

Peter Bryan, CEO

9

Marvin Kolb, MD, CMO

10

Toni Smith, RN

11

Jose A. Perez, Jr., MD

12

Navin Amin, MD

13

Royce Johnson, MD

14

Scotte E. Jones, CAO

15

Alberto Diaz, CFO

16

January 2002-October 2002

17

Supervisor Steve Perez

18

Supervisor Barbara Patrick

19

Peter Bryan, CEO

20

Marvin Kolb, MD, CMO

21

Toni Smith, RN

22

Jose A. Perez, Jr., MD

23

Navin Amin, MD

24

Jennifer Abraham, MD

25

Scott E. Jones, CAO

26

Alberto Diaz, CFO

27

January 2003-December 2003

28

Supervisor Pete Para 11 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

1

Supervisor Barbara Patrick

2

Peter Bryan, CEO

3

Marvin Kolb, MD, CMO

4

Toni Smith, RN

5

Jennifer Abraham, MD

6

Navin Amin, MD

7

Eugene Kercher, MD

8

Scott E. Jones, CAO

9

Albert Diaz, CFO

10

Michael Ewald, Dir. HR

11

January 2004-December 2004

12

Supervisor Jon McQuiston

13

Supervisor Ray Watson

14

Peter Bryan, CEO

15

Marvin Kolb, MD, CMO

16

Toni Smith, RN

17

Jennifer Abraham, MD

18

Navin Amin, MD

19

Eugene Kercher, MD

20

A. Scott Ragland, DO

21

Scott E. Jones, CAO

22

Alberto Diaz, CFO

23

Michael Ewald, Dir. Of HR

24

David Hill, Dir. Of Ambulatory Care

25

January 2005-December 2005

26

Supervisor Jon McQuiston

27

Supervisor Ray Watson

28

Peter Bryan, CEO

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 31 of 130

12 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

1

Irwin Harris, MD, CMO

2

Toni Smith, RN

3

Jennifer Abraham, MD

4

Eugene Kercher, MD

5

A. Scott Ragland, DO

6

Ron Errea, CAO

7

Tom Willman, CFO

8

Sandi Chester, Dir. Of HR

9

David Hill, Dir. Of Ambulatory Care

10

January 2006-December 2006

11

Supervisor Barbara Patrick

12

Supervisor Ray Watson

13

David Culberson, Internim CEO

14

Irwin Harris, MD, CMO

15

Toni Smith, RN

16

Jose A. Perez, Jr., MD

17

Eugene Kercher, MD

18

A. Scott Ragland, DO

19

Ron Errea, CAO

20

Kent Johnson, CFO

21

David Hill, Dir. Of Ambulatory Care

22

January 2007-December 2007

23

Supervisor Don Maben

24

Supervisor Ray Watson

25

Paul Hensler CEO

26

Irwin Harris, MD, CMO

27

Toni Smith, RN

28

Jose A. Perez, Jr., MD

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 32 of 130

13 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

1

Eugene Kercher, MD

2

A. Scott Ragland, DO

3

Ron Errea, CAO

4

Fred Plane, CFO

5

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 33 of 130

c) Quality Management Committee:

6

October 2001-November 2001

7

A. Scott Ragland, DO

Chair, Medicine

8

Antonio Garcia, MD

OB/GYN

9

David Jadwin, DO

Pathology

10

Charles Brown, MD

Surgery

11

Chester Lau, MD

Radiology

12

Dianne McConnehey, RN

Quality Management

13

Elaine Castroverde, MD

Pediatrics

14

Marvin Kolb, MD

Chief Medical Officer

15

J. Paul Miller, MD

Family Practice

16

Sarojini Rajguru, MD

Psychiatry

17

Thomas Purcell, MD

Emergency Medicine

18

Toni Smith, RN

Nursing Admintration

19

Ted Uchio, MD

Anesthesiology

20

January 2002-November 2002

21

A. Scott Ragland, DO

Chair, Medicine

22

Vasanthi Ramaswami, MD

OB/GYN

23

David Jadwin, DO

Pathology

24

Jack Bloch, MD

Surgery

25

Charles Brown, MD

Surgery

26

Chester Lau, MD

Radiology

27

Dianne McConnehey, RN

Quality Management

28

Elaine Castroverde, MD

Pediatrics 14

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

1

Marvin Kolb, MD

Chief Medical Officer

2

J. Paul Miller, MD

Family Practice

3

Stephen Williams, MD

Psychiatry

4

Thomas Purcell, MD

Emergency Medicine

5

Toni Smith, RN

Nursing Admintration

6

Ted Uchio, MD

Anesthesiology

7

Richard Busch, MD

Surgery

8

January 2003-November 2003

9

A. Scott Ragland, DO

Chair, Medicine

10

Vasanthi Ramaswami, MD

OB/GYN

11

David Jadwin, DO

Pathology

12

Jack Bloch, MD

Surgery

13

Chester Lau, MD

Radiology

14

Dianne McConnehey, RN

Quality Management

15

Elaine Castroverde, MD

Pediatrics

16

Marvin Kolb, MD

Chief Medical Officer

17

J. Paul Miller, MD

Family Practice

18

David Lai, MD

Psychiatry

19

Thomas Purcell, MD

Emergency Medicine

20

Toni Smith, RN

Nursing Admintration

21

Ted Uchio, MD

Anesthesiology

22

January 2004-November 2004

23

A. Scott Ragland, DO

24

Vasanthi Srinivas (Ramaswami, MD)OB/GYN

25

David Jadwin, DO

Pathology

26

Jack Bloch, MD

Surgery

27

Chester Lau, MD

Radiology

28

Dianne McConnehey, RN

Quality Management

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 34 of 130

Chair, Medicine

15 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

1

Elaine Castroverde, MD

Pediatrics

2

Marvin Kolb, MD

Chief Medical Officer

3

J. Paul Miller, MD

Family Practice

4

David Lai, MD

Psychiatry

5

Thomas Purcell, MD

Emergency Medicine

6

Toni Smith, RN

Nursing Admintration

7

Ted Uchio, MD

Anesthesiology

8

January 2005-November 2005

9

J. Paul Miller, MD

Chair, Family Practice

10

A. Scott Ragland, DO

Medicine

11

Vasanthi Srinivas, MD

OB/GYN

12

David Jadwin, DO

Pathology

13

Jack Bloch, MD

Surgery

14

Chester Lau, MD

Radiology

15

Irwin Harris, MD

Chief Medical Officer

16

Dianne McConnehey, RN

Quality Management

17

Elaine Castroverde, MD

Pediatrics

18

Marvin Kolb, MD

Chief Medical Officer

19

David Lai, MD

Psychiatry

20

Thomas Purcell, MD

Emergency Medicine

21

Toni Smith, RN

Nursing Admintration

22

Ted Uchio, MD

Anesthesiology

23

January 2006-November 2006

24

J. Paul Miller, MD

Chair, Family Practice

25

A. Scott Ragland, DO

Medicine

26

Vasanthi Srinivas, MD

OB/GYN

27

Philip Dutt, MD

Pathology

28

Jack Bloch, MD

Surgery

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 35 of 130

16 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

1

Bahram Raofi, MD

Radiology

2

Irwin Harris, MD

Chief Medical Officer

3

Dianne McConnehey, RN

Quality Management

4

Elaine Castroverde, MD

Pediatrics

5

Marvin Kolb, MD

Chief Medical Officer

6

David Lai, MD

Psychiatry

7

Thomas Purcell, MD

Emergency Medicine

8

Toni Smith, RN

Nursing Admintration

9

Ted Uchio, MD

Anesthesiology

10

David Culberson

Chief Executive Officer

11

David Hill

Director, Ambulatory Care

12

Evelyn Elliott,

Director, Pharmacy

13

Shirley Strickler, RN

Manager, Med Surg/Telemetry

14

January 2007-November 2007

15

J. Paul Miller, MD

Chair, Family Practice

16

A. Scott Ragland, DO

Medicine

17

Vasanthi Srinivas, MD

OB/GYN

18

Philip Dutt, MD

Pathology

19

Jack Bloch, MD

Surgery

20

Bahram Raofi, MD

Radiology

21

Irwin Harris, MD

Chief Medical Officer

22

Dianne McConnehey, RN

Quality Management

23

Elaine Castroverde, MD

Pediatrics

24

Marvin Kolb, MD

Chief Medical Officer

25

David Lai, MD

Psychiatry

26

Thomas Purcell, MD

Emergency Medicine

27

Toni Smith, RN

Nursing Admintration

28

Ted Uchio, MD

Anesthesiology

Page 36 of 130

17 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

1

Paul Hensler

Chief Executive Officer

2

Evelyn Elliott,

Director, Pharmacy

3

Shirley Strickler, RN

Manager, Med Surg/Telemetry

4

d) Cancer Committee:

5

October 2001-December 2001

6

Ravi Patel, MD

Chair, Oncology

7

David Kanamori, MD

Co-Chair, Oncology

8

Ali Bazmi

Oncology Pharmacy

9

Peter Bryan

Chief Executive Officer

10

John Byfield, MD

Radiation Oncology

11

Laura Heredia

Cancer Registry

12

Annie Hollingsead, RN

Quality Management

13

David Jadwin, DO

Pathology

14

Bonnie Klein, MFCC

Department of Medicine

15

Marvin Kolb, MD

Chief Medical Director

16

Chester Lau, MD

Radiology

17

Joseph Mansour, MD

OB/GYN

18

Linda Marham, MSW

Social Services

19

Albert McBride, MD

Physician Liason/Surgery

20

Dianne McConnehey, RN

Quality Management

21

Linda McMillan

Medical Records

22

Ray Purcell, NP

Medicine

23

Sergio Perticucci, MD

Gynecology Oncology

24

Bonnie Quinonez, CTR

Cancer Registrar

25

Angelina Reyes

Medical Records

26

Toni Smith, RN

Nursing Adminstration

27

Michael Wells, DO

Radiology

28

March 2002-November 2002

Page 37 of 130

18 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

1

Ravi Patel, MD

Chair, Oncology

2

David Kanamori, MD

Co-Chair, Oncology

3

Ali Bazmi

Oncology Pharmacy

4

Peter Bryan

Chief Executive Officer

5

John Byfield, MD

Radiation Oncology

6

Laura Heredia

Cancer Registry

7

David Jadwin, DO

Pathology

8

Marvin Kolb, MD

Chief Medical Director

9

Chester Lau, MD

Radiology

10

Linda Marham, MSW

Social Services

11

Albert McBride, MD

Physician Liason/Surgery

12

Hope Donovan, RN

Quality Management

13

Ray Purcell, NP

Medicine

14

Sergio Perticucci, MD

Gynecology Oncology

15

Bonnie Quinonez, CTR

Cancer Registrar

16

Angelina Reyes

Medical Records

17

Toni Smith, RN

Nursing Adminstration

18

February 2003-December 2003

19

Ravi Patel, MD

Chair, Oncology

20

David Kanamori, MD

Co-Chair, Oncology

21

Shawn Abrishamy, MD

Family Practice

22

Ali Bazmi

Oncology Pharmacy

23

John Byfield, MD

Radiation Oncology

24

Laura Heredia

Cancer Registry

25

David Jadwin, DO

Pathology

26

Marvin Kolb, MD

Chief Medical Director

27

Chester Lau, MD

Radiology

28

Linda Marham, MSW

Social Services

Page 38 of 130

19 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

1

Albert McBride, MD

Physician Liason/Surgery

2

Maureen Martin, MD

Surgery

3

Hope Donovan, RN

Quality Management

4

Ray Purcell, NP

Medicine

5

Sergio Perticucci, MD

Gynecology Oncology

6

Bonnie Quinonez, CTR

Cancer Registrar

7

Angelina Reyes

Medical Records

8

Toni Smith, RN

Nursing Adminstration

9

Abu Taher, MD

Pediatric Oncology

10

Micheal Wells, MD

Radiology

11

Kathryn VanMeter, NP

Medicine

12

January 2004-November 2004

13

Ravi Patel, MD

Chair, Oncology

14

David Kanamori, MD

Co-Chair, Oncology

15

Ali Bazmi

Oncology Pharmacy

16

John Byfield, MD

Radiation Oncology

17

Chris Gambrioloi, MD

Family Practice

18

Sandra Gordon, MD

Medicine/Palliative Care

19

Mary Guerrero, RN

Chemo/Oncology

20

Laura Heredia

Cancer Registry

21

David Jadwin, DO

Pathology

22

Marvin Kolb, MD

Chief Medical Director

23

Chester Lau, MD

Radiology

24

Linda Marham, MSW

Social Services

25

Albert McBride, MD

Physician Liason/Surgery

26

Maureen Martin, MD

Surgery

27

Hope Donovan, RN

Quality Management

28

Ray Purcell, NP

Medicine

Page 39 of 130

20 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

1

Sergio Perticucci, MD

Gynecology Oncology

2

Bonnie Quinonez, CTR

Cancer Registrar

3

Angelina Reyes

Medical Records

4

Toni Smith, RN

Nursing Adminstration

5

Abu Taher, MD

Pediatric Oncology

6

Kara Shaw, RN

Chemo Nurse

7

Kathryn VanMeter, NP

Medicine

8

January 2005-December 2005

9

Ravi Patel, MD

Chair, Oncology

10

Ali Bazmi

Oncology Pharmacy

11

Philip Dutt, MD

Pathology

12

Chris Gambrioloi, MD

Family Practice

13

Mary Guerrero, RN

Chemo/Oncology

14

Laura Heredia

Cancer Registry

15

David Jadwin, DO

Pathology

16

Irwin Harris, MD

Chief Medical Director

17

Chester Lau, MD

Radiology

18

Linda Marham, MSW

Social Services

19

Albert McBride, MD

Physician Liason/Surgery

20

Maureen Martin, MD

Surgery

21

Hope Donovan, RN

Quality Management

22

Ray Purcell, NP

Medicine

23

Sergio Perticucci, MD

Gynecology Oncology

24

Bonnie Quinonez, CTR

Cancer Registrar

25

Angelina Reyes

Medical Records

26

Bahram Raofi, MD

Radiology

27

William Roy, MD

Gynecology/Oncology

28

Toni Smith, RN

Nursing Adminstration

Page 40 of 130

21 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

1

Abu Taher, MD

Pediatric Oncology

2

Kevin Taubman, MD

Surgery

3

Kathryn VanMeter, NP

Medicine

4

January 2006-December 2006

5

Ravi Patel, MD

Chair, Oncology

6

Ali Bazmi

Oncology Pharmacy

7

Patsy Bradshaw, CTR

Cancer Registrar

8

David Culberson

Chief Executive Officer

9

Ajay Desai, MD

Radiation Oncology

10

Hope Donovan, RN

Quality Management

11

Philip Dutt, MD

Pathology

12

Irwin Harris, MD

Chief Medical Officer

13

Royce Johnson, MD

Medicine

14

Linda Markham, MSW

Social Services

15

Maureen Martin, MD

Surgery

16

Albert McBride, MD

Physician Liason/Surgery

17

Javad Naderi, MD

Radiology

18

Jemi Olak, MD

Surgery

19

Laura Quinonez, CTR

Cancer Registrar

20

William Roy, MD

Gynecology/Oncology

21

Toni Smith, RN

Nursing Adminstration

22

Abu Taher, MD

Pediatric Oncology

23

Kathryn VanMeter, RN

Medicine

24

January 2007-November 2007

25

Ravi Patel, MD

Chair, Oncology

26

Ali Bazmi

Oncology Pharmacy

27

Patsy Bradshaw, CTR

Cancer Registrar

28

Socorro Carrillo

ACS Program Coordinator

Page 41 of 130

22 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

1

Paul Hensler

Chief Executive Officer

2

Ajay Desai, MD

Radiation Oncology

3

Michelle Langston, RN

Quality Management

4

Philip Dutt, MD

Pathology

5

Irwin Harris, MD

Chief Medical Officer

6

Royce Johnson, MD

Medicine

7

Linda Markham, MSW

Social Services

8

Maureen Martin, MD

Surgery

9

Albert McBride, MD

Physician Liason/Surgery

10

Javad Naderi, MD

Radiology

11

Jemi Olak, MD

Surgery

12

Laura Quinonez, CTR

Cancer Registrar

13

William Roy, MD

Gynecology/Oncology

14

Kara Shaw, RN

Chemo/Onc

15

Toni Smith, RN

Nursing Adminstration

16

Abu Taher, MD

Pediatric Oncology

17

Kathryn VanMeter, RN

Medicine

18

e) Second Level Peer Review Committee:

19

October 2001 – Present

20

Thomas Purcell, MD, Chair

21

Navin Amin, MD

22

Jack Bloch, MD

23

Dianne McConnehey, RN, Manager, Quality Management

24

Marvin Kolb, MD (Until 9/2004)

25

Irwin Harris, MD (7/2005-9/2007)

26 27

Page 42 of 130

f) Transfusion Committee: October 2001

28 23 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

1

Adam Lang, MD

Chair, Pathology

2

David Jadwin, DO

Pathology

3

Gilbert Martinez

Lab Designee

4

Michelle Burris

Lab Manager/Blood Bank

5

AD-HOC COMMITTEE MEMBERS

6

Rick McPheeters, DO

Emergency Medicine

7

Charles Brown, MD

Surgery

8

Vasanthi Ramaswami, MD

OB/GYN

9

David Kanamori, MD

Medicine

10

Marvin Kolb, MD

CMO

11

Steve Watson

Respiratory Therapy Manager

12

Lon Lancaster

Respiratory Therapy

13

January 2002-August 2002

14

Adam Lang, MD

Chair, Pathology

15

David Jadwin, DO

Pathology

16

Gilbert Martinez

Lab Designee

17

Michelle Burris

Lab Manager/Blood Bank

18

Alice Hevle

Quality Management

19

Dianne McConnehey

Manager, Quality Management

20

Steve Watson

Respiratory Therapy Manager

21

February 2003-December 2003

22

February 21, 2003

23

Dr. Jadwin, Chair

24

Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor

25

March 19, 2003

26

Dr. Jadwin, Chair

27

Dr. Lang, Pathologist

28

Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor

Page 43 of 130

24 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

1

Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager

2

April 23, 2003

3

Dr. Lang, Pathologist

4

Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor

5

Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager.

6

Don Bull, Pulmonary Services (provides cell saver data)

7

Dr. Jadwin, Chair (absent)

8

May 29, 2003

9

Dr. Jadwin, Chair

Filed 04/23/2008

10

Dr. Lang, Pathologist

11

Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager

12

Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor

13

Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC

14

June 17, 2003

15

Dr. Jadwin, Chair

16

Dr. Lang, Pathologist

17

Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager

18

Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor

19

Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC

20

Lonnie Lancaster, Pulmonary Services (provides cell saver data)

21

October 21, 2003

22

Dr. Jadwin, Chair

23

Dr. Lang, Pathologist

24

Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor

25

Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager

26

Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC

27

Toni Smith, RN

Page 44 of 130

28 25 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

1

December 16, 2003

2

Dr. Jadwin, Chair

3

Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor

4

Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager

5

Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC

6

February 2003-December 2003

7

February 21, 2003

8

Dr. Jadwin, Chair

9

Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor

10

March 19, 2003

11

Dr. Jadwin, Chair

12

Dr. Lang, Pathologist

13

Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor

14

Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager

15

April 23, 2003

16

Dr. Lang, Pathologist

17

Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor

18

Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager.

19

Don Bull, Pulmonary Services (provides cell saver data)

20

Dr. Jadwin, Chair (absent)

21

May 29, 2003

22

Dr. Jadwin, Chair

23

Dr. Lang, Pathologist

24

Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager

25

Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor

26

Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC

27

June 17, 2003

28

Dr. Jadwin, Chair

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 45 of 130

26 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

1

Dr. Lang, Pathologist

2

Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager

3

Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor

4

Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC

5

Lonnie Lancaster, Pulmonary Services (provides cell saver data)

6

October 21, 2003

7

Dr. Jadwin, Chair

8

Dr. Lang, Pathologist

9

Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor

10

Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager

11

Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC

12

Toni Smith, RN

13

December 16, 2003

14

Dr. Jadwin, Chair

15

Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor

16

Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager

17

Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC

18

January 2006-December 2006

19

January 31, 2006

20

Dr. Dutt, Pathologist

21

Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor

22

Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager

23

February 21, 2006

24

Dr. Jadwin, Chair

25

Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor

26

Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager

27

March 28, 2006

28

Dr. Dutt, Pathologist

Page 46 of 130

27 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

1

Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor

2

Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC

3

April 18, 2006

4

Dr. Dutt, Pathologist

5

Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor

6

Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC

7

May 9, 2006

8

Dr. Dutt, Pathologist

9

Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor

10

Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager

11

Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC

12

June 20, 2006

13

Dr. Dutt, Pathologist

14

Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor

15

Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager

16

Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC

17

September 13, 2006

18

Dr. Dutt, Chair

19

Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor

20

Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager

21

September 27, 2006

22

Dr. Dutt, Chair

23

Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor

24

Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC

25

October 18, 2006

26

Dr. Dutt, Chair

27

Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor

28

Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 47 of 130

28 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

1

November 1, 2006

2

Dr. Dutt, Chair

3

Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor

4

Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager

5

Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC

6

December 12, 2006

7

Dr. Dutt, Chair

8

Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor

9

Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC

10

Diane McConnehey, QRC

11

January 2007-April 2007

12

February 2, 2007

13

Dr. Ragland, Chair (absent)

14

Dr. Dutt, Pathology

15

Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor

16

Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC (absent)

17

Diane McConnehey, QRC (absent)

18

Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager (absent)

19

March 15, 2007

20

Dr. Ragland, Chair (absent)

21

Dr. Dutt, Pathology

22

Dr. Sorensen, Surgery

23

Dr. Dong, Emergency Medicine

24

Diane McConnehey, QRC

25

Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager

26

Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor

27

Dr. Taher, Pediatrics (absent)

28

Dr. Lascano, OB-GYN (absent)

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 48 of 130

29 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

1 2

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 49 of 130

Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC (absent) g) Executive Staff Meetings:

3

February 9, 2005

4

Peter Bryan, CEO

5

Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive

6

David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care

7

Tom Willman, Special Projects Manager

8

Michael Ewald, Dir., HR

9

March 2, 2005

10

Peter Bryan, CEO

11

Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive

12

David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care

13

Tom Willman, Special Projects Manager

14

Michael Ewald, Dir., HR

15

March 9, 2005

16

Peter Bryan, CEO

17

Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive

18

David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care

19

Tom Willman, Special Projects Manager

20

Michael Ewald, Dir., HR

21

March 30, 2005

22

Peter Bryan, CEO

23

Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive

24

David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care

25

Tom Willman, Special Projects Manager

26

Michael Ewald, Dir., HR

27

April 6, 2005

28

Peter Bryan, CEO 30 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

1

Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive

2

David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care

3

Tom Willman, Special Projects Manager

4

Michael Ewald, Dir., HR

5

April 13, 2005

6

Peter Bryan, CEO

7

Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive

8

David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care

9

Tom Willman, Special Projects Manager

10

Michael Ewald, Dir., HR

11

April 20, 2005

12

Peter Bryan, CEO

13

Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive

14

David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care

15

Tom Willman, Special Projects Manager

16

Michael Ewald, Dir., HR

17

April 27, 2005

18

Peter Bryan, CEO

19

Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive

20

David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care

21

Tom Willman, Special Projects Manager

22

Michael Ewald, Dir., HR

23

May 4, 2005

24

Peter Bryan, CEO

25

David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care

26

Tom Willman, CFO

27

Michael Ewald, Dir., HR

28

May 11, 2005

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 50 of 130

31 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

1

Peter Bryan, CEO

2

Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive

3

David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care

4

Tom Willman, CFO

5

Michael Ewald, Dir., HR

6

May 18, 2005

7

Peter Bryan, CEO

8

Irwin Harris, MD, CMO

9

Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive

10

David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care

11

Tom Willman, CFO

12

Michael Ewald, Dir., HR

13

Linda Nipper, Interim, Dir., HR

14

June 1, 2005

15

Peter Bryan, CEO

16

Irwin Harris, MD, CMO

17

Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive

18

David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care

19

Tom Willman, CFO

20

Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR

21

June 15, 2005

22

Peter Bryan, CEO

23

Irwin Harris, MD, CMO

24

Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive

25

David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care

26

Tom Willman, CFO

27

Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR

28

July 13, 2005

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 51 of 130

32 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

1

Irwin Harris, MD, CMO

2

Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive

3

Tom Willman, CFO

4

Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR

5

July 25, 2005

6

Peter Bryan, CEO

7

Irwin Harris, MD, CMO

8

Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive

9

David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care

10

Tom Willman, CFO

11

Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR

12

August 3, 2005

13

Peter Bryan, CEO

14

Irwin Harris, MD, CMO

15

Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive

16

David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care

17

Tom Willman, CFO

18

Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR

19

August 10, 2005

20

Peter Bryan, CEO

21

Irwin Harris, MD, CMO

22

Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive

23

David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care

24

Tom Willman, CFO

25

Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR

26

August 17, 2005

27

Peter Bryan, CEO

28

Irwin Harris, MD, CMO

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 52 of 130

33 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

1

Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive

2

David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care

3

Tom Willman, CFO

4

Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR

5

August 24, 2005

6

Peter Bryan, CEO

7

Irwin Harris, MD, CMO

8

Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive

9

David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care

10

Tom Willman, CFO

11

Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR

12

September 7, 2005

13

Peter Bryan, CEO

14

Irwin Harris, MD, CMO

15

Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive

16

David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care

17

Tom Willman, CFO

18

Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR

19

September 14, 2005

20

Peter Bryan, CEO

21

Irwin Harris, MD, CMO

22

Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive

23

David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care

24

Tom Willman, CFO

25

Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR

26

September 21, 2005

27

Peter Bryan, CEO

28

Irwin Harris, MD, CMO

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 53 of 130

34 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

1

Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive

2

David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care

3

Tom Willman, CFO

4

Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR

5

September 28, 2005

6

Peter Bryan, CEO

7

Irwin Harris, MD, CMO

8

David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care

9

Tom Willman, CFO

10

Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR

11

October 5, 2005

12

Peter Bryan, CEO

13

Irwin Harris, MD, CMO

14

Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive

15

David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care

16

Tom Willman, CFO

17

Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR

18

October 19, 2005

19

Irwin Harris, MD, CMO

20

Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive

21

David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care

22

Tom Willman, CFO

23

Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR

24

October 26, 2005

25

Irwin Harris, MD, CMO

26

Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive

27

David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care

28

Tom Willman, CFO

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 54 of 130

35 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

1

Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR

2

November 2, 2005

3

Peter Bryan, CEO

4

Irwin Harris, MD, CMO

5

Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive

6

David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care

7

Tom Willman, CFO

8

Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR

9

November 9, 2005

10

Peter Bryan, CEO

11

Irwin Harris, MD, CMO

12

Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive

13

David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care

14

Tom Willman, CFO

15

Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR

16

November 16, 2005

17

Peter Bryan, CEO

18

Irwin Harris, MD, CMO

19

Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive

20

David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care

21

Tom Willman, CFO

22

Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR

23

November 23, 2005

24

Peter Bryan, CEO

25

Irwin Harris, MD, CMO

26

Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive

27

David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care

28

Tom Willman, CFO

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 55 of 130

36 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

1

Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR

2

November 30, 2005

3

Peter Bryan, CEO

4

Irwin Harris, MD, CMO

5

Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive

6

David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care

7

Tom Willman, CFO

8

Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR

9

December 14, 2005

10

Peter Bryan, CEO

11

Irwin Harris, MD, CMO

12

Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive

13

David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care

14

Tom Willman, CFO

15

Sandra Chester, Dir., HR

16

December 21, 2005

17

Peter Bryan, CEO

18

Irwin Harris, MD, CMO

19

Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive

20

David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care

21

Tom Willman, CFO

22

December 29, 2005

23

Peter Bryan, CEO

24

Irwin Harris, MD, CMO

25

Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive

26

David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care

27

January 4, 2006

28

Peter Bryan, CEO

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 56 of 130

37 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

1

Irwin Harris, MD, CMO

2

Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive

3

David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care

4

Tom Willman, CFO

5

Sandra Chester, Dir. HR

6

January 11, 2006

7

Peter Bryan, CEO

8

Irwin Harris, MD, CMO

9

Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive

10

David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care

11

Tom Willman, CFO

12

February 1, 2006

13

Peter Bryan, CEO

14

Irwin Harris, MD, CMO

15

Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive

16

David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care

17

Tom Willman, CFO

18

Sandra Chester, Dir., HR

19

February 8, 2006

20

Peter Bryan, CEO

21

Irwin Harris, MD, CMO

22

David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care

23

Tom Willman, CFO

24

Sandra Chester, Dir., HR

25

February 15, 2006

26

Peter Bryan, CEO

27

Irwin Harris, MD, CMO

28

Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 57 of 130

38 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

1

David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care

2

Tom Willman, CFO

3

Sandra Chester, Dir., HR

4

February 22, 2006

5

Peter Bryan, CEO

6

Irwin Harris, MD, CMO

7

Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive

8

David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care

9

Tom Willman, CFO

10

Sandra Chester, Dir,. HR

11

March 1, 2006

12

Peter Bryan, CEO

13

Irwin Harris, MD, CMO

14

Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive

15

David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care

16

Tom Willman, CFO

17

Sandra Chester, Dir., HR

18

March 8, 2006

19

Peter Bryan, CEO

20

Irwin Harris, MD, CMO

21

David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care

22

Tom Willman, CFO

23

Sandra Chester, Dir., HR

24

March 15, 2006

25

Irwin Harris, MD, CMO

26

Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive

27

David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care

28

Tom Willman, CFO

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 58 of 130

39 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

1

Sandra Chester, Dir., HR

2

March 22, 2006

3

Peter Bryan, CEO

4

Irwin Harris, MD, CMO

5

Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive

6

David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care

7

Sandra Chester, Dir., HR

8

April 5, 2006

9

Peter Bryan, CEO

10

Irwin Harris, MD, CMO

11

Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive

12

David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care

13

Sandra Chester, Dir., HR

14

April 6, 2006

15

Peter Bryan, CEO

16

Irwin Harris, MD, CMO

17

Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive

18

David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care

19

Sandra Chester, Dir., HR

20

April 12, 2006

21

Peter Bryan, CEO

22

Irwin Harris, MD, CMO

23

Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive

24

David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care

25

Sandra Chester, Dir., HR

26

April 19, 2006

27

Peter Bryan, CEO

28

Irwin Harris, MD, CMO

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 59 of 130

40 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

1

Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive

2

David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care

3

Sandra Chester, Dir., HR

4

April 26, 2006

5

Peter Bryan, CEO

6

Irwin Harris, MD, CMO

7

Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive

8

David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care

9

Sandra Chester, Dir., HR

10

May 3, 2006

11

Peter Bryan, CEO

12

Irwin Harris, MD, CMO

13

Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive

14

David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care

15

Sandra Chester, Dir., HR

16

August 9, 2006

17

Peter Bryan, CEO

18

Irwin Harris, MD, CMO

19

Kent Johnson, CFO

20

Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive

21

David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care

22

Sandra Chester, Dir., HR

23

INTERROGATORY NO. 12

24 25

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 60 of 130

State the dates, times and locations of each meeting held by the following committees from October 4, 2001 to the present:

26

a)

Medical Executive Committee

27

b)

Joint Conference Committee

28

c)

Quality Management Committee 41 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

1

d)

Cancer Committee

2

e)

Second Level Peer Review Committee

3

f)

Transfusion Committee

4

g)

Executive Staff Meetings

Filed 04/23/2008

5

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12

6

MEDICAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

7

1ST Tuesday, monthly at 7:30 a.m. in room 3321

8

SECOND LEVEL PEER REVIEW

9

2ND Friday, monthly at 11:30 a.m. in the administrative conference room

10

CANCER COMMITTEE

11

1st Wednesday, quarterly at 7:30 a.m. in room 1437

12

QUALITY MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

13

4th Wednesday, monthly at 7:30 a.m. in room 1437

14

JOINT CONFERENCE COMMITTEE

15

2nd Monday, monthly at 10:00 a.m. in the administrative conference room

16

ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF MEETINGS

17

Every Wednesday at 9:00 a.m. in the administrative conference room

18

TRANSFUSION COMMITTEE

19

Meet monthly, different days. In 2003 met at 11:00 a.m. in room 1437

20

In 2004, met at 10:00 a.m or 11:00 a.m. in room 1437

21

In 2005, no record of any meetings

22

In 2006, met at 2:00 p.m. , once at 3:00 p.m. and once at 12:00 p.m. in room 1437

23

In 2007, met at 12:00 p.m. and 12:30 p.m. in room 1437

24

INTERROGATORY NO. 13

Page 61 of 130

25

IDENTIFY all PERSONS to whom the Cancer Committee at KMC sent a DOCUMENT

26

requesting such PERSONS refrain from exceeding presentation time limits at the “ONCOLOGY

27

CONFERENCE” (as that term is used in the memo from Dr. Albert McBride to Dr. David

28

Jadwin, dated May 9, 2005 [DFJ381]) from October 4, 2001 to the present. 42 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

1 2

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13 We do not know the answer to this Interrogatory. The only such documents we know of

3

were sent to Plaintiff. There may be others but we have not found any.

4

INTERROGATORY NO. 14

5

Page 62 of 130

IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who conducted any investigations for or on YOUR

6

behalf into any aspect of PLAINTIFF’s claims against YOU that are alleged in the Second

7

Supplemental Complaint; state the claims that each such PERSON investigated; and IDENTIFY

8

any written reports RELATING TO said investigations that each such PERSON produced,

9

authored or otherwise contributed to.

10 11 12 13

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14 None. INTERROGATORY NO. 15 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS whom YOU contend participated in any “PEER

14

REVIEW” (as that term is defined in the KMC Bylaws) of PLAINTIFF’s work from April 15,

15

2005 to the present, describe each such PERSON’s role in the PEER REVIEW, and IDENTIFY

16

the work and/or PATHOLOGY REPORTS each such PERSON peer reviewed.

17

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15

18

PEER REVIEW

19

Masukh Ghadiya, MD

20

MR#1152531 (S06-4619)

21

Mohammed Molla, MD

22

MR #266068 (S06-4131 and S06-5229)

23

Mia Lagunda, MD

24

MR #1029588 (S06-5394)

25

William J. Colburn, MD

26

PATHOLOGY SLIDES/REPORT

27

Quality Assessment Review by William J. Colburn, MD

28

Kern Medical Center 43 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

1

Case #

MR #

Name

# of Slides

2

S05-2186

1145729

WHEAT

63

3

S05-3265

679293

BURTON

93

4

S05-2176

1146515

MATHIS

73

5

S05-1066

1029137

THOMPSON

2

6

S05-1680

7

S05-7551

1146283

VOSS

32

8

S05381

1138812

UNRICH

6

9

S06-91

1100262

VILLAREAL

4

10

S05-812

1142312

KAUR, S.

4

11

S04-7471

1138692

MASSONI

2

12

S05-3286

870589

DAWSON

16

13

S05-2811

12

14

S05-1514

5

15

S06-728

800794

PERALES

32

S05-2246

1146465

MARTINEZ

36

S05-923

1128182

RODRIQUEZ

59

S05-592

1141122

KAUR, N.

35

S04-6857

633431

SPILLERS

37

S04-4674

1000548

KIRSCH

12

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Page 63 of 130

14

N04-222

3

S05-7114

1142693

CISNEROS

22

S05-1347

1135192

HOLSCHER

2

S06-981

1155514

SANCHEZ

38

N06-51

1

S06-757

1

27 28 44 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

1

S06-541

0871307

BORQUEZ

38

2

C04-28

1097368

CARPIO

0

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 64 of 130

Consult only,

3

slides sent back

4

(9)

5

Jonathan I. Epstein, MD

6

S06-4131

7

Parakrama T. Chandrasoma, MD

8

S06-3933

9

S05-123

10

S02-4614

11

INTERROGATORY NO. 16

12

IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC other

13

than Plaintiff whom YOU removed or suspended from the position of Chair of a Department at

14

KMC since October 4, 1996; state the date and any and all reasons for each and every such

15

removal or suspension; and describe the opportunities provided to such former or current

16

employees to defend themselves, present evidence and/or cross-examine witnesses RELATING

17

TO their removal or suspension.

18

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 16

19 20 21

None. INTERROGATORY NO. 17 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who held the position of Acting Chair of a

22

Department at KMC since October 24, 1995; state the dates of their tenure in said position; and

23

state any all reasons for the end of their tenure in said position.

24

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 17

25

Royce Johnson, Dept of Medicine, December 8, 1998 to Present; Leonard Perez, Dept of

26

OB/Gyn, August 31, 1996 to June 11, 2007, voluntary resignation; Robert Wallace, Dept of

27

OB/GYN, June 12, 2007 – Present; Phillip Dutt, Dept of Pathology, August 2006 – Present; Rick

28 45 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 65 of 130

1

McPheeters, Dept of Emergency Medicine, December 12, 2007 – Present; Elsa Ang, replaced by

2

Plaintiff.

3

INTERROGATORY NO. 18

4

IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS other than PLAINTIFF who took or were placed on

5

“PERSONAL NECESSITY LEAVE” (as that term is used in Rule 1202.20 of the Civil Service

6

Commission Rules for the County of Kern) in excess of one month while holding the position of

7

Chair of a Department at KMC since October 24, 1995, state any all reasons for each such period

8

of PERSONAL NECESSITY LEAVE; and state the dates of each and every such period of

9

PERSONAL NECESSITY LEAVE.

10 11 12 13

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 18 None. INTERROGATORY NO. 19 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC other

14

than PLAINTIFF who were not reinstated to their same position following a period of

15

PERSONAL NECESSITY LEAVE taken since October 24, 1995; state any and all reasons for

16

each such non-reinstatement.

17

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 19

18 19 20

None INTERROGATORY NO. 20 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC who

21

were demoted during the dependency of, or within one month after their return to work from, a

22

period of PERSONAL NECESSITY LEAVE taken since October 24, 2005.

23

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 20

24 25 26

None INTERROGATORY NO. 21 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC other

27

than PLAINTIFF who took “SICK LEAVE” (as that term is used in the Civil Service

28

Commission Rules for the County of Kern) in excess of one month while holding the position of 46 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 66 of 130

1

Chair of a Department at KMC since October 24, 1995; and for each such PERSON state the

2

dates of each and every such period of SICK LEAVE.

3

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 21 None.

4 5

INTERROGATORY NO. 22 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC other

6 7

than PLAINTIFF who were not reinstated to their same position following a period of SICK

8

LEAVE since October 24, 1995.

9

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 22 None.

10 11

INTERROGATORY NO. 23 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC who

12 13

were demoted during the pendency of, or within one month after their return to work from, a

14

period SICK LEAVE since October 24, 1995.

15

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 23 Defendants object to this Interrogatory on the grounds it seeks confidential personnel and

16 17

personal medical information that is protected from disclosure by California Evidence Code

18

section 1040 and HIPAA.

19

INTERROGATORY NO. 24 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC other

20 21

than PLAINTIFF who took leave pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act or California

22

Family Rights Act since October 24, 1995; and state the dates of each and every such period of

23

leave.

24

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 24

25

Defendants object to this Interrogatory on the grounds it seeks confidential personnel and

26

personal medical information that is protected from disclosure by California Evidence Code

27

section 1040 and HIPAA.

28 47 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

1 2

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 67 of 130

INTERROGATORY NO. 25 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC other

3

than PLAINTIFF who were not reinstated to their same position following a period of leave

4

taken pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act or California Family Rights Act since

5

October 24, 1995.

6

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 25

7

To the extent this Interrogatory suggests or implies that Plaintiff was not reinstated to his

8

same position following a period of leave taken pursuant to the FMLA, Defendants object on the

9

grounds that the Interrogatory mistakes the evidence and is factually incorrect and misleading.

10

Defendants are, therefore, not able to respond further.

11

INTERROGATORY NO. 26

12

IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC who

13

were demoted during the pendency of or within one month after their return to work from a

14

period of leave taken pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act or California Family Rights

15

Act since October 24, 1995.

16

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 26

17 18 19

None INTERROGATORY NO. 27 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC other

20

than PLAINTIFF who took or were placed on “ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE” (as that term is

21

used in David Culberson’s letter to PLAINTIFF, dated December 7, 2006 [DFJ01482]) in excess

22

of one month while holding the position of Chair of a Department at KMC since October 24,

23

1995; for each such PERSON state the dates of each and every such period of

24

ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE; state whether each such period of ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE

25

was paid or unpaid; and state any and all reasons for each such period of ADMINISTRATIVE

26

LEAVE.

27

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 27

28

Sheldon Freedman, 2000. 217 hours, paid 48 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

1 2

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 68 of 130

INTERROGATORY NO. 28 During the period from October 24, 2000 to the present, IDENTIFY any and all former

3

members of the “MEDICAL STAFF” at KMC (as the term is defined in the Bylaws of KMC)

4

other than PLAINTIFF who employment contract with YOU was not renewed or extended; state

5

whether the contract expired or was terminated; and state any and all reasons for non-renewal or

6

non-extension of each such contract.

7

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 28

8 9

Defendants object to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is burdensome and oppressive and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

10

Defendants also object on the grounds it seeks confidential personnel and personal medical

11

information that is protected from disclosure by California Evidence Code section 1040 and

12

HIPAA. Without waiving these objections, Defendants state that members of the Medical Staff

13

have left KMC for almost every reason imaginable, including such reasons as moving to

14

Pakistan, lack of credentials, careers opportunities and undisclosed personal reasons. We do not

15

know the reasons in many, if not most cases.

16

INTERROGATORY NO. 29

17

IDENTIFY any and all of YOUR former or current members of the MEDICAL STAFF

18

other than PLAINTIFF whose employment contract was extended or renewed for a contract term

19

of less than five years during the period from October 24, 2000 to November 16, 2006.

20

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 29

21 22 23

None. INTERROGATORY NO. 30 IDENTIFY any and all of YOUR former or current members of the MEDICAL STAFF

24

other than PLAINTIFF whose employment contract was extended or renewed for a contract term

25

of five or more years during the period from October 24, 2000 to November 16, 2006.

26

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 30

27

None.

28 49 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

1

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 69 of 130

INTERROGATORY NO. 31

2

IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked as a staff

3

pathologist at KMC after October 24, 2000 other than PLAINTIFF whose job description or

4

employment contract contained a provision requiring him or her to be responsible for providing

5

onsite shift coverage during specifically stated hours, unless otherwise assigned or excused by

6

the department chairman.

7

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 31

8 9

Plaintiff issued rules for the Pathology Department that required this. INTERROGATORY NO. 32

10

IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked as a staff

11

pathologist at KMC after October 24, 2000 other than PLAINTIFF whose job description or

12

employment contract contained a provision requiring him or her to carry a pager when on call

13

and respond to KMC within a specific number minutes of being called.

14

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 32

15 16 17

Plaintiff issued rules for the Pathology Department that required this. INTERROGATORY NO. 33 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who worked as a staff pathologist at KMC after

18

October 24, 2000 other than PLAINTIFF whose job description or employment contract

19

contained a provision requiring him or her to perform according to productivity standards set by

20

the department chairman, but at no time read out and report less than an average of a specified

21

number cases per day, for “County Responsible” (which means medically indigent adults

22

pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 17000 et seq., and adult inmates and juvenile

23

detainees in custody in County-owned or operated facilities) under compensated and uninsured

24

patients.

25

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 33

26

None.

27 28 50 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

1 2

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 70 of 130

INTERROGATORY NO. 34 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to solicit and/or

3

collect “LETTERS OF DISSATISFACTION” (as that term is used in the letter from Dr. Eugene

4

Kercher, Scott Ragland, Jennifer Abraham and Irwin Harris to PLAINTIFF, dated October 17,

5

2005 [DFJ588]) in or about October 12, 2005; and state the date that such decision was made.

6

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 34

7 8 9

None. INTERROGATORY NO. 35 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the initial decision to place

10

LETTERS OF DISSATISFACTION in PLAINTIFF’S PERSONNEL FILE on or about October

11

17, 2005; and state the date that decision was made.

12

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 35

13 14

None. INTERROGATORY NO. 36

15

IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to convert

16

PLAINTIFF’S reduced work schedule leave to full-time leave on or about April 28, 2006; and

17

state the date that decision was made.

18

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 36

19 20 21

Peter Bryan and Plaintiff. INTERROGATORY NO. 37 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to recommend

22

removal of PLAINTIFF from his position as Chair of Pathology at KMC in 2006; and state the

23

date that decision was made.

24

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 37

25 26 27 28

Peter Bryan. INTERROGATORY NO. 38 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decisions RELATING TO each and every provision contained in the DOCUMENT entitled “Amendment No. 1 to 51 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 71 of 130

1

Agreement for Professional Services” [DFJ1416]; and state the date that each such decision was

2

made.

3

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 38

4

Peter Bryan, David Culberson, Karen Barnes, Eugene Lee, Kern County Board of

5

Supervisors. The decision was made on the date the amendment was approved by the Board of

6

Supervisors.

7

INTERROGATORY NO. 39

8 9 10 11

IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to recommend reduction of PLAINTIFF’S base salary in 2006; and state the date that decision was made. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 39 Peter Bryan, David Culberson, Karen Barnes, Eugene Lee, Kern County Board of

12

Supervisors. The decision was made on the date the amendment was approved by the Board of

13

Supervisors.

14

INTERROGATORY NO. 40

15

IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in calculating the amount of the

16

reduction of PLAINTIFF’S base salary in 2006.

17

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 40

18

David Culberson and Peter Bryan

19 20

INTERROGATORY NO. 41 State the manner in which YOU calculated the amount of the reduction of PLAINTIFF’S

21

base salary in 2006; and state all factual bases on which YOU relied in support thereof.

22

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 41

23 24 25

The new salary was comparable to that of a core pathologist. INTERROGATORY NO. 42 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to place

26

PLAINTIFF on administrative leave with pay on or about December 7, 2006; and state the date

27

that decision was made.

28 52 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

1 2 3

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 72 of 130

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 42 David Culberson, Irwin Harris, Phil Dutt and counsel. INTERROGATORY NO. 43

4

IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to lift the

5

restriction on PLAINTIFF’S administrative leave (as that term is used in the letter of April 30,

6

2007 from Mark Wasser, DEFENDANT’S counsel [DFJ7101]); and state the date that decision

7

was made.

8

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 43

9

Mark Nations and Mark Wasser.

10 11

INTERROGATORY NO. 44 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to propose to

12

PLAINTIFF a “BUYOUT” (as that term is used in the email of May 1, 2007 from Mark Wasser,

13

DEFENDANT’S counsel [DFJ01482]); and state the date that decision was made.

14

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 44

15 16

It was a settlement offer communicated to Plaintiff’s counsel. INTERROGATORY NO. 45

17

IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision not to renew

18

PLAINTIFF’S employment contract with YOU; and state the date that decision was made.

19

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 45

20 21

None. INTERROGATORY NO. 46

22

IDENTIFY each DOCUMENT or portion thereof contained in PLAINTIFF’S FRCP

23

Rule 26 Initial Disclosures that YOU contend is privileged; state the nature of each privilege

24

asserted; and state in detail the factual bases for each such asserted privilege.

25

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 46

26 27

We do not understand this Interrogatory and are, consequently, unable to answer it. What is privileged about the documents Plaintiff produced?

28 53 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

1

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 73 of 130

INTERROGATORY NO. 47

2

IDENTIFY each DOCUMENT or portion thereof contained in YOUR FRCP Rule 26

3

Initial Disclosures that YOU contend is privileged; state the nature of each privilege asserted;

4

and state in detail the factual bases for each such asserted privilege.

5

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 47

6

We do not understand this Interrogatory and are, consequently, unable to answer it. Are

7

you inquiring about our privilege log?

8

INTERROGATORY NO. 48

9

State each and every job function which YOU contend were the essential functions of

10

PLAINTIFF’S position as Chair of Pathology at KMC.

11

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 48

12

Medical Staff Bylaws and job description for the position.

13 14

Dated: February 1, 2008

LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER

15 16 17

By:

/s/ Mark A. Wasser Mark A. Wasser Attorney for Defendants, County of Kern, et al.

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 54 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 74 of 130

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

EXHIBIT 3:

26

Defendant’s Supplemental Responses to Interrogatories – served 3/5/08

27 28 EXHIBITS TO JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT re: INTERROGATORIES

3

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

11 22 33 44 55 66 77 88

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 75 of 130

Mark A. Wasser CA SB #60160 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 444-6400 Fax: (916) 444-6405 E-mail: [email protected] Bernard C. Barrnann, Sr. KERN COUNTY COUNSEL Mark Nations, Chief Deputy 1115 Truxtun Avenue, Fourth Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Phone: (661) 868-3800 Fax: (661) 868-3805 E-mail: [email protected]

99

10 10 11 11

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

12 12 13 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14 14

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15 15 16 16

DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.

17 17 18 18 19 19 20 20

Plaintiff, vs.

COUNTY OF KERN, et aI., Defendants.

21 21

j j j ) j ~)

Case No.: 1:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTEROGATORIES (SET ONE) Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007 Trial Date: August 26, 2008

23 23

) ) -- - - - - - - - - - - - ) -

24 24

PROPOUNDING PARTY:

Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., F.C.A.P.

25 25

RESPONDING PARTY:

Defendant COUNTY OF KERN

26 26

SET NUMBER:

ONE (1) SUPPLEMENTAL

22 22

27 27 28 28

1 DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 76 of 130

Defendants hereby submit these supplemental responses to Plaintiff David F. Jadwin's

1

2

Interrogatories, Set One.

3

INTERROGATORY NO. 10 For each ofthe PERSONS YOU listed in the "WITNESSES" section (Section 1 and

4 5

Appendix 1) of YOUR FRCP Rule 26 "Supplement to Defendants' Rule 26(a)(l) Initial

6

Disclosures", dated September 13,2007, state the following: a)

7

so, their dates of employment and job titles;

8

b)

9

For each PERSON who is YOUR former employees, the date and reason for their separation from employment;

10 c)

11

For each PERSON who is YOUR former employees, whether the employee resigned, abandoned his job, was laid off, or was otherwise terminated.

12 13

Whether each PERSON is YOUR current employees or former employees, and if

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10

14

NAME

JOB TITLE

15

Leonard Perez Adam Lang ElsaAng

Chairman!O B-GYN Associatel Pathology Associatel Pathology Associatel Pathology Independent Contractor

16 17 18

19 20 21

22 23

24

Fangluo Liu Ellen BunyiTeopengc

27

28

DATE OF HIRE 8/11/90

DATE OF SEPARATION 1/17108

EXPLANATION Terminated

Former

8129/85

11117/03

Personal

Former

712/79

5/11/02

Retired

Former

73/95

5120102

No record

8/31/07

Resigned

Never employed

0

Savita Shertukde Gilbert Martinez

25 26

EMPLOYMENT STATUS Former

Royce Johnson Irwin Harris

Associatel Pathology Manager, Clinical Lab Services Chairman! Medicine Medical Director

Current

10/5/04

Current

1/5/81

Current

7115/75

Former

5/16/05

2 DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

11

2 33

44 55

NAME

JOB TITLE

Antionette Antionette Smith Smith

Hospital Nurse Executive Interim Chief Executive Officer Supervising Clinical Lab Scientist Supervisor, Core Lab/Client Services nla

David David Culberson Culberson

66

77 88 99

Jane Jane Thornton Thornton Kathy Kathy Griffith Griffith

10 10

11 11

Juan Juan Felix

12 12

Bernard Bernard Barmann Barmann Nitin Nitin Athavale Athavale Jennifer Jennifer Abraham Abraham Eugene Eugene Kercher Kercher

13 13 14 14 15 15 16 16 17 17 18 18 19 19

Scott Scott Ragland Ragland Peter Peter Bryan Bryan

20 20 21 21

22 22 23 23 24 24 25 25 26 26

Edward Edward Taylor Taylor Michele Michele Burris Burris Javad Javad Naderi Naderi Maureen Maureen Martin Martin

County Counsel Associate/ Radiology Associate/ Medicine Chief Medical Officer Associate/ Medicine Chief Executive Officer Associate/ Surgery Supervising Clinical Lab Scientist Chairmanl Radiology Chairmanl Surgery

Document 103-2

EMPLOYMENT STATUS Current

DATE OF HIRE 9/3/96

Filed 04/23/2008

DATE OF SEPARATION

Page 77 of 130

EXPLANATION EXPLANATION

Never employed

Current

8/21195

Current

5/22/79

Never employed Current

112/75

Former

11112/01

Current

6/23/87

Current

12/1/87

Current

6/23/89

Former

7/15/96

Current

6/23/87

Current

3112/84

Current

8/31/01

Current

6/18/02

9/30/03

Personal

11110/06

Retired

27 27 28 28 3 DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

11

2 33 44

55 66 77

88 99 10 10

11 11 12 12

NAME Navin Navin Amin Amin Chester Chester Lau Lau Steve Steve O'Connor O'Connor Albert Albert McBride McBride Alice Alice Hevle Hevle Philip Philip Dutt Dutt Karen Karen Barnes Barnes

13 13 14 14

Ronald Ronald Errera Errera

15 15

16 16 17 17

Cindy Cindy Lighthill Lighthill Erin Erin Baldwin Baldwin

JOB TlTLE Chairman! Family Practice Associatel Radiology Human Resources Director Associatel Surgery Quality Management Analvst Associatel Pathology Chief Deputy County Counsel County Administrative Officer nla Resident

Document 103-2

EMPLOYMENT STATUS Current

DATE OFHlRE 9/4/79

Former

8/31101

Current

7128180

Current

10113/97

Current

4/15/91

Current

6/25/05

Current

10/22/01

Current

8/22/88

Never employed Former

No record

Filed 04/23/2008

DATE OF SEPARATlON

Carol Carol Gates Gates

20 20 21 21

22 22 23 23

24 25 25

26 26 27 27

Denise Denise Long Long

Office Services Specialist Office Services Specialist

Current

1115/90

Current

11118/02

EXPLANATlON EXPLANATlON

9126106

Other employment

No record

Completed residency training

18 18 19 19

Page 78 of 130

INTERROGATORY NO. 15 INTERROGATORY IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS whom YOU contend participated in any "PEER

REVIEW" (as that term is defined in the KMC Bylaws) of PLAINTIFF's work from April 15, REVIEW" 2005 to the present, describe each such PERSON's role in the PEER REVIEW, and IDENTIFY IDENTIFY 2005 the work and/or PATHOLOGY REPORTS each such PERSON peer reviewed. the

28 4 DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 79 of 130

11 SUPPLEMENTAL SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15

2 Masukh Masukh Ghadiya, MD 33 44

55 66 77 88 99 10 10

11 11 12 12 13 13

14 14 15 15 16 16

17 17 18 18 19 19

Kern Kern Medical Center Department Department of Family Practice 1830 1830 Flower Street Bakersfield, Bakersfield, California 93305 Mohammed Mohammed Molla, MD Kern Kern Medical Center Department Department of Psychiatry 1830 1830 Flower Street Bakersfield, Bakersfield, California 93305 Mia Mia Lagunda, MD Sagebrush Sagebrush Pediatric Care Center 1111 1111 Columbus Street, Suite 1100 Bakersfield, Bakersfield, California 93305 William William 1. Colburn, MD Tarzana Tarzana Regional Medical Center Department Department of Anatomic Pathology 18321 Clark Street 18321 Tarzana, California 91356 Tarzana,

Jonathan 1. Epstein, MD Jonathan The Johns Hopkins Hospital The Department of Pathology Department 401 N N Broadway 401 Weinberg Weinberg Building, Rm 2242 Baltimore, Maryland 21231 Baltimore,

21 21

Parakrama T. Chandrasoma, MD Parakrama GNH2900 GNH2900 1200 North State Street 1200 Los Angeles, California 90033 Los

22 22

INTERROGATORY NO. 23 INTERROGATORY

20 20

23 23

IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC who who

24 24

were demoted during the pendency of, or within one month after their return to work from, a were

25 25

period SICK LEAVE since October 24, 1995. period

26 26

SUUPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 23

27 27

Michael Ardis, Sara Diaz, Rosann Guadian, Linda Huggins and Rosanna Ruiz.

28 28

5 DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

11

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 80 of 130

INTERROGATORY INTERROGATORY NO. 24 other IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or fonnerly worked at KMC other

22 33

than than PLAINTIFF who took leave pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act or California

44

Family Family Rights Act since October 24, 1995; and state the dates of each and every such period of

55

leave. leave.

66

SUPPLEMENTAL SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 24 BEGIN LEAVE END LEAVE

77

NAME NAME

88

Acosta, Acosta, Cynthia

03/23/98

06/14/98

99

Acosta, Acosta, Cynthia

04/05/01

05/21101

10 10

Acosta, Acosta, Cynthia

11104/03

01/02/04

11 11

Acosta, Acosta, Manuel

01105198

01117/98

12 12

Acosta, Acosta, Manuel

09/22/03

10116103

13 13

Aguilar, Aguilar, Cynthia

10/31105

11104/05

14 14

Aguilera, Elizabeth Aguilera,

03/25/03

04/24/03

15 15

Aguirre, Mary Aguirre,

03/15/00

05/01100

16 16

Aguirre, Mary Aguirre,

09/16103

12110/03

17 17

Alaniz, Felipa Alaniz,

03/08/05

03117105

18 18

Alaniz, Felipa Alaniz,

01122/07

01131107

19 19

Alcala, Phillis Alcala,

01129/04

03/08/04

20 20

Alcala, Phillis

06/24/04

11108104

21 21

Alfaro, Beverly Alfaro,

09/17/06

10102/06

22 22

Alfaro, Beverly Alfaro,

01119107

01129/07

23 23

Alire, Rosalina Alire,

01126106

02/14/06

24 24

Alkhouri, George

01122/07

02/01107

25 25

Allen, Nonna Allen,

01118/07

02/16107

26 26

Allen, Tracy Allen,

08/06103

08121103

27 27

Allen, Tracy

08/30107

09/26107

28 28 6 DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

1

Allen, Tracy

01/28/08

2

Amaya, Victoria

12/14/01

01/21/02

3

Amaya, Victoria

06/02/04

08/16/04

4

Amaya, Victoria

03/03/06

05/30/06

5

Ancheta, Kathleen

04/13/06

07/13/06

6

Araujo, Yolanda

01/13/04

01/24/04

7

Arguello-Rizo, Maria

12/23/97

02/03/98

8

Arguello-Rizo, Maria

09/13/03

11/18/03

9

Arguello-Rizo, Maria

06/12/06

09/06/06

10

AUclair, Barbara

10/02/03

12/26/03

11

Bakalar, Debra

03/13/07

03/24/07

12

Baldivia, Patricia

09/06/06

10/19/06

13

Baldivia, Patricia

12/16/06

12/31/06

14

Baldivia, Patricia

05/19/07

06/02/07

15

Baldivia, Patricia

06/28/07

07/12/07

16

Baldoz, Nancy

12/19/05

01/19/06

17

Baldoz, Vilma

06/18/00

07/05/00

18

Bareng, Mafe

01/08/07

02/02/07

19

Bazmi, Ali

03/19/06

03/27/06

20

Bazmi, Ali

04/10/06

04/17/06

21

Bernal, Angelica

02/27/07

04/28/07

22

Bernal, Angelica

01/09/08

23

Bickford, Lisa

10/08/06

01/02/07

24

Black, Shirley

OS/25/05

11/11/05

25

Black, Shirley

OS/26/06

OS/27/07

26

Blank, Rosearme

12/25/99

12/26/99

27

Blommers, Mercedes

11/03/00

11/25/00

28 7 DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAlNTlFF'S lNTERROGATORIES

Page 81 of 130

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

1

Boschini, Deborah

08/14/04

10/15/04

2

Bouldokian, Anne

09/07/01

11/21/01

3

Boxley, Sandra

03/09/01

03/27/01

4

Boxley, Sandra

08/16/01

09/09/01

5

Boyd, Susan

11/29/97

12/21/97

6

Boyd, Susan

09/17/07

12/21/97

7

Braswell, Debra

02/17/06

04/01/06

8

Braswell, Debra

OS/20/06

OS/28/06

9

Braswell, Debra

06/24/06

07/01/06

10

Braswell, Debra

08/04/06

08/11/06

11

Braswell, Debra

08/19/06

08/26/06

12

Braswell, Debra

09/28/06

10/16/06

13

Broom, Serena

07/25/05

09/01/05

14

Brown, Janice

07/16/07

07/28/07

15

Burger, David

04/16/07

06/11/07

16

Burrell, Kellie

05/12/06

06/24/06

17

Burrell, Kellie

04/24/07

07/16/07

18

Camarillo, Veronica

03/19/07

04/27/07

19

Cameron, Alice

12/05/04

01/07/05

20

Cameron, Jennifer

06/15/06

06/22/06

21

Campa, Andree

12/16/05

01/30/06

22

Carbaj aI, Delfina

01/26/06

02/06/06

23

Carey, Todd

01/05/08

24

Carrillo, Eduardo

02/16/05

03/10/05

25

Castro, Marisol

10/25/06

01/02/07

26

Celestino, Virginia

02/25/05

03/15/05

27

Cervantes, Mary

06/01/04

07/10/04

28 8 DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

Page 82 of 130

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

11

Chacon Jr, Ezequiel

05/01105

22

Chahal, Chahal, Manjinder

12/22/07

33

Colgan, Colgan, Nieves

01120/07

03/03/07

44

Collett, Collett, Catherine

11/29/07

01107/08

55

Contancio, Contancio, Teresa

02/11/99

04/13/99

66

07/21/04

09/13/04

77

Contreras-Hernandez, Contreras-Hernandez, Melissa Melissa Coodey, Coodey, Monica

07/22/06

10/02/06

88

Coodey, Coodey, Monica

12/19/06

01119/07

99

Cozby, Cozby, Maria

OS/23/06

06/23/06

10 10

Crow, Crow, James

07/23/07

08/14/07

II II

Crow, James

09/06/07

09/28/07

12 12

Crow, Teresa

09/27/07

11/09/07

13 13

Cueto, Estella

02/23/04

03/01/04

14 14

Davin, Jennifer

05/13/06

06/25/06

15 15

Davin, Jennifer

10/23/06

10/29/06

16 16

Davis, Nancy

08/30/05

09/26/05

17 17

Decker, Rita

11/19/05

11/28/05

18 18

Dhaliwal, Paramjit

03/24/06

03/31106

19 19

Diaz, Alicia Diaz,

OS/21/07

06/02/07

20 20

Diaz, Alicia Diaz,

06/18/07

07/04/07

21 21

Divinagracia, Mary

OS/23/04

06/25/04

22 22

Dodson, Lorene

12/26/97

03/21/98

23 23

Domingo, Luz Domingo,

09/11107

10/08/07

24 24

Dominguez, Eva-Marie

12/19/07

01/14/08

25 25

Doss, Justin

06/05/07

06/18/07

26 26

Doss, Justin Doss,

07/11107

07/24/07

27 27

Douglas, Shayla Douglas,

10/26/04

10/26/05

05/16/05

28 28

9 DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

Page 83 of 130

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

1

Doyle, Darlene

05114/04

03/03/05

2

Duarte, Sofia

02128/02

03/04/02

3

Ducato, Diane

02/10/99

03/24/99

4

Dumlao, Shellby

01114/06

02122106

5

Dunn, Debbie

08/18/98

03/26/99

6

Elliott, Evelyn

09/25/06

10113/06

7

Espinoza, Patricia

03115/05

03/22105

8

Esposo, Rosalind

05/26105

06/16105

9

Esqueda, Christina

02115107

02124/07

10

Fadipe, Regina

12115/06

12125/06

11

Ferra, Nicole

07/22106

09/15/06

12

Fischer, Dawn

10104/06

11116106

13

Flaharty, Linda

03/31101

05/21101

14

Flanagan, Eva Marie

06124/06

06124/06

15

Flatt, Carolyn

02101199

02105/99

16

Fox, Pamela

08/08/06

08/11106

17

Fox, Pamela

02112107

03112107

18

Gaeta, Patricia

01114/08

19

Gallegos, Evangeline

06118/07

09111107

20

Gamez, Betty

09111107

10124/07

21

Garcia, Abigail

12127/06

03123107

22

Garcia, Caroline

02115/01

04/01101

23

Garcia, Cheryl

07/29/99

08/15/99

24

Garcia, Esmeralda

10/30107

11105/07

25

Gamette, Theodora

05/20/98

05129198

26

Garnette, Theodora

06/02/01

06/27/01

27

Gamette, Theodora

11117/03

12/18/03

28 10 DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

Page 84 of 130

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

11

Gates, Gates, Heather

09/21107

11102/07

22

Gelle, Gelle, Triah

09/26/07

11120107

33

George, George, Donna

02/02/05

02119105

44

George, George, Gloria

05/06/05

05120105

55

Gervasi, Gervasi, Debbie

12120104

04/11/05

66

Gill, Gill, Prabhjot

01125/06

03/09/06

77

Gill, Gill, Prabhjot

04116/06

04/21106

88

Gimena, Gimena, leana

03/04/05

03/23/05

99

Gomez, Gomez, Enrique

03/09/06

03120106

10 10

Gonzalez, Gonzalez, Anna

09/19/99

12/08/99

11 11

Gonzalez, Gonzalez, Cynthia

04/30107

05/09/07

12 12

Goodwin, Goodwin, Barbara

10/26/04

05/26/06

13 13

Graham, Graham, Caryn

08/16/99

09116199

14 14

Gray, Suzann Gray,

06/05/07

06/21107

15 15

Green, Danielle Green,

05/03/07

05114107

16 16

Green, Terri Green,

09/05/00

09/11100

17 17

Greene, Amy Greene,

07/16/99

08/25/99

18 18

Greenfield, Traci Greenfield,

07113/00

08107/00

19 19

Grewal, Da1j i t Grewal,

03/24/06

04/01106

20 20

Guajardo, Sandra Guajardo,

03/01100

04/03/00

21 21

Haile, Asghedet Haile,

07/04/06

09117106

22 22

Halko1a, Kurt Halko1a,

01113/05

02114/05

23 23

Ha1ko1a, Kurt Ha1ko1a,

04/16/07

04/30107

24 24

Ha1ko1a, Kurt Ha1ko1a,

05/05/07

05/27/07

25 25

Harder, Debra Harder,

03/30106

04/11106

26 26

Harris, Frances Harris,

03/21105

03/28/05

27 27

Hawkins, Karen Hawkins,

11126107

12/17/07

28 28 11 DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

Page 85 of 130

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

I

Heer, Jagdipak

02/14/01

03/14/01

2

Heer, Jagdipak

08/08/05

08/21105

3

Hernandez, Cecilia

09/12/03

10106103

4

Hernandez, Eva

09/29/07

11110107

5

Hernandez, Lorraine

09/28/05

10/10105

6

Herron, Wanda

09/10103

10/20103

7

Herron, Wanda

01105104

01110104

8

Hicks, Kimberly

05/20105

06104/05

9

Hodges, Chavon

06108/06

07/08/06

10

Hosseini, Gowhartaj

05/28/03

06/29/03

11

Idolyantes, Edna

03/16104

03/29/04

12

Irias, Cecilia

03/20100

04/24/00

13

Ivey, Sharon

03/09/99

03117199

14

Jimenez, Evangeline

06102/03

06112103

15

Jimenez, Pamela

11104/00

12/06100

16

Johnson, Kerrie

04/03/04

03/20104

17

Juarez, Grace

05/14/97

05/21/97

18

Juarez, Grace

02/19/99

02124199

19

Kalish, David

07/15/07

08/03/07

20

Karunakar, Arsr

06/25/07

07/10107

21

Kennison, Carolyn

09/25/07

01118108

22

Kent, April

08/23/04

08129104

23

Khan, Farah

03/12/07

04/19107

24

Khandaker, Nurun

08115/07

09/24/07

25

King, Carie

08/07/07

09117107

26

Kinsella, Robert

11110199

12101199

27

Larios, Guadalupe

09/05/05

10119105

28 12 DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

Page 86 of 130

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

1

Ledezma, Gladys

12118/07

2

Lee, Ruth

06/12/04

08/16/04

3

Liu, Hsin

09/08/05

12/01105

4

Lizalde, Kathleen

02/25/05

03/21105

5

Lomely, Veronica

09/11107

11102/07

6

Lynch, Laura

10/30103

12/04/03

7

Lynch, Laura

05/23/02

06110102

8

Macias, Cruz

03112/07

04116/07

9

Macias, F

04/07/97

12/30/97

10

Magno, Maria

08110105

08/29/05

11

Malaque, Marygrace

01127/07

03/08/07

12

Marderosian, Susanne

05/24/03

08/24/03

13 13

Marichalar, Nereyda

06/30/97

07/12/97

14

Martinez, Laura

05/04/05

05111105

15

Martinez, Rosa

10102/06

10116106

16

Martinez, Susan

04117/04

04/20104

17

Mcaliste, Tracie

12/01/98

12116198

18

Mcconnehey, Diane

01124/05

02114/05

19

McNinch, Kathleen

03118/07

03/26/07

20

Medrano, Jdarius

05112107

05/27/07

21 21

Medrano, Jdarius

11123/07

12109/07

22

Menchaca, Vicki

12/24/06

01128107

23

Merabi, Shila

09/12/05

01106106

24

Miller, Lori Miller,

07/07/98

09/02/98

25 25

Montano, Rovelyn

01120107

01127/07

26

Montano, Rovelyn

02/24/07

03/03/07

27

Montano, Rovelyn

03/17/07

03124107

28 28 13

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAlNTIFF'S lNTERROGATORIES

Page 87 of 130

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

11

Montano, Rove1yn

04114/07

04/21/07

22

Montano, Rove1yn

OS/27/07

06/03/07

33

Montano, Rove1yn

06/23/07

06/30/07

44

Montemayor, Martha

10/28/01

01/19/02

55

Moon, Nicole

07110/03

09/08/03

66

Morales, Maria

12/04/07

01/14/08

77

Morris, Jeneal

11/19/03

12/09/03

88

Morrow, Antonieta

06118/07

09/30/07

99

Mudryk, Cheri

03/26/99

04/27/99

10 10

Mullen, Amanda

07/26/03

12/16/03

11 11

Murr, George

05/04/05

05116/05

12 12

Negranza, Melita

08111/99

09/03/99

13 13

Nitro, Gilbert

04/25/04

05/08/04

14 14

Nunez, Leticia

07/21/06

08/4/06

15 15

Nunez, Nicole

01/10/07

03/28/07

16 16

Nunez, Nicole

11/29/07

17 17

Nunn, Patsy

11115/06

11/30/06

18 18

Ochoa, Gary

01/09/05

02/21/05

19 19

Ornelas, Petra

10116/06

10/27/06

20 20

Ortiz, Mary

09/24/07

10/04/07

21 21

Ortiz, Rosario

06/19/01

06/25/01

22 22

Padgett, Shirley

09/14/98

10112/98

23 23

Patrick, Brian

07/21/06

09/29/06

24 24

Patterson, Shane

02/21/06

02/27/06

25 25

Peet, John

10/16/06

10/23/06

26 26

Pensinger, Stephanie

11120/05

01/03/06

27 27

Perez, Esperanza

02/14/07

02119/07

28 28 14 DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

Page 88 of 130

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

11

Perez, Perez, Jeanette

11103/03

ll/17/03

22

Perez, Maria

02/23/05

04/14/05

33

Perkins, Lois

01108/07

01117/07

44

Peterson, Peterson, Michelle

09/25/07

11/08/07

55

Peterson, Peterson, Sandra

03/19/02

03/26/02

66

Pob1ete, Pob1ete, Ma

OS/22/03

06/13/03

77

Poindexter, Poindexter, Lisa

06/01198

01102/99

88

Powers, Powers, Alexandra

11120/07

99

Prince, Prince, Lynn

12111106

01115/07

10 10

Probert-Thomas, Probert-Thomas, G

09/14/99

12115/99

11 11

Prows, Prows, Jodi

06/03/02

06/17/02

12 12

Quintero, Quintero, Gloria

11/06/05

ll/09/05

13 13

Rabe, Rabe, Thomas

06/01100

08/12/00

14 14

Radica, Rebecca Radica,

02117/99

05/18/99

15 15

Radica, Rebecca Radica,

09/08/00

12/04/00

16 16

Ramirez, Jesus Ramirez,

07/07/07

08/03/07

17 17

Ramirez, Jose Ramirez,

03/17/05

03/22/05

18 18

Ramirez-Padua, Lizie1 Ramirez-Padua,

OS/29/06

07/12/06

19 19

Ramos, Esperanza

02/13/01

02118/01

20 20

Recio, Allison

08/11107

09/25/07

21 21

Reneau, Olga Reneau,

11111/98

02/16/99

22 22

Reyes, Joslyn

07119/02

07/22/02

23 23

Reyes, Joslyn Reyes,

03/07/05

05/02/05

24 24

Reyes, Ruth Reyes,

04/21103

05/03/03

25 25

Richardson, Genetra Richardson,

10/18/99

01120/00

26 26

Rippy, Anna

10/25/04

11105/04

27 27

Rivera, Redempta

02/23/05

03/03/05

28 28 15

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAlNTIFF'S lNTERROGATORlES

Page 89 of 130

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

1

Robles-Gonzalez, D

09/29/05

10/05/05

2

Rogers, Nicole

12126/06

12/20/07

3

Roldan, Mario

11101105

10/31106

4

Rubio, Marcella

06/22/07

08/04/07

5

Ruiz, Rosanna

05/11105

OS/25/05

6

Ruiz, Rosanna

06/06/05

06/21105

7

Ruiz, Rosanna

08/17/05

06/21105

8

Ruiz, Rosanna

OS/28/06

07/23/06

9

Ruiz, Rosanna

07/24/06

08/02/06

10

Sabo, Krita

09/10/05

10/20/05

11

Sagun, Jocelyn

10/08/05

12/08/05

12

Sagun, Jocelyn

09/20/07

11101107

13

Sagun, Rbodora

02/28/06

04/11106

14

Salazar, Renato

07/18/97

10/18/97

15

Sa1eewong, Pat

03/07/05

04/18/05

16

Sa1eewong, Pat

06/25/07

07/02/07

17

Salinas, Natalia

01117/06

02121106

18

Salinas, Natalia

01119/07

06/08/07

19

Salinas, Nora

05/08/06

09/25/06

20

Salzman, Anne

08/15/98

09/25/98

21

Sanchez, Nancy

OS/24/06

09/04/06

22

Sanchez, Nancy

10131106

01113/07

23

Sanchez, Rosanna

06/18/07

07/09/07

24

Sanchotena, Mary

03/15/00

05/01100

25

Sandoval, Nora

08/21104

11114/04

26

Sandoval, Norma

05/04/04

06/01104

27

Santerre, Eric

02/16/99

02/24/99

28 16 DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

Page 90 of 130

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

II

Sceales, Patricia

11101106

01125/07

2

Serrano, Lydia

02/10101

04116101

3

Sevillano, Maritza

09114/03

09/29103

4

Shafa, Haleh

08/03/99

08/22/99

5

Sharma, Ira

10/23/07

10/31107

6

Shaw, Judith

08111101

08118/01

7

Shaw, Judith

06108/04

06/24/04

8

Shaw, Judith

05117106

10102/06

9

Shergill, Ramanjit

07/13/06

09101106

10

Shiao, Tu

04/11198

05/28/98

11 11

Singh, Manjit

10/30104

12/20104

12

Singh, Manjit

01109108

13 13

Siritaratiwat, Pat

06116103

06/27/03

14

Smith, April

10117106

11117/06

15

Smith, Daian

05/24/04

10/21104

16

Smith, Sara

03/31/07

04/21107

17

Smith, Sara

06/23/07

07114107

18

Smith-White, Regina

04/05/00

04/26100

19

Snook, Karan

08/04/04

08/30104

20

Solanki, Sangita

06105/04

07/20104

21

Solorio, Irene Solorio,

02/28/06

05/24/06

22

Soto, Mary

02114105

02/23/05

23

Standlee, Angela

09113104

11118/04

24

Standridge, Donna

06120102

07/25/02

25

Steward, Kathy Steward,

03/20100

03/27/00

26

Struzyna, Karen

11127/99

01103/00

27

Tabano, Gil

05128/07

06107/07

28 17 DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

Page 91 of 130

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

II

Tagumpay, Shiela

12/14/06

01/24/07

2

Tagumpay, Shiela

08/04/07

08/18/07

3

Tagumpay, Shiela

09/26/07

10118/07

4

Tajran, Deena

10101/97

11117/97

5

Tak, Vandana

07/24/01

09/01/01

6

Tak, Vandana

11116/03

12112/03

7

Thiara, Kiranbir

02/07/07

03/14/07

8

Thomas, Julie

08117105

09112/05

9

Thomas, Julie

08/09/07

09/20107

10

Torres, Ramon

04113106

01118/07

11 11

Valadez, Angelina

07/16/97

09/22/97

12

Valencia, Luz

09/23/00

10/16/00

13 13

Vazquez, Lorraine

02113105

03128/05

14

Vela, Isabel

01106107

03/30107

15

Vela, Isabel

04/19/07

06/03/07

16

Velasquez, Vincent

04113103

05101103

17

Velasquez, Vincent

09/16/05

10/11105

18

Vickery, Laura

05/18/97

06/09/97

19

Villarreal, Nicole

01127198

02/22/98

20 20

Villarreal, Nicole

10123199

01114/00

21

Villarreal, Nicole

11122/05

02/14/06

22

Walker, Dawnelle

03112/07

03126/07

23

Walker, Misty Walker,

09/15/05

10/27/05

24 24

Weese, Charlene

06/12/98

06113199

25

Weese, Charlene

06121101

07/02/01

26

Wells, Deborah

08110106

09/28/06

27 27

Wenceslao, Norma Wenceslao,

10109/06

11110106

28 28 18 DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

Page 92 of 130

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

1

Wesson, Earnest

10108/05

11110105

2

Wetlesen, Dorothy

09113/97

09128/97

3

White, Caitlyn

10103/05

11112105

4

Whittier, Nancy

11101106

10101107

5

Williams, Herman

03/08/07

03/19/07

6

Wilson, Brenda

08112103

02/28/04

7

Wilson, Brenda

03/01/04

02/28/05

8

Wilson, Brenda

03/01105

02/28/06

9

Wilson, Frances

08127107

09/22/07

10

Wood, Deborah

06/20/98

8114/958

11

Yee, Angelina

10131/05

01/24/06

12

Young, Ma Rhodora

04110107

05/30107

13

Yzaguirre, S

10/28/99

11109109

14

Zarate, Lucila

12/29/01

01103102

15

Zuniga, Maricela

11117/07

02/08/08

16 17

Page 93 of 130

INTERROGATORY NO. 25 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC other

18

than PLAINTIFF who were not reinstated to their same position following a period of leave

19

taken pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act or California Family Rights Act since

20

October 24,1995.

21

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 25

22 23 24

None.

INTERROGATORY NO. 27 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC other

25

than PLAINTIFF who took or were placed on "ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE" (as that term is

26

used in David Culberson's letter to PLAINTIFF, dated December 7, 2006 [DFJ01482]) in excess

27

of one month while holding the position of Chair of a Department at KMC since October 24,

28

1995; for each such PERSON state the dates of each and every such period of 19 DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 94 of 130

II

ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE; state whether each such period of ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE LEAVE

22

was paid or unpaid; and state any and all reasons for each such period of ADMINISTRATIVE

33

LEAVE.

44

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 27

55

Dr. Sheldon Freedman was on paid administrative leave from April 13, 2000 to June 30, 30,

66

2000. His persounel file was discarded in 2003 pursuant to the County's records retention policy policy

77

and we have no record of the reason for his leave of absence.

88

INTERROGATORY NO. 28

99

During the period from October 24, 2000 to the present, IDENTIFY any and all former

10 10

members of the "MEDICAL STAFF" at KMC (as the term is defined in the Bylaws ofKMC)

II II

other than PLAINTIFF who employment contract with YOU was not renewed or extended; state state

12 12

whether the contract expired or was terminated; and state any and all reasons for non-renewal or or

13 13

non-extension of each such contract.

14 14

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 28

15 15

Leonard Perez - involuntary termination

16 16

Cary Freeman - involuntary termination

17 17

Irwin Harris - resigned Irwin

18 18

Mark Root - resigned

19 19

Miguel Lascano - resigned

20 20

Deng Fong - resigned

21 21

John Digges - contract not renewed

22 22

Peter Meade - resigned

23 23

Jose Perez - resigned

24 24

Albert Ma - resigned

25 25

Jaafar Zada - resigned

26 26

HA Pershadsingh - retired

27 27

Lisa Burgess - resigned

28 28

Richard Prather - resigned Richard

20 DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

11

Arash Heideri - resigned then returned and is currently employed

22

Tha Cha - resigned

33

Shehla Baqi - resigned

44

Chester Lau - resigned

55

Nitin Athavale - resigned

66

Daniel D'Amico - retired

77

Stephen Docherty - resigned

88

Stephen Williams - resigned

99

Victor Ettinger - resigned

10 10 11 11 12 12 13 13

Page 95 of 130

INTERROGATORY NO. 29

See response to Interrogatory No. 30. INTERROGATORY NO. 30

1.

Saman Ratnayake, M.D. - Dr. Ratnayake was hired as a non-core, contrac contrac

14 14

employee on September 1, 1998. His contract was supposed to terminate on August 31, 2001 2001

15 15

but he entered into an interim core agreement with the County effective June 26, 2001. Tha Tha

16 16

agreement was to remain in effect through November 30, 2006. It expired on November 30, 30,

17 17

2006 but, on June 19,2007 it was extended to June 22, 2007, retroactive to November 30,2006. 30,2006.

18 18

Dr. Ratnayake entered into a new core agreement on June 23, 2007 for a term of five years.

19 19

2.

Irene Spinello, M.D. - Dr. Spinello entered into an interim core agreement with with

20 20

the County on March 12, 2002. The agreement was to remain in effect through November 30, 30,

21 21

2006 but Dr. Spinello entered into a new core agreement on December 27, 2003 for a term 00

22 22

five years.

23 23

3.

Khosrow Mostofi, M.D. - Dr. Mostofi was hired as a non-core, contract employee employee

24 24

in 1993. The last non-core contract between Dr. Mostofi and the County had an effective date 00

25 25

January 1, 1999 and was for a term of two years. Dr. Mostofi entered into an interim core core

26 26

agreement with the County on January 1, 2002. Dr. Mostofi entered into a new core agreemen agreemen

27 27

on December 1, 2006, for a term of five years.

28 28 21 DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

1I

4.

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 96 of 130

Charles Wrobel, M.D. - Dr. Wrobel began providing services to the County as

2

independent contractor in 1991. He was hired as a non-core, contract employee in 1997. Th

3

last non-core contract between Dr. Wrobel and the County had an effective date of January 1

4

2000 and was for a term of two years. On November 12, 2001, Dr. Wrobel entered into

5

interim core agreement with the County. Dr. Wrobel entered into a new core agreement 0a

6

November 1, 2003 for a term of five years.

7

5.

Juan Lopez, M.D. -~ Dr. Lopez entered into an interim core agreement with th

8

County on July 1, 2004 for a term of five years. Dr. Lopez entered into a core agreement 0a

9

January 8, 2005 for a term of five years.

10

6.

Mansukh Ghadiya, M.D. - Dr. Ghadiya entered into an interim core agreemen

11

with the County on July 1,2002. He entered into a new core agreement on March 20, 2004, for

12

term of five years.

13

7.

Paul Miller, M.D. -~ Dr. Miller was hired as a non-core employee on July 6, 1999.

14

His contract was for a term of two years. On July 2, 2001, Dr. Miller entered into an interi

15

core agreement. The agreement was to remain in effect through November 30, 2006. Dr. Mille

16

entered into a core agreement on March 20, 2004, for a term of five years.

17

8.

Jose Perez, M.D. - Dr. Perez entered into an interim core agreement with th

18

County on July 1, 2001. The agreement was to remain in effect through November 30, 2006.

19

Dr. Perez entered into a new core agreement on September 6, 2003, for a term of five years. Dr.

20

Perez left County employment before the contract expired.

21

9.

Richard Frelinger, Fre1inger, D.O. - Dr. Frelinger was hired as a non-core, contrac

22

employee in 1995. The last non-core contract between Dr. Frelinger and the County had a

23

effective date of July 1, 1999 and was for a term of two years. Dr. Frelinger entered into a

24

2001. The agreement was to remain in effec interim core agreement with the County on July 1, 1,2001.

25

through November 30, 2006 but Dr. Fre1inger Frelinger entered into a new core agreement on March 20

26

2004 for a term of five years.

27 28

10.

Fidel Huerta, M.D. - Dr. Huerta was hired as a non-core employee in 1998. Th

only non-core contract employee agreement between Dr. Huerta and the County had an effectiv 22

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 97 of 130

1I

date of November 16, 1998 and was for a term of two years. On November 10,2000, Dr. Huert

2

entered into an interim core agreement.

3

November 30, 2006. On March 20, 2004, Dr. Huerta entered into a new core agreement for

4

term of five years. offive

5

II. 11.

The agreement was to remain in effect throug

Gary Zohman, M.D. - Dr. Zohman entered into an interim core agreement wi

6

26, 2004 for a term of five years. On July 1,2005, Dr. Zohman entered int the County on June 26,2004

7

a core agreement for a term of five years.

8

9 10 II 11

12.

Maureen Martin, M.D. -~ Dr. Martin entered into an interim core agreement wit

the County on June 18, 2002 for a term of five years. On November 15, 2003, Dr. Marti entered into a core agreement for a term of five years. 13.

Donald Jagger, M.D. - Dr. Jagger was hired as a non-core contract employee i

12

I, 2003 and was for a term of tw 1996. His last non-core contract was effective on October 1,

13

years. On July 24, 2004, Dr. Jagger entered into a core agreement for a term of five years.

14

14.

Vahdatyar Amirpour, M.D. - Dr. Amirpour began providing services to

15

county as an independent contractor in 1994. He was hired as a non-core contract employee i

16

1997. His last non-core contract had an effective date of October 1, I, 1999. On July 24, 2004, Dr.

17

Amirpour entered into a core agreement for a term of five years. offive

18

15.

Daniel D'Amico, M.D. - Dr. D' Amico was hired as a non-core contract employe

19

in 1997. His last non-core contract had an effective date of October 1, I, 1999 and was for a ter

20

of two years. On September 17, 200 I, Dr. D' Amico entered into an interim core agreement wi 17,2001,

21

the County for a term through November 30, 2006. Dr. D'Amico entered into a core agreemen

22

on July 24, 2004 for a term of five years. He retired in 2006

23

16.

Nurun Khandaker, M.D. - Dr. Khandaker was hired as a non-core contrac

24

employee in 1997. Her last non-core contract had an effective date of July 11, 11,1999 1999 and was fo

25

a term of two years. On June 12, 2001, Dr. Khandaker entered into an interim core agreemen

26

with the County that was to remain in effect through November 30, 2006. On August 20, 2002

27

Dr. Khandaker entered into an interim core for a term of five years. On March 20, 2004, Dr.

28

Khandaker entered into a core agreement for a term of five years. 23 DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

1

17.

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 98 of 130

Rick McPheeters, D.O. - Dr. McPheeters entered into an interim core agreemen

2

with the County on July 25, 2000 for a term through November 30, 2006. On August 24, 2002,

3

Dr. McPheeters entered into a core agreement for a term of five years. On August 21, 2007, th

4

agreement was amended to extend the term through October 12, 2007. On October 8, 2007, th

5

agreement was amended to extend the term through December 7, 2007. On December 4,2007 4, 2007

6

the agreement was amended to extend the term through December 6,2008. 6, 2008.

7

18.

Stephan Sway, M.D. - Dr. Sway was hired as a non-core contract employee

0

8

September 1, 1998 for a term of two years. On August 29, 2000, Dr. Sway entered into

9

interim core agreement that expired on November 30, 2006. On December 19, 2006, Dr. Swa

10

entered into a core agreement that was retroactive to December 1, 2006. The agreement is for

11

term of five years.

12

19.

William Meyer, M.D. - Dr. Meyer was hired as a non-core contract employee

0

13

June 15, 1999 for a term of two years. On June 12,2001, Dr. Meyer entered into an interim cor

14

agreement for a term through November 30, 2006. On November 1, 2003, Dr. Meyer entere

15

into a core agreement for a term of five years.

16

20.

Chester Lau, M.D. - Dr. Lau entered into an interim core agreement effectiv

17

September 25, 2001 that was to remain in effect through November 30, 2006. On December 2,

18

2003, Dr. Lau entered into an interim core agreement, effective January 5, 2004, for a term

19

five years. Dr. Lau resigned his position before the agreement expired.

20

21.

Javad Naderi, M.D. - Dr. Naderi entered into an interim core agreement

0

0

21

September 25, 25,2001 2001 that was to remain in effect through November 30, 2006. On December 2

22

2003, Dr. Naderi entered into an interim core agreement effective January 5, 2004, for a term

23

five years.

24

22.

0

Tai Yoo, M.D. - Dr. Yoo entered into an interim core agreement effective May 1,

25

2001 for a term through November 30,2006. 23,2003, 30, 2006. On September 23, 2003, Dr. Yoo entered into

26

core agreement with an effective date of August 9, 2003 for a term of five years.

27 28

23.

Victor Ettinger, M.D. - Dr. Ettinger was hired as a non-core contract employee 0

January 19,1999, for a term of two years. On January 17,2001, Dr. Ettinger entered into a 24 DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 99 of 130

1

interim core agreement that was to remain in effect through November 30, 2006. Dr. Ettinge

2

resigned before the agreement expired.

3

services to the County as an independent contractor and he entered into a core agreement

4

February 22, 2005 for a term of five years.

5

24.

On January 24, 2003, Dr. Ettinger began providin 0

Savita Shertukde, M.D. - Dr. Shertukde entered into a non-core contract with th

6

County on October 5, 2004 for a term of one year. On October 18, 2005, the agreement wa

7

1,2005, 2005, Dr. Shertukde entered into a cor extended through October 31,2005. 31, 2005. On November 1,

8

agreement for a term of five years.

9

25.

Joshua Tobias, M.D. - On August 14, 2001, Dr. Tobias began providing service 14,2001,

10 to the County as an independent contractor. He was hired as a non-core contract employee IOta

0

11

April 24, 2001. On February 26, 2002, Dr. Tobias entered into an interim core agreement tha

12

was to remain in effect through November 30, 2006. Dr. Tobias entered into a core agreemen

13

on August 24,2002 for a term of five years. On August 21, 2007, the agreement was amende

14

to extend the term through October 12, 2007. On October 8, 2007, the agreement was amende 12,2007.

15

to extend the term through December 7, 2007.

16

amended to extend the term through December 6, 2008.

17

26.

On December 4, 2007, the agreement wa

Arash Heidari, M.D. - Dr. Heidari was hired initially as a non-core contrac

18

employee on July 1, 2003 for a term of one year. On June 8, 2004, Dr. Heidari entered into

19

interim core agreement effective July 1, 2004 for a term of five years. Dr. Heidari resigne

20

before the agreement expired. On July 9,2007, 9, 2007, Dr. Heidari entered into a core agreement with

21

term of five years.

22

27.

Jack Bloch, M.D. -~ Dr. Bloch was hired as a non-core contract employee on Jul

23

3, 2000. His agreement was terminated effective March 20, 2004. On March 16, 2004, Dr.

24

Bloch entered into a core agreement effective March 20, 2004 for a term of five years. Th

25

agreement was terminated effective October 14, 2006. On October 9, 2006, Dr. Bloch entere

26

2006 for a term of one year. 14,2006 into a non-core contract employee agreement effective October 14,

27

On October 8, 2007, Dr. Bloch entered into a non-core contract effective October 14, 2007, for 14,2007,

28

term of one year. 25 DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

28.

1

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 100 of 130

Albert McBride, M.D. - Dr. McBride was hired as a non-core non~core contract employe

2

in 1997. The last non-core contract between Dr. McBride and the County had an effective dat

3

of October 13, 1999 and was for a term of two years. On May 29, 2001, Dr. McBride entere

4

into an interim core agreement effective May 29, 2001. The agreement was to remain in effec

5

through November 30, 2006. On February 8, 2003, Dr. McBride entered into a core agreemen

6

for a term of five years. On February 26, 2008, the agreement was amended to extend the te

7

through February 7, 2009. 29.

8

Vasanthi (nee Ramaswami) Srinivas, M.D. - Dr. Srinivas was hired as a non-cor

9

contract employee on September 1, 1998 for a term of three years. On August 30,2001, Dr.

10

Srinivas entered into an interim core agreement that was to remain in effect through Novembe

11

30, 2006. On January 8, 2005, Dr. Srinivas entered into a core agreement for a term of fiv

12

years.

13

30.

Joseph Mansour, M.D. - Dr. Mansour was hired as a non-core contract employe

14

on September 15, 1999 for a term extending through November 30, 2002. On November 26,

15

2002, Dr. Mansour entered into an interim core agreement effective November 30, 2002 for

16

term of five years. On January 8, 2005, Dr. Mansour entered into a core agreement with a ter

17

of five years.

18

31.

Siu-Keung (Ray) Chung, M.D. - Dr. Chung was hired as a non-core contrac

19

employee on July 1,1999 1, 1999 for a term of two years. On June 26,2001, Dr. Chung entered into

20

30, 2006. On October 5, interim core agreement that was to remain in effect through November 30,2006.

21

2007, th 2002, Dr. Chung entered into a core agreement for a term of five years. On October 2, 2,2007,

22

agreement was amended to extend the term through December 7, 2007. On December 4, 2007

23

the agreement was amended to extend the term through December 6, 2008.

24

INTERROGATORY NO. 36

25

IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to convert

26

PLAINTIFF'S reduced work schedule leave to full-time leave on or about April 28, 2006; and Apri128,

27

state the date that decision was made.

28 26 DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

11

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 101 of 130

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 36

22

Peter Bryan, Steve O'Connor, Karen Barnes and Plaintiff participated in the decision to

33

convert Plaintiffs leave to full-time leave. The decision to do so was made at their meeting on

44

April 28, 2006.

55

INTERROGATORY NO. 37

66

IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to recommend

77

removal of PLAINTIFF from his position as Chair of Pathology at KMC in 2006; and state the

88

date that decision was made.

99

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 37

10 10

Peter Bryan made the decision to recommend that Plaintiff be removed from his

11 11

chairmanship and the decision to make that recommendation was made on July 10, 2006.

12 12

INTERROGATORY NO. 38

13 13

IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decisions RELATING TO

14 14

each and every provision contained in the DOCUMENT entitled "Amendment No.1 to

15 15

Agreement for Professional Services" [DFJl416]; and state the date that each such decision was

16 16

made.

17 17

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 38

18 18

Peter Bryan, David Culberson, Karen Barnes, Plaintiff, Eugene Lee, and the Kern County County

19 19

Board of Supervisors participated in the decisions regarding Amendment No.1 to Plaintiffs

20 20

contract. The decision was made on the October 3, 2006, which is the date the amendment was

21 21

approved by the Board of Supervisors.

22 22

INTERROGATORY NO. 39

23 23

IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to recommend

24 24

reduction of PLAINTIFF'S base salary in 2006; and state the date that decision was made.

25 25

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 39

26 26 27 27

Peter Bryan, David Culberson, Karen Barnes, Plaintiff, Eugene Lee, and the Kern County County

Board of Supervisors participated in the decision to reduce Plaintiffs base salary. The decision

28 28 27

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 102 of 130

II

was made on the October 3, 2006, which is the date the amendment was approved by the Board

22

of Supervisors.

33

INTERROGATORY NO. 42

44

IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to place

55

PLAINTIFF on administrative leave with pay on or about December 7, 2006; and state the date

66

that decision was made.

77

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 42

88 99 10 10

David Culberson, Irwin Harris, Phil Dutt, Margo Raison and Karen Barnes. The decision decision was made on December 6, 2006. INTERROGATORY NO. 43

II II

IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to lift the

12 12

restriction on PLAINTIFF'S administrative leave (as that term is used in the letter of April 30,

13 13

2007 from Mark Wasser, DEFENDANT'S counsel [DFJ7101]); and state the date that decision

14 14

was made.

15 15

SUPPLEMETAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 43

16 16 17 17 18 18

Mark Nations and Mark Wasser. The decision was made on April 27, 2007. INTERROGATORY NO. 44

IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to propose to

19 19

PLAINTIFF a "BUYOUT" (as that term is used in the email of May I, 2007 from Mark Wasser,

20 20

DEFENDANT'S counsel [DFJOI482]); and state the date that decision was made.

21 21

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 44

22 22 23 23 24 24

Mark Nations and Mark Wasser. The decision was made on April 27, 2007. INTERROGATORY NO. 48

State each and every job function which YOU contend were the essential functions of

25 25

PLAINTIFF'S position as Chair of Pathology at KMC.

26 26

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 48

27 27 28 28

The essential functions of Plaintiffs position are set forth in the KMC Medical Staff Bylaws at page 46, section 9.7, Department Chairs; section 9.7-1, Qualifications and pages 4828

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 103 of 130

1I

50, section 9.7-5, Responsibilities and Duties of Department Chairs and Plaintiffs job

2

description.

3

SIGNATURE OF PARTY UNDER OATH

4 5

J. Hensler, have read Plaintiffs first set of interrogatories to Defendants and the I, Paul 1.

6

foregoing supplemental answers thereto and certify under penalty of perjury that the

7

supplemental answers are true and correct.

8

Dated: March _, 2008

9

By:

10

_ _

J. Hensler Paul 1. Chief Executive Officer, Kern Medical Center

11 12

SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY AS TO OBJECTIONS

13

14

Dated: March

S , 2008

LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER

IS 15 16 17

By:_-#==.I,..loo=::;!.......::=:....:!...--::..=.===---~

Mark A. Wasser Attorney for Defendants, County of Kern, et al.

18 19 20 21

22 23

24 25

26 27

28

29 DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

__l

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 104 of 130

11 Mark A. Wasser CA SB #060160 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER 22 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 11 00 Sacramento, CA 95814 33 Phone: (916) 444-6400 Fax: (916) 444-6405 4 E-mail: [email protected] 5 Bernard C. Barmann, Sr. KERN COUNTY COUNSEL Mark Nations, Chief Deputy 66 1115 Truxtun Avenue, Fourth Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 77 Phone: (661) 868-3800 Fax: (661) 868-3805 88 E-mail: [email protected]

9

Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern, 10 10 Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher, Jennifer Abraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smith 11 11 and William Roy 12 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13 13

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14 14 15 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O. 15

~

Case No.: 1:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG

16 16

~ ~ ~)

PROOF OF SERVICE

17 17

Plaintiff, vs.

18 COUNTY OF KERN, et a\., 18

19 19

Defendants.

) 20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - . ) 20

21 21 22 22 23 23 24 24 25 25 26 26 27 27 28 28 PROOF PROOF OF OF SERVICE SERVICE

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG 11

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 105 of 130

I, Amy Remly, declare:

party to to I am a resident of the State of California and over the age of eighteen years, and not a party the within action; my business address is 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100, Sacramento, CA 95814. 95814. On On 33 March 5, 2008, I served the within documents: Defendants' Supplemental Responses to Plaintifrs Plaintifrs Interrogatories (Set One). 4 o by transmitting via facsimile from (916) 444-6405 the above listed document(s) without error to the fax number(s) set forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m. A A copy copy 5 of the transmittal/confirmation sheet is attached, and 66 by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon thereon fully fully 77 forth prepaid, in the United States mail at Sacramento, California addressed as set forth below. 22

8

99

10 10 11 11

o

by causing personal delivery by of the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the address (es) set forth below.

o

by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed Federal Express Overnight Delivery Delivery envelope and affixing a pre-paid air bill, and causing the envelope to be delivered delivered to to aa Overnight Delivery Federal Express agent for delivery at the address set forth below. below.

12 13 13 14 14

Eugene Lee Law Offices of Eugene Lee 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100 Los Angeles, California 90013-1010

15 15

I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence correspondence for for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day day with with 16 postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the the party party 16 17 served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than 17 than one one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. 18 18

above is is true true I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above 19 and correct. 19 20 20

Executed on March 5, 2008, at Sacramento, California.

~~

Ov~1!,~V\

21 21 22 22 23 23 24 24 25 25 26 26 27 27

28 28 -2-

PROOF PROOF OF OF SERVICE SERVICE

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 106 of 130

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

EXHIBIT 4: Meet and confer correspondence between the parties

26 27 28 EXHIBITS TO JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT re: INTERROGATORIES

4

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 107 of 130

Eugene D. Lee From: Sent: To: Subject:

Mark Wasser [[email protected]] Wednesday, February 13, 2008 8:48 AM [email protected] RE: Jadwin/KC: Interrogatories

Gene, Sorry. That was my oversight. I will get you a verification. Mark

From: Eugene D. Lee [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 8:59 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Jadwin/KC: Interrogatories

Mark, We still haven’t received any verification by Defendants’ of Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories, set one. As you know, the responses were due on February 1. Please send us the verification immediately. Sincerely, Gene Lee   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LAW

OFFICE

OF

EUGENE

EMPLOYMENT

LEE

LAW

555 WEST FIFTH ST., STE. 3100 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 Tel: (213)992-3299 Fax: (213)596-0487 E - m a i l : [email protected] W e b s i t e : www.LOEL.com B l o g : www.CaLaborLaw.com  

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.

 

     

Califocnia Laboc & Emplo,ment Law 0109 Plaintiff Gets $30,300, His Lawyers Get $1,1 mil, Febn>o..... , , ... " ..." ,y "'oo,,"..

1

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 108 of 130

Eugene D. Lee From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments:

Assistant [[email protected]] Thursday, February 14, 2008 10:22 AM 'Eugene Lee' [email protected] FW: Jadwin Jadwin.Signature of Party Under Oath.021408.pdf

Transmitted herewith is the verification to Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories.

Amy Remly, Assistant to Mark A. Wasser

1

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 109 of 130

INTERROGATORY NO. 47

2

IDENTIFY each DOCUMENT or portion thereof contained in YOUR FRCP Rule 26

J

Initial Disclosures that YOU contend is privileged; slale the nature oreach privilege asserted;

4

and state in detail the factual bases for each such asserted privilege.

5

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 47 We do not understand this Interrogatory and are, consequently, unable to answer it. Are

6 7

you inquiring about our privilege log?

8

INTERROGATORY NO. 48

9

State each and every job function which YOU contend were the essential functions of

J0

PLAINTIFF'S position as Chair of Pathology at KMC.

II

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 48

12

Medical Stafr Bylaws and job description for the position.

13 14

SIGNATURE OF PARTY UNDER OATI·I

15

I, Paul J. Hensler, have read Plaintilrs first set ofinterrogalorics to Defendants and the

16

foregoing answers thereto and certi fy under penalty of perjury that the answers are true and

17

correct.

18

Dated: February /..J. 2008

19

20

BY::---!-Y--~) ==~_ ! c.::...b=' {

Puul1. Hensler

21

Chief Executive Officer, Kern Medical Center

22 SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY AS TO OIl.IECTIONS 24 Dated: February 1,2008

LA W OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER

26 27 28

By:

/s/ Mark A. Wasser Mark A. Wasser Attorney for Defendants, COUllty of Kern, et
54 DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 110 of 130

Eugene D. Lee Eugene D. Lee [[email protected]] Tuesday, February 19, 2008 3:57 PM '[email protected]' RE: Jadwin/KC: Interrogatories

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Mark, I’ll call you. Sincerely, Gene Lee   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LAW

OFFICE

OF

EUGENE

EMPLOYMENT

LEE

LAW

555 WEST FIFTH ST., STE. 3100 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 Tel: (213)992-3299 Fax: (213)596-0487 E - m a i l : [email protected] W e b s i t e : www.LOEL.com B l o g : www.CaLaborLaw.com  

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.

 

     

Califocnia Laboc & Emplo,ment Law Bl09 Plaintiff Gets $30,300, His Lawyers Get $1,1 mil, Febn>Arf', , . . .

" . " " ,y "'''"'"''

From: Mark Wasser [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 3:30 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Jadwin/KC: Interrogatories Gene, 3:00 p.m. tomorrow is fine. Will you call me? Mark

From: Eugene D. Lee [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 3:22 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Jadwin/KC: Interrogatories

Mark, 3 p.m. tomorrow works for me. Let me know. 1

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 111 of 130

Sincerely, Gene Lee   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LAW

OFFICE

OF

EUGENE

EMPLOYMENT

LEE

LAW

555 WEST FIFTH ST., STE. 3100 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 Tel: (213)992-3299 Fax: (213)596-0487 E - m a i l : [email protected] W e b s i t e : www.LOEL.com B l o g : www.CaLaborLaw.com  

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.

Califocnia Laboc &  Emplo,ment Law 0109 Plaintiff Gets $30,300, His Lawyers Get $1,1 mil, Febn>o..,', , ... " ..." ,y "'oo,,"..

     

From: Mark Wasser [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 2:55 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Jadwin/KC: Interrogatories Gene, I am back in the office and will be here the rest of the week. We can talk tomorrow, if you want. What time is good for you? Mark

From: Eugene D. Lee [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 10:46 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Jadwin/KC: Interrogatories

Mark, Let’s discuss Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories, set one. When are you available to talk this week? Sincerely, Gene Lee   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LAW

OFFICE

OF

EUGENE

EMPLOYMENT

LAW

555 WEST FIFTH ST., STE. 3100 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 2

LEE

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document T e l : ( 2 1 3 ) 103-2 9 9 2 - 3 2 9 9 Filed 04/23/2008

Page 112 of 130

Fax: (213)596-0487 E - m a i l : [email protected] W e b s i t e : www.LOEL.com B l o g : www.CaLaborLaw.com  

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.

 

     

Califocnia Laboc & Emplo,ment Law 0109 Plaintiff Gets $30,300, His Lawyers Get $1,1 mil, Febn>o..,', , ... " ..." ,y "'oo,,"..

3

From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee

To: 213-596-0487

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

(213) 992-3299 TELEPHONE

LAW

Document 103-2

555

FACSIMILE

Los

Filed 04/23/2008

OFFICE

E U G ENE (213) 596-0487

Pg 1/ 6 02/20/08 8:37 pm

OF

Page 113 of 130 [email protected] EMAIL

L E E

WEST FIFTH STREET SUITE 3100 ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9001 3-1 01 0

WWW.LOEL.COM WEBSITE

FAX To: Fax Number: 2135960487 Pages: 6 (including cover page) Re: Jadwin/KC: Rog1

Comments:

Mark, Please see attached.

From: Law Office of Eugene Lee Date: 02/20/2008

From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee

To: 213-596-0487

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

LAW

(213) 992-3299

TELEPHONE

Pg 2/ 6 02/20/08 8:37 pm

Filed 04/23/2008

OFFICE

EUGENE

OF

555

FACSIMILE

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90013-1010

STREET,

[email protected] E-MAIL

LEE

(Z 1 3) 596-0487

WEST FIFTH

Page 114 of 130

SUITE

EUGENE D. LEE, ESQ

3100

WWW.LOEL.COM WEBSITE

JOAN E. HERRINGTON, ESQ

PRINCIPAL

OF COUNSEL

February 20, 2008 VIA U.S. MAIL FIRST CLASS & FACSIMILE Mark Wasser Law Offices of Mark Wasser 400 Capitol Mall Ste 1100 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re:

100011.001

Defendants Responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories, Set One Jadwin / County of Kern, et al. (USDC EDCA NO.1 :07-cv-00026-0WW/TAG)

Dear Mark: It was a pleasure speaking with you today regarding Defendant Kern County's deficient responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories, Set One. We are writing this letter in follow-up to our discussion.

As discussed, Defendant has agreed to fully supplement its responses as described below by no later than March 5, 2008. Ifthe following issues are not fully resolved at that time, Plaintiff will have no choice but to immediately file a motion to compel. Response

Issue

toRog

No. 1,2,4,5, 6, 7

Defendant refuses to state any facts. Plaintiff's position is that Defendant is required to state the facts upon which it contends supports its affirmative defenses. Contention interrogatories are not objectionable on the ground that they encroach on attorney work product. See Security Ins. Co. ofHartford v. Trustmark Ins. CO. (D CT 2003) 218 FRD 29, 34; United States v. Boyce, 148 F. Supp. 2d 1069, 1086 (D. Cal. 2001)(" Under Rule 33(c), a party can serve an interrogatory the answer to which involves "an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application oflaw to fact." Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(c); O'Connor v. Boeing NorthAm., Inc., 185 F.R.D. 272, 280-81 (C.D. Cal. 1999). The Government's contention interrogatories are not directed to issues of "pure law" that would infringe on the attorney-work product doctrine as codified in Rule 26(b)(3). Rather, they seek the facts upon which the Boyces' relied for their defense to the Forms 4340. As such, the contention interrogatories were permissible and the Boyces were required to respond to them."

3

You stated Defendant disagrees. Plaintiff intends to move to compel. Defendant's response is vague and non-specific. It fails to specify (i) what efforts were made by whom to "counsel Plaintiff', (ii) what physical confrontations

To: 213-596-0487

From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Pg 3/ 6 02/20/08 8:37 pm

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 115 of 130

Plaintiff allegedly had with other persons and with whom, etc.

9

10

IS

23

You stated Defendant would supplement its response by March 5. The term "IDENTIFY" when used in connection with natural PERSONS includes the name, address, phone number, the current or most recent position held with YOU if the PERSON is or was employed with YOU as of the date these interrogatories are answered, and the last day ofthe PERSON's employment with YOu. Defendant has not fully responded to the interrogatory. You stated Defendant will supplement its response by giving the last date of employment and current or most recent position for each person listed. Plaintiff's position is that it is entitled to know the dates of employment, job titles, dates, circumstances and reasons for departure of County employees named as potential witnesses by Defendant. Moreover, all grounds for objection to an interrogatory must be stated "with specificity." FRCP 33(b)(4); see Nagele v. Electronic Data Systems Corp. (WD NY 2000) 193 FRD 94,109 (objection that interrogatories were "burdensome" overruled because objecting party failed to "particularize" basis for objection). Regarding Ev. C. 1040, it is a generally-worded statute regarding "official information". Defendants have the burden under Ev. C. 1040 to establish the specific "official information" privilege. Defendant disagrees. Plaintiff intends to move to compel. The term "IDENTIFY" when used in connection with natural PERSONS includes the name, address, phone number, the current or most recent position held with YOU if the PERSON is or was employed with YOU as of the date these interrogatories are answered, and the last day ofthe PERSON's employment with you. Defendant has not fully responded to the interrogatory. When used in connection with DOCUMENTS, the term "IDENTIFY" includes the name(s) ofthe author(s), name(s) of recipient(s), date of creation, date of modification, date of delivery, date of execution, effective date, subject matter, bates numbers, page numbers, paragraph numbers, line numbers and/or section numbers. Defendant has not fully responded to the interrogatory. Also, Defendant has failed to state the "role" each person listed played in the PEER REVIEW.

You stated Defendant will supplement its response. All grounds for objection to an interrogatory must be stated "with specificity." FRCP 33(b)(4); see Nagele v. Electronic Data Systems Corp. (WD NY 2000) 193 FRD 94, 109 (objection that interrogatories were "burdensome" overruled because objecting party failed to "particularize" basis for objection). Regarding Ev. C. 1040, it is a generally-worded statute regarding "official information". Defendants have the burden under Ev. C. 1040 to establish the specific "official information" privilege. Moreover, no HIPAA protected information has been requested.

24

You stated Defendant will supplement its response. All grounds for objection to an interrogatory must be stated "with specificity." FRCP 2

To: 213-596-0487

From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Pg 4/ 6 02/20/08 8:37 pm

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 116 of 130

33(b)(4); see Nagele v. Electronic Data Systems Corp. (WD NY 2000) 193 FRD 94, 109 (objection that interrogatories were "burdensome" overruled because objecting party failed to "particularize" basis for objection). Regarding Ev. C. 1040, it is a generally-worded statute regarding "official information". Defendants have the burden under Ev. C. 1040 to establish the specific "official information" privilege. Moreover, no HIPAA protected information has been requested.

25

27

You stated Defendant will supplement its response. Plaintiff's position is that Defendant's objection only goes to the phrase "other than PLAINTIFF". When objection is made to part of an interrogatory, the remainder of the interrogatory must be answered (unless an extension is obtained). FRCP 33(b)(l). You stated Defendant will supplement its response. The term "IDENTIFY" when used in connection with natural PERSONS includes the name, address, phone number, the current or most recent position held with YOU if the PERSON is or was employed with YOU as of the date these interrogatories are answered, and the last day ofthe PERSON's employment with you. Defendant has not fully responded to the interrogatory.. Moreover, Defendant has failed to state the dates of administrative leave, and any and all reasons for such leave.

28

29/30

You stated Defendant will supplement its response and understands that it has waived objections by failing to raise them in its Response. Absent extension or good cause, failure to timely respond to interrogatories generally constitutes a waiver of any objections thereto. FRCP 33(b)(4); Davis v. Fendler (9th Cir. 1981) 650 F2d 1154, 1160; Starlight Int'l, Inc. v. Herlihy (D KS 1998) 181 FRD 494, 497. At Defendant's request, Plaintiff has agreed to narrow this interrogatory from "MEDICAL STAFF" to "CORE PHYSICIANS". Based on this narrowing, you agreed that Defendant would supplement its response. Defendant's responses to these interrogatories are contradictory and illogical. Plaintiff further explained that the term "renew" includes the "replacement of an old contract with a new contract". See Black's Legal Dictionary.

31/32

You agreed and stated Defendant will supplement its response. Defendant's response is completely non-responsive.

36/37

You stated Defendant will supplement its response. Defendant failed to state the date the decision was made.

39

You stated Defendant will supplement its response. Defendant failed to state the date the decision was made TO RECOMMEND REDUCTION of Plaintiff's base salary in 2006 (NOT approve it).

3

To: 213-596-0487

From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

41

42

Pg 5/ 6 02/20/08 8:37 pm

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 117 of 130

You stated Defendaut will supplement its response. The amount of reduction of Plaintiff's base salary was a precise number. Defendant's response fails to state the manner of calculation and all factual bases relied on. You stated Defendant will supplement its response. The term "IDENTIFY" when used in connection with natural PERSONS includes the name, address, phone number, the current or most recent position held with YOU ifthe PERSON is or was employed with YOU as ofthe date these interrogatories are answered, and the last day ofthe PERSON's employment with you. Defendant has not fully responded to the interrogatory. and failed to IDENTIFY "counsel". Moreover, Defendants fail to state the date the decision was made.

43

You stated Defendant will supplement its response. Defendants fail to state the date the decision was made.

44

You stated Defendant will supplement its response. Defendant's response is utterly non-responsive.

46/47

48

You stated Defendant will supplement its response. Plaintiff explained that the questions are intended to determine which documents in the Rule 26 Initial Disclosures will be subject to privilege-based admissibility challenges by Defendant. You stated Defendant will supplement its response. You also acknowledged the meaning ofthe term "IDENTIFY" as used in this Interrogatory includes the name(s) ofthe author(s), name(s) ofrecipient(s), date of creation, date of modification, date of delivery, date of execution, effective date, subject matter, bates numbers, page numbers, paragraph numbers, line numbers and/or section numbers. An answer to an interrogatory should be complete in itself and should not refer to the pleadings, or to depositions or other documents, or to other interrogatories. Scaife v. Boenne (ND IN 2000) 191 FRD 590, 594. Moreover, Defendant has the burden of stating what the essential functions of Plaintiff's position were. You stated Defendant will supplement its response by stating the "essential functions" of Plaintiff's position.

4

To: 213-596-0487

From: Law Office OFFice of Eugene Lee

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Pg 6/ 6 02/20/08 8:37 pm

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 118 of 130

We look forward to our next meet and confer conference call with you at 9:30 a.ill. a.m. tomorrow (February 21, 2008).

Et cc:

David F. Jadwin, D.O., F.C.A.P.

Iv) \J

5

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 119 of 130

Eugene D. Lee From: Sent: To: Subject:

Eugene D. Lee [[email protected]] Wednesday, March 05, 2008 12:13 PM '[email protected]' RPD1/ROG1

Mark, It was a pleasure speaking with you this morning. We had discussed the following: -

-

-

You said that you had just received 2 boxes of additional documents from KMC and that you would be handing me those documents at the beginning of Dr. Jadwin’s deposition on March 11. We also agreed that we would have a call at 5 p.m. on Sunday, March 9, to discuss Plaintiff’s requests 65, 66, 67, 69, 70, 72, 76, 77 and 78. You said that, today, you would be serving supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories 10, 15, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 36, 37, 38, 39, 42, 43, 44, 48, as well as a letter explaining Defendant’s refusal to supplement responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories 1-7, 9, 31-32, 41, 46, 47 I further clarified interrogatories 46 and 47 (for a second time), explaining that Plaintiff seeks to know which documents produced in the Initial Disclosures by ANY party are subject to Defendants’ claim of privilege and challenge to admissibility. You confirmed that you had no further confusions or need for further clarification of interrogatories 46 and 47 and that you fully understood them. I explained that Plaintiff intends to immediately file a motion to compel regarding any unresolved requests for production and/or interrogatories.

Also, regarding Dr. Jadwin’s deposition, you stated it was Defendants’ intention to complete Dr. Jadwin’s deposition by March 12. If that does not occur, Plaintiff will not agree to a third deposition session in the absence of a stipulation or court order. I look forward to discussing the requests for production with you on March 9. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Gene Lee   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LAW

OFFICE

OF

EUGENE

EMPLOYMENT

LEE

LAW

555 WEST FIFTH ST., STE. 3100 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 Tel: (213)992-3299 Fax: (213)596-0487 E - m a i l : [email protected] W e b s i t e : www.LOEL.com B l o g : www.CaLaborLaw.com  

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.

1

Mar 05 08 03:35p

Mark Wasser

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

916-444-6405

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

p.1

Page 120 of 130

The Law Offices of Mark A. Wasser 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100 Sacramento, California 95814 Office: 916444-6400 Fax: 916-444-6405

Fax To:

Eugene Lee

From: Amy Remly

Fax:

(213) 596-0487

Pages: 5 (including cover page)

Date:

Phone: (213) 992-3299 Re:

Jadwin v. County of Kern

D Urgent

D For Review

• Comments: Please see attached letter.

3/5/08

CC:

D Please Comment

D Please Reply

D Please Recycle

Mar 05 08 03:35p

p.2

916-444-6405

Mark Wasser

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Law Offices of Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

MARK A. WASSER

Page 121 of 130

400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100 Sacl'am.entQ, California 95814

Office: 916-444-6400 Fax: 916-444-6405 mwasser@markwasser,com

March 5, 2008

VIA FACSIMILE AND FIRST CLASS MAIL

Eugene Lee Law Offices of Eugene Lee 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100 Los Angeles, California 90013-1010

Re: Jadwin v. County ofKern, et al. Dear Gene: This is in response to our telephone conferences On February 20 and today regarding the Defendants' supplemental responses to Plaintiff's first set of interrogatories.

Interrogatory Numbers 1. 2. 4. 5.6 and 7. Although we objected to this interrogatory on grounds of attorney work product and attorney-client privilege, the facts that support the third affinnative defense are set forth in the Second Supplemental Complaint and in the text of the defense itself. The third affirmative defense states that the Defendants' actions, as alleged in the Second Supplemental Complaint, were in furtherance of medical peer review, maintenance of quality of care standards, discharge of official duties and performed in the course of official proceedings authorized by law and that, as such, they are privileged under the referenced statutes. In drafting the third affirmative defense, the Defendants bad in mind only the facts alleged in the Second Supplemental Complaint. The legal analysis and reasoning why the Defendants believe their actions are privileged is protected under attorney-work product and attorney-client privilege doctrines but the facts have been disclosed. The same is true of the fourth, sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth affirmative defenses. They each reference the factual allegations set forth in the Second Supplemental Complaint. In interposing those defenses the defendants had no facts in mind other than those set forth in the Second Supplemental Complaint.

Admitted to Pracrice in California and Nevada

Mar 05 08 03:35p

916-444-6405

Mark Wasser

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Eugene Lee March 5, 2008 Page 2

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

p.3

Page 122 of 130

Thus, there are no additional facts to disclose.

Interrogatory Number 3. The text of the fifth affirmative defense and our response to interrogatory number three fully disclosed the factual basis for that defense. In addition, the defendants have produced several tens of thousands of documents and Plaintiff has taken the depositions of several current and former members of the Kern Medical Center staff. The Defendants are under no obligation to summarize, in their response to Interrogatory Number Three, the discovery that has occurred in this case to date. For example, although you assert that the Defendants have not disclosed "what physical confrontations plaintiff allegedly had with other persons" the Defendants have produced the transcript of the investigation that was conducted after your client pulled a fellow physician out of a room by his necktie. We have disclosed letters admonishing your client for his behavior and you have listened to the deposition testimony of several employees describing your client's behavior. The Defendants' response to Interrogatory Number Three is more than adequate.

Interrogatory Numbers 9 and 10. You continue to characterize the individuals we identified in our Initial Disclosures as "witnesses" and these two Interrogatories seek additional information about those individuals on the assumption they are witnesses. As I have told you on multiple occasions, the Defendants have not yet identified any ",itnesses. v.itnesses. The list of persons included in the Defendants' initial disclosures was compiled in compliance with Rule 26(a)(I )(A) which requires the name and address "of each individual likely to have discoverable infoffilation". It is not a witness list and Defendants have made no decision regarding who may be a witness in this action. There are no "witnesses" identified in the initial disclosures. I Plaintiff's attempt to bootstrap the persons identified in Defendants' initial disclosures into a list of trial witnesses and then demand employment history information on all of them is burdensome and oppressive and Defendants will not respond further to tillS interrogatory for that reason. At your request, Defendants will produce all those individuals for deposition and you are free to inquire as to their employment history. As soon as Defendants identify any trial witnesses, we will share that list with you.

Interrogatory Number 28. It is a small point but the Defendants did not request that Plaintiff narrow this interrogatory from "medical staff' to "core physicians". The Defendants objected to the

Mar 05 08 03:36p

Mark Wasser

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Eugene Lee March 5, 2008 Page 3

pA

916-444-6405

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 123 of 130

interrogatory and refused to respond further. You agreed to limit the interrogatory to only core physicians and I agreed, based upon that narrowing, to reconsider our response. Interrogatory Numbers 29 and 30. The Defendants' responses to these interrogatories are neither contradictory nor illogical and, contrary to what you write in your letter, we have not agreed that they are. The history of physician agreements at KMC does not lend itself to categorization based on the length of the contract. It is more complicated. Nevertheless, and despite the fact that answering this Interrogatory will yield nothing of any use in this case, Defendants will supplement their answer. Interrogatory Numbers 31 and 32. The Defendants' responses to these interrogatories are responsive. As I explained to you during our telephone conference, the job descriptions and employment agreements for medical staff employed at Kern Medical Center include a provision requiring them to comply with all hospital policies and procedures. Your client issued rules for the Pathology Department that required staff pathologists to provide onsite shift coverage during specifically stated hours and carry pagers when on call. Thus, those requirements became part of the job description and employment agreement for each and every staff pathologist employed after October 24, 2000. The Defendants have previously provided lists of staff pathologists employed since 2000 and there is no reason to do so again. Interrogatory Number 41. The Defendants recognize that the amount of the reduction in Plaintiffs base salary was a precise number. Our response to Interrogatory Number Forty-One accurately and completely responds to the interrogatory. Plaintiff's new salary was selected because it was comparable to that of a core pathologist. There is no further explanation required and defendants will not respond further to this interrogatory. Interrogatory Numbers 46 and 47. Defendants prepared a privilege log that accompanied their initial disclosures. Documents the Defendants believe are privileged are identified in the privilege log. You have asked us to review Plaintiff's Initial Disclosures and let you know if we think any documents Plaintiff disclosed are privileged. As you note, we have discussed it twice. You describe this request as a "housekeeping" issue and that you simply want to know if Defendants intend to object to the admissibility of any documents contained in your Initial Disclosures on the basis of privilege. This still strikes me as a strange request but I will review your Initial Disclosures and let you know if we believe any of the documents you disclosed are privileged.

Mar 05 08 03:36p

Mark Wasser

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Eugene Lee March 5, 2008 Page 4

916-444-6405

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

p.5

Page 124 of 130

With regard to the other interrogatories referenc·ed in your February 20 letter, to the extent Defendants have additional information, we will serve a set of supplemental responses today. Very Truly Yours,

Mark A. Wasser

cc; Karen Baines (via facsimile)

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 125 of 130

Eugene D. Lee From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments:

Mark Wasser [[email protected]] Wednesday, March 05, 2008 3:39 PM Eugene Lee Verification to Supplemental Responses Jadwin.Signature.Supplemental Interrogatories.030508.pdf; Karen Barnes.vcf

Gene, Here is the verification to the supplemental responses to the interrogatories. Mark

1

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 126 of 130

50, section 9.7-5, Responsibilities and Duties of Dcparlment Chairs and Plaintiffsjob

2

description.

3 SIGNATURE OF PARTY UNDER OATH

4

5

I, Paul 1. Hensler, have read Plainlifrs first sel of interrogatories to Defendants and {he

6

foregoing supplemental answers thereto and certify under penalty of perjury that the

7

supplemental answers are tme and correct.

8

Dated: March

s-, 2008

9 10

By.:~ yj}J~_L=---_

Paul J. Hensler Chief Executive Orficer, Kern Medical Center

II

12

13 14

SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY AS TO OBJECTIONS

Dated: M,uch __' 2008

LA W OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER

15 16 17

By:_-,-.,---,------:.,,--

Mark A. Wasser Attorney for Defendants, County ofKem, et al.

18

19 20 21

22

24

-,

7'

26 27 28

29 DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAfNTIFF'S fNTERROGATORJES

_

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 127 of 130

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

EXHIBIT 5:

22

Declaration of Eugene Lee in Support of Motion

23 24 25 26 27 28 EXHIBITS TO JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT re: INTERROGATORIES

5

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

Document 103-2

4

Eugene D. Lee SB#: 236812 LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Phone: (213) 992-3299 Fax: (213) 596-0487 email: [email protected]

5

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

1 2 3

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 128 of 130

6 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

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

10 v. 11

Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES

COUNTY OF KERN, et al., 12 Defendants. 13

Date: April 28, 2008 Time: 9:30 a.m. Place: U.S. District Court, Bankruptcy Courtroom 1300 18th St., Bakersfield, CA

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

15 16

Plaintiff submits this Declaration of Eugene D. Lee pursuant to Local Rule 37-251(d) in lieu of a 17 joint statement re discovery disagreement. 18 I, Eugene D. Lee, declare as follows: 19 7.

I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before the Federal and State Courts of

20 California and admitted to practice before the U.S.D.C. for the Eastern District of California. I am 21 counsel of record for Plaintiff David F. Jadwin in this matter. 22 8.

I am making this declaration in support of plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to

23 interrogatories. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth below and I could and would 24 competently testify thereto if called as a witness in this matter. 25 9.

I have spent and anticipate spending substantially in excess of 5 hours meeting and

26 conferring with Mr. Wasser by phone, fax, letter and email, researching and drafting these moving 27 papers and attending the motion hearing in Bakersfield, CA. My regular rate for such services is $400 28 DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 1

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

1 2

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 129 of 130

per hour. 10.

My rate is consistent with those charged in the Los Angeles area by attorneys of similar

3

skill and experience. I received my B.A. with honors from Harvard University in 1991 and my J.D. with

4

honors from the University of Michigan Law School in 1995. I was admitted to the New York State Bar

5

in 1996 and worked as an associate in the New York office of Shearman & Sterling from 1995 to 1996. I

6

worked as an associate in the New York office of Sullivan & Cromwell from 1996 to 1997. After a brief

7

leave of absence from practicing law from 1997 to 1999, I returned to active practice as the General

8

Counsel of Tcom America, Inc., a technology venture in Silicon Valley from 1999 to 2002. From 2002

9

to 2004, I worked as a senior associate for Kim & Chang, a law firm located in Seoul, Korea. In 2005, I

10

was admitted to the California Bar. I have been the principal of Law Office of Eugene Lee since 2005.

11 12 13 14 15 16

11.

I attempted several times to secure local counsel to prosecute Plaintiff’s suit but was

ultimately unsuccessful. 12.

On September 18, 2006, I sent an email to over 600 members of the California

Employment Lawyers Association seeking co-counsel. No attorneys from Fresno responded. 13.

On February 28, 2007, I called Andrew Jones, Esq. in Fresno, CA, requesting his

involvement as local counsel in this action. Mr. Jones declined.

17 18 19

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the United States that the foregoing is true and correct.

20 Executed on: April 23, 2008 21 22 23

/s/ Eugene D. Lee

24

EUGENE D. LEE Declarant

25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 2

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

1 2 3 4

Document 103-2

Filed 04/23/2008

Page 130 of 130

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, the undersigned, hereby declare: I am a resident of Los Angeles in the State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the action described herein. I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, California. My business address is LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE, 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100, Los Angeles, CA 90013. On the date of execution of this DOCUMENT, I served the following:

5 6

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES

7 on the following parties in this action by and through their attorneys addressed as follows: 8 9 10 11 12

Mark A. Wasser LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100 Sacramento, CA 95814 Fax: (916) 444-6405 Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern, Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher, Jennifer Abraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smith and William Roy

13 14 15

BY UNITED STATES MAIL: I enclosed the DOCUMENT(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, addressed to the PERSON(s) listed above, and deposited the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service at Los Angeles, California. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.

16 17

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

18 Executed on April 17, 2008, at Los Angeles, California. 19 20 21 Eugene D. Lee

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE