87 Declaration Re Inability To Resolve Discovery Dispute
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View 87 Declaration Re Inability To Resolve Discovery Dispute as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 4,020
- Pages: 21
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Document 87
Filed 01/23/2008
Page 1 of 21
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., Plaintiff,
15 16 17
Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG DECLARATION OF EUGENE LEE re INABILITY TO RESOLVE DISCOVERY DISPUTES
v. COUNTY OF KERN; et al. Defendants.
18 19
Date Action Filed: Date Set for Trial:
January 6, 2007 December 3, 2008
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
I, Eugene D. Lee, declare and say, as follows: 1.
I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before the Federal and State Courts of
California and admitted to practice before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. I am the attorney representing Plaintiff David F. Jadwin in this matter. 2.
I am making this declaration pursuant to the Order of the Honorable Theresa A. Goldner
DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE IN SUPPORT OF π’S REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE
1
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Document 87
Filed 01/23/2008
Page 2 of 21
1
to provide the Court with a status update on discussions with Defendants regarding discovery disputes
2
subsequent to the hearing before the Court on January 14, 2008, on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
3
Production and Responses (Doc. 82). The facts stated herein are personally known to me and if called as
4
a witness, I could and would competently testify to the truth of the facts set forth in this declaration.
5
3.
The current dispute between the parties apparently involves only the stipulations which
6
Defendants had requested, and the Court had ordered, the parties enter into at the motion hearing.
7
Plaintiff is not willing to enter into stipulations with Defendants which exceed or alter what was ordered
8
and agreed to at the motion hearing.
9
4.
Defendants have not stated any objections to producing documents in response to
10
Plaintiff’s requests 11, 26, 32, 33, 40, 43, 55, 57, 70, 71, 72, 78 as narrowed or clarified by Plaintiff at
11
the motion hearing. Plaintiff’s current understanding, based on the phone call of January 22, 2008 (See ¶
12
7 below), is that Defendants will indeed produce all such responsive documents by January 29, 2008.
13
Thus, there does not at the moment appear to be any dispute between the parties regarding actual
14
production in response to Plaintiff’s requests.
15
5.
At the hearing, the Court had ordered the parties to submit stipulations and orders
16
regarding two issues, both at Defendants’ prompting: 1) that Defendants’ disclosure of Dr. Royce
17
Johnson’s personnel file in response to Plaintiff’s request for production no. 40 would not constitute a
18
waiver by Defendants of privileges and objections relating to requests for disclosure of the personnel
19
files of other persons; and 2) that in inspecting and copying unredacted product chart copy (PCC) files at
20
Kern Medical Center’s offices, Plaintiff would preserve and protect the confidentiality of any patient
21
medical information protected under HIPAA. The parties agreed that Defendants would draft and send
22
stipulations and orders to Plaintiff for its consideration.
23
6.
On Friday, January 18, 2008, Plaintiff sent an email to Defendants requesting they send
24
over the draft stipulations and orders, making arrangements to review product chart copy (PCC)
25
documents at Kern Medical Center’s offices, and notifying Defendants that Plaintiff had remitted a
26
check in reimbursement of Defendants’ discovery-related photocopy costs, as had been ordered by the
27
Court. (See Exhibit 1 hereto).
28
7.
On Tuesday, January 22, 2008, Plaintiff and Defendants met and conferred by phone
DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE IN SUPPORT OF π’S REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE
2
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Document 87
Filed 01/23/2008
Page 3 of 21
1
regarding the outstanding discovery disagreements, pursuant to the Court’s order. Defendants confirmed
2
that they would produce all documents in accordance with the document requests as narrowed down or
3
clarified by Plaintiff at the motion hearing by January 29, 2008. Plaintiff sent a confirmatory email to
4
Defendants regarding the phone call. (See Exhibit 2 hereto).
5
8.
Later that day, Defendants sent Plaintiff a draft stipulation. (See Exhibit A to Declaration
6
of Mark A. Wasser re: Inability to File Stipulation Following Discovery Hearing, Doc. 86). The
7
stipulation substantially exceeded the scope of what had been ordered or agreed to at the motion hearing.
8
The stipulation also attempted, among other things, to narrow Plaintiff’s requests for production beyond
9
what had been agreed to at the motion hearing and reinstituted objections to Request 40, which
10
Defendants had specifically withdrawn at the motion hearing. Plaintiff so informed Defendants and
11
asked Defendants to scale back the stipulation to what the Court had ordered. (See Exhibit 3 hereto).
12
9.
On Wednesday, January 23, 2008, Defendants sent Plaintiff a revised draft stipulation
13
(See Exhibit B to Declaration of Mark A. Wasser re: Inability to File Stipulation Following Discovery
14
Hearing, Doc. 86). The draft included additional language that Defendants were not waiving or
15
withdrawing objections to Request 40 even though Defendants had agreed to withdraw all
16
objections to Request 40 at the motion hearing. The draft also neglected to address the PCC-related
17
HIPAA issues which had been discussed at the motion hearing.
18
10.
Later that day, Plaintiff revised the draft and returned it to Defendants, informing
19
Defendants that the draft continued to exceed the scope of what the Court had ordered. (See Exhibit 4
20
hereto; see also Exhibit C to Declaration of Mark A. Wasser re: Inability to File Stipulation Following
21
Discovery Hearing, Doc. 86).
22
11.
Later that day, Defendants returned a revised draft to Plaintiff that again reinstated
23
Defendants’ objections to Request 40 (which Defendants had withdrawn at the motion hearing) and
24
altered the last paragraph so as to make it unilaterally favorable to Defendants and essentially redundant
25
with the protective order language already agreed to in the Joint Scheduling Report (Doc. 26). (See
26
Exhibit D to Declaration of Mark A. Wasser re: Inability to File Stipulation Following Discovery
27
Hearing, Doc. 86)
28
12.
Plaintiff subsequently stated that Defendants’ draft again did not reflect what had been
DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE IN SUPPORT OF π’S REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE
3
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Document 87
Filed 01/23/2008
Page 4 of 21
1
ordered and agreed to at the motion hearing. Defendants responded by saying that they would be filing a
2
Declaration of Inability to File Stipulation. (See Exhibit 5 hereto).
3 4 5
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
6 7
Executed on January 23, 2008, at Los Angeles, California.
8 9 10
________________________________________ Eugene D. Lee
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE IN SUPPORT OF π’S REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE
4
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Document 87
Filed 01/23/2008
Page 5 of 21
1 2
EXHIBITS TO DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE
3 4 5
EXHIBIT 1. Meet and confer email from Plaintiff’s attorney to Defendants’ attorney, dated 1/18/08
6
EXHIBIT 2. Meet and confer email from Plaintiff’s attorney to Defendants’ attorney, dated 1/22/08
7
EXHIBIT 3. Meet and confer emails between Plaintiff’s attorney and Defendants’ attorney, dated 1/22/08 to 1/23/08
8 9
EXHIBIT 4. Meet and confer email from Plaintiff’s attorney to Defendants’ attorney, dated 1/23/08
10
EXHIBIT 5. Meet and confer emails between Plaintiff’s attorney and Defendants’ attorney, dated 1/23/08
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Document 87
Filed 01/23/2008
Page 6 of 21
EXHIBIT 1. Meet and confer email from Plaintiff’s attorney to Defendants’ attorney, dated 1/18/08
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Document 87
Filed 01/23/2008
Page 7 of 21
Eugene D. Lee From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:
Eugene D. Lee [[email protected]] Friday, January 18, 2008 2:32 PM '[email protected]' 'Joan Herrington' RE: Depositions
Follow Up Flag: Flag Status:
Follow up Completed
Mark, Thank you for your email. By the way, please send over the stipulations you had requested we enter into at the last motion hearing. FYI, Dr. Jadwin, his cousin, his assistant, Joan Herrington and I will be going to KMC at 10 a.m. on Feb 4. to inspect the PCC-related documents. We will have a local bonded copy service. Please let us know to whom at KMC we should report that morning (and subsequent mornings). Finally, I had overnight expressed the check to you reimbursing KMC for copy costs associated with the second document production installment (as well as Mr. Bryan’s depo-related expenses). You should have received it on Jan. 16. Please let me know if you did not. Have a pleasant weekend. 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.
From: Mark Wasser [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 1:55 PM To: Eugene Lee Subject: Depositions 1
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Document 87
Filed 01/23/2008
Page 8 of 21
EXHIBIT 2. Meet and confer email from Plaintiff’s attorney to Defendants’ attorney, dated 1/22/08
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Document 87
Eugene D. Lee From: Sent: To: Subject:
Eugene D. Lee [[email protected]] Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:37 AM '[email protected]' Jadwin/KC: RPD1 Meet and Confer
Follow Up Flag: Flag Status:
Follow up Completed
Mark, It was a pleasure speaking with you just now. Following is a recap of our discussion:
1
Filed 01/23/2008
Page 9 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Document 87
Filed 01/23/2008
32 Complaints against Core Physicians – TO BE PRODUCED 1/23/08
Page 10 of 21
(Narrowed to Core Physicians only)
33 Employee Complaints – TO BE PRODUCED 1/23/08 (Narrowed to complaints by past/present Core Physicians only, but includes internal and informal complaints) (OBJECTIONS WITHDRAWN)
40 JohnsonR Removal – TO BE PRODUCED 1/23/08 – YOU WILL SEND STIP DRAFT LATER TODAY (OBJECTIONS WITHDRAWN)
55 Placental Billing Audit – TO BE PRODUCED 1/23/08 (Narrowed to DFJrelated only) (OBJECTIONS WITHDRAWN)
57 PCC – YOU WILL SEND STIP DRAFT LATER TODAY 70 Path Peer Review – TO BE PRODUCED 1/23/08 (Narrowed to DFJrelated only)
71 Exceptional Event Logs – TO BE PRODUCED 1/23/08 (about halfinch thick pile)
72 Accession Logs – TO BE PRODUCED 1/23/08 (about halfinch thick pile)
2
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Document 87
Filed 01/23/2008
78 DFJ Placental Evaluations – TO BE PRODUCED 1/23/08
Page 11 of 21
11 Directories Home addresses to be redacted 26 DFJ Files – TO BE PRODUCED ON CDs 1/23/08 (OBJECTIONS WITHDRAWN)
43 October Conf Presentation – ALREADY PRODUCED (OBJECTIONS WITHDRAWN) In addition, I had mentioned to you that several bates-numbered pages in the first document production installment had been marked Privileged but had not been noted in the privilege log. You said you would look into the issue. I mentioned to you that Dr. Jadwin needs to schedule long-overdue surgery that will require up to 6 weeks recovery time but is holding off until his deposition is completed. I asked you to let me know when Defendants wish to continue with the deposition of Dr. Jadwin. You suggested February but said you would get back to me with a firmer date. If there’s anything you wish to discuss, please give me a call any time. 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.
3
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Document 87
Filed 01/23/2008
Page 12 of 21
EXHIBIT 3. Meet and confer emails between Plaintiff’s attorney and Defendants’ attorney, dated 1/22/08 to 1/23/08
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Document 87
Filed 01/23/2008
Page 13 of 21
Eugene D. Lee From: Sent: To: Subject:
Eugene D. Lee [[email protected]] Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:22 PM '[email protected]' RE: Stipulation re Supp Response to Request for Production
Hi Mark, Unfortunately, this issue appears to be consuming more of both of our time than is warranted. Judge Goldner ordered the parties to enter into two stipulations and orders. If you want to memorialize Defendants’ intention to comply with Plaintiff’s requests for the exceptional event logs, accession logs, and other documents and information, Defendants are welcome to do that by meet and confer email confirming that Defendants do indeed intend to produce documents responsive to Plaintiff’s requests. There’s no need to stipulate to Defendants’ compliance. I thought we had already established Defendants’ decision to comply in yesterday’s call, which I then followed up with confirmatory email confirming this understanding. As I recall, on the call, you had mentioned that the accession logs and exceptional event logs did not seem to bear on patient care issues. I responded that they bear on establishing retaliatory intent against Plaintiff (as I had stated at the motion hearing). You then said Defendants would produce. You also mentioned the placental evaluation documents and that Plaintiff’s interest seemed to be to substantiate billing fraud by Dr. Dutt. I agreed with that. You then said Defendants would produce. I then went over each of the outstanding document requests and we agreed on Defendants’ disclosure of those documents. I followed this up with a confirmatory email to memorialize our discussion. Your draft stip in its current overly broad form changes and narrows Plaintiff’s requests in ways which Plaintiff never agreed to. Just by way of example, the stip states Defendants will only produce Royce Johnson’s personnel files, in response to Plaintiff’s request for all documents relating to Dr. Johnson’s removal. We never discussed this, either at the hearing or afterward, and Plaintiff will not agree to such a narrowing of its request. I would greatly appreciate it if you were to limit the draft stip & order to what Judge Goldner had ordered. 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
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Document 87
Filed 01/23/2008
Page 14 of 21
From: Mark Wasser [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 9:33 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Stipulation re Supp Response to Request for Production Gene, I think the stipulation should address the agreements we made at the hearing. There is good reason to memorialize them somewhere. We are not limited to just two issues. Judge Goldner asked me to inform her no later than today, for example, if we had been able to reach agreement on the exceptional event logs and accession logs. Including them in the stipulation makes sense for that reason alone. If you won’t sign it, then you won’t sign it but I suggest you reconsider the draft. It is a good draft. If I need to narrow it to just two issues, I will but I prefer to leave it the way it is. Mark
From: Eugene D. Lee [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 9:41 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Stipulation re Supp Response to Request for Production
Hi Mark, Thank you for your email. I’ve looked at your draft stip. I regret to say I’m not comfortable signing it. I feel it goes substantially beyond the scope of what the Judge had ordered. I don’t think that’s necessary or desirable. As you will recall, Judge Goldner had ordered the parties to enter into a Stip & Order regarding two issues only (both at Defendants’ insistence): (1) disclosure of Royce Johnson’s personnel file does not constitute a waiver by Defendant of Defendants’ objections to producing personnel files in general and (2) stip & protective order re PCC-related HIPAA patient information. I would add that Plaintiff is not willing to stip that production of Royce Johnson’s personnel file alone fulfills Request 40 (Plaintiff seeks all removal-related documents) or otherwise narrow any other discovery requests outside of what was ordered by Judge Goldner. May I suggest you pare down the stip to the above items only? If you wish to discuss this, please feel free to contact me at any time. Thank you. Sincerely, Gene Lee ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
LAW
OFFICE
OF
EUGENE
EMPLOYMENT
LAW
555 WEST FIFTH ST., STE. 3100 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 Tel: (213)992-3299 Fax: (213)596-0487 E - m a i l : [email protected] 2
LEE
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG W eDocument 87 Filed 01/23/2008 b s i t e : www.LOEL.com
Page 15 of 21
B l o g : www.CaLaborLaw.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.
From: Mark Wasser [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 1:53 PM To: Eugene Lee Subject: Stipulation re Supp Response to Request for Production Gene, Here is a draft stipulation for your review. Mark
3
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Document 87
Filed 01/23/2008
Page 16 of 21
EXHIBIT 4. Meet and confer email from Plaintiff’s attorney to Defendants’ attorney, dated 1/23/08
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Document 87
Filed 01/23/2008
Page 17 of 21
Eugene D. Lee From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments:
Eugene D. Lee [[email protected]] Wednesday, January 23, 2008 1:18 PM '[email protected]' Jadwin/KC: Stipulation re RPD1 Stipulation - RPD1_080122.doc
Hi Mark, Thank you for your email and the draft stip. As you may recall, Defendants had withdrawn objections to Request 40. Also, at the hearing, we had discussed including HIPAA in the stip. I’ve made the suggested revisions in the attached for your review. Regarding the Plaintiff’s upcoming depositions, Plaintiff will need to postpone them to a later mutually agreeable time. Please let the deponents know so that they don’t incur any charges. I will contact you shortly with new dates. Yesterday you had mentioned you would be personally serving the latest supplemental document production on me on January 29, day one of the depositions. Since the depositions won’t take place, please just deliver them to my office. If you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank 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.
1
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Document 87
Filed 01/23/2008
Page 18 of 21
EXHIBIT 5. Meet and confer emails between Plaintiff’s attorney and Defendants’ attorney, dated 1/23/08
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Document 87
Filed 01/23/2008
Page 19 of 21
Eugene D. Lee From: Sent: To: Subject:
Eugene D. Lee [[email protected]] Wednesday, January 23, 2008 4:39 PM '[email protected]' RE: Draft stipulation
Hi Mark, To ensure that there is no misunderstanding, Plaintiff did not ask for any language in the stip regarding objections being or not being withdrawn. Defendants added that language unilaterally. My understanding is that the stip was to establish that Defendants’ disclosure of the Royce Johnson personnel file did not constitute a waiver as to other personnel files. Defendants took it upon themselves to broaden the scope of the stip beyond what was discussed and agreed. It appears we will need to review the transcript of the hearing. 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.
From: Mark Wasser [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:33 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Draft stipulation Gene, No. I will not agree to what you ask. You are asking for more than we agreed to in Court. I will prepare a declaration and report to the Court that we cannot agree to a written version of what we agreed to in open court. Mark
1
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
From: Eugene D. Lee [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:25 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Draft stipulation
Document 87
Filed 01/23/2008
Page 20 of 21
Mark, The draft you sent me does NOT reflect what was agreed to at the hearing. You are on record as saying at the hearing that you withdrew objections to Request 40. You said you wanted a stip that disclosure of Royce Johnson’s personnel file would not represent a waiver of objections as to other personnel files. We can review the hearing transcript if you wish. Also, you already have a protective order in place in the Joint Scheduling Report. There’s no need to deal with it again here. If you won’t agree to the sentence I’ve added, then you need to narrow the last paragraph to HIPAArelated confidentiality as to the PCCs only. That is what was decided at the hearing, no more no less. I won’t be available for much longer. If we can’t stop bickering over this stip and agree to something soon, we won’t be able to file anything today. 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.
From: Mark Wasser [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:09 PM To: Eugene Lee Subject: Draft stipulation Gene, Here it is again. I do not agree to some of your changes. We are not withdrawing our objections to the Royce Johnson personnel file. We are producing it subject to the objections. We have never even discussed the sentence you added that would require us to produce all patient, peer review and personnel records. Where did you come up with that? 2
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Document 87
Mark
3
Filed 01/23/2008
Page 21 of 21
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Document 87
Filed 01/23/2008
Page 1 of 21
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., Plaintiff,
15 16 17
Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG DECLARATION OF EUGENE LEE re INABILITY TO RESOLVE DISCOVERY DISPUTES
v. COUNTY OF KERN; et al. Defendants.
18 19
Date Action Filed: Date Set for Trial:
January 6, 2007 December 3, 2008
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
I, Eugene D. Lee, declare and say, as follows: 1.
I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before the Federal and State Courts of
California and admitted to practice before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. I am the attorney representing Plaintiff David F. Jadwin in this matter. 2.
I am making this declaration pursuant to the Order of the Honorable Theresa A. Goldner
DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE IN SUPPORT OF π’S REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE
1
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Document 87
Filed 01/23/2008
Page 2 of 21
1
to provide the Court with a status update on discussions with Defendants regarding discovery disputes
2
subsequent to the hearing before the Court on January 14, 2008, on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
3
Production and Responses (Doc. 82). The facts stated herein are personally known to me and if called as
4
a witness, I could and would competently testify to the truth of the facts set forth in this declaration.
5
3.
The current dispute between the parties apparently involves only the stipulations which
6
Defendants had requested, and the Court had ordered, the parties enter into at the motion hearing.
7
Plaintiff is not willing to enter into stipulations with Defendants which exceed or alter what was ordered
8
and agreed to at the motion hearing.
9
4.
Defendants have not stated any objections to producing documents in response to
10
Plaintiff’s requests 11, 26, 32, 33, 40, 43, 55, 57, 70, 71, 72, 78 as narrowed or clarified by Plaintiff at
11
the motion hearing. Plaintiff’s current understanding, based on the phone call of January 22, 2008 (See ¶
12
7 below), is that Defendants will indeed produce all such responsive documents by January 29, 2008.
13
Thus, there does not at the moment appear to be any dispute between the parties regarding actual
14
production in response to Plaintiff’s requests.
15
5.
At the hearing, the Court had ordered the parties to submit stipulations and orders
16
regarding two issues, both at Defendants’ prompting: 1) that Defendants’ disclosure of Dr. Royce
17
Johnson’s personnel file in response to Plaintiff’s request for production no. 40 would not constitute a
18
waiver by Defendants of privileges and objections relating to requests for disclosure of the personnel
19
files of other persons; and 2) that in inspecting and copying unredacted product chart copy (PCC) files at
20
Kern Medical Center’s offices, Plaintiff would preserve and protect the confidentiality of any patient
21
medical information protected under HIPAA. The parties agreed that Defendants would draft and send
22
stipulations and orders to Plaintiff for its consideration.
23
6.
On Friday, January 18, 2008, Plaintiff sent an email to Defendants requesting they send
24
over the draft stipulations and orders, making arrangements to review product chart copy (PCC)
25
documents at Kern Medical Center’s offices, and notifying Defendants that Plaintiff had remitted a
26
check in reimbursement of Defendants’ discovery-related photocopy costs, as had been ordered by the
27
Court. (See Exhibit 1 hereto).
28
7.
On Tuesday, January 22, 2008, Plaintiff and Defendants met and conferred by phone
DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE IN SUPPORT OF π’S REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE
2
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Document 87
Filed 01/23/2008
Page 3 of 21
1
regarding the outstanding discovery disagreements, pursuant to the Court’s order. Defendants confirmed
2
that they would produce all documents in accordance with the document requests as narrowed down or
3
clarified by Plaintiff at the motion hearing by January 29, 2008. Plaintiff sent a confirmatory email to
4
Defendants regarding the phone call. (See Exhibit 2 hereto).
5
8.
Later that day, Defendants sent Plaintiff a draft stipulation. (See Exhibit A to Declaration
6
of Mark A. Wasser re: Inability to File Stipulation Following Discovery Hearing, Doc. 86). The
7
stipulation substantially exceeded the scope of what had been ordered or agreed to at the motion hearing.
8
The stipulation also attempted, among other things, to narrow Plaintiff’s requests for production beyond
9
what had been agreed to at the motion hearing and reinstituted objections to Request 40, which
10
Defendants had specifically withdrawn at the motion hearing. Plaintiff so informed Defendants and
11
asked Defendants to scale back the stipulation to what the Court had ordered. (See Exhibit 3 hereto).
12
9.
On Wednesday, January 23, 2008, Defendants sent Plaintiff a revised draft stipulation
13
(See Exhibit B to Declaration of Mark A. Wasser re: Inability to File Stipulation Following Discovery
14
Hearing, Doc. 86). The draft included additional language that Defendants were not waiving or
15
withdrawing objections to Request 40 even though Defendants had agreed to withdraw all
16
objections to Request 40 at the motion hearing. The draft also neglected to address the PCC-related
17
HIPAA issues which had been discussed at the motion hearing.
18
10.
Later that day, Plaintiff revised the draft and returned it to Defendants, informing
19
Defendants that the draft continued to exceed the scope of what the Court had ordered. (See Exhibit 4
20
hereto; see also Exhibit C to Declaration of Mark A. Wasser re: Inability to File Stipulation Following
21
Discovery Hearing, Doc. 86).
22
11.
Later that day, Defendants returned a revised draft to Plaintiff that again reinstated
23
Defendants’ objections to Request 40 (which Defendants had withdrawn at the motion hearing) and
24
altered the last paragraph so as to make it unilaterally favorable to Defendants and essentially redundant
25
with the protective order language already agreed to in the Joint Scheduling Report (Doc. 26). (See
26
Exhibit D to Declaration of Mark A. Wasser re: Inability to File Stipulation Following Discovery
27
Hearing, Doc. 86)
28
12.
Plaintiff subsequently stated that Defendants’ draft again did not reflect what had been
DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE IN SUPPORT OF π’S REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE
3
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Document 87
Filed 01/23/2008
Page 4 of 21
1
ordered and agreed to at the motion hearing. Defendants responded by saying that they would be filing a
2
Declaration of Inability to File Stipulation. (See Exhibit 5 hereto).
3 4 5
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
6 7
Executed on January 23, 2008, at Los Angeles, California.
8 9 10
________________________________________ Eugene D. Lee
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE IN SUPPORT OF π’S REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE
4
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Document 87
Filed 01/23/2008
Page 5 of 21
1 2
EXHIBITS TO DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE
3 4 5
EXHIBIT 1. Meet and confer email from Plaintiff’s attorney to Defendants’ attorney, dated 1/18/08
6
EXHIBIT 2. Meet and confer email from Plaintiff’s attorney to Defendants’ attorney, dated 1/22/08
7
EXHIBIT 3. Meet and confer emails between Plaintiff’s attorney and Defendants’ attorney, dated 1/22/08 to 1/23/08
8 9
EXHIBIT 4. Meet and confer email from Plaintiff’s attorney to Defendants’ attorney, dated 1/23/08
10
EXHIBIT 5. Meet and confer emails between Plaintiff’s attorney and Defendants’ attorney, dated 1/23/08
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Document 87
Filed 01/23/2008
Page 6 of 21
EXHIBIT 1. Meet and confer email from Plaintiff’s attorney to Defendants’ attorney, dated 1/18/08
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Document 87
Filed 01/23/2008
Page 7 of 21
Eugene D. Lee From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:
Eugene D. Lee [[email protected]] Friday, January 18, 2008 2:32 PM '[email protected]' 'Joan Herrington' RE: Depositions
Follow Up Flag: Flag Status:
Follow up Completed
Mark, Thank you for your email. By the way, please send over the stipulations you had requested we enter into at the last motion hearing. FYI, Dr. Jadwin, his cousin, his assistant, Joan Herrington and I will be going to KMC at 10 a.m. on Feb 4. to inspect the PCC-related documents. We will have a local bonded copy service. Please let us know to whom at KMC we should report that morning (and subsequent mornings). Finally, I had overnight expressed the check to you reimbursing KMC for copy costs associated with the second document production installment (as well as Mr. Bryan’s depo-related expenses). You should have received it on Jan. 16. Please let me know if you did not. Have a pleasant weekend. 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.
From: Mark Wasser [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 1:55 PM To: Eugene Lee Subject: Depositions 1
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Document 87
Filed 01/23/2008
Page 8 of 21
EXHIBIT 2. Meet and confer email from Plaintiff’s attorney to Defendants’ attorney, dated 1/22/08
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Document 87
Eugene D. Lee From: Sent: To: Subject:
Eugene D. Lee [[email protected]] Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:37 AM '[email protected]' Jadwin/KC: RPD1 Meet and Confer
Follow Up Flag: Flag Status:
Follow up Completed
Mark, It was a pleasure speaking with you just now. Following is a recap of our discussion:
1
Filed 01/23/2008
Page 9 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Document 87
Filed 01/23/2008
32 Complaints against Core Physicians – TO BE PRODUCED 1/23/08
Page 10 of 21
(Narrowed to Core Physicians only)
33 Employee Complaints – TO BE PRODUCED 1/23/08 (Narrowed to complaints by past/present Core Physicians only, but includes internal and informal complaints) (OBJECTIONS WITHDRAWN)
40 JohnsonR Removal – TO BE PRODUCED 1/23/08 – YOU WILL SEND STIP DRAFT LATER TODAY (OBJECTIONS WITHDRAWN)
55 Placental Billing Audit – TO BE PRODUCED 1/23/08 (Narrowed to DFJrelated only) (OBJECTIONS WITHDRAWN)
57 PCC – YOU WILL SEND STIP DRAFT LATER TODAY 70 Path Peer Review – TO BE PRODUCED 1/23/08 (Narrowed to DFJrelated only)
71 Exceptional Event Logs – TO BE PRODUCED 1/23/08 (about halfinch thick pile)
72 Accession Logs – TO BE PRODUCED 1/23/08 (about halfinch thick pile)
2
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Document 87
Filed 01/23/2008
78 DFJ Placental Evaluations – TO BE PRODUCED 1/23/08
Page 11 of 21
11 Directories Home addresses to be redacted 26 DFJ Files – TO BE PRODUCED ON CDs 1/23/08 (OBJECTIONS WITHDRAWN)
43 October Conf Presentation – ALREADY PRODUCED (OBJECTIONS WITHDRAWN) In addition, I had mentioned to you that several bates-numbered pages in the first document production installment had been marked Privileged but had not been noted in the privilege log. You said you would look into the issue. I mentioned to you that Dr. Jadwin needs to schedule long-overdue surgery that will require up to 6 weeks recovery time but is holding off until his deposition is completed. I asked you to let me know when Defendants wish to continue with the deposition of Dr. Jadwin. You suggested February but said you would get back to me with a firmer date. If there’s anything you wish to discuss, please give me a call any time. 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.
3
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Document 87
Filed 01/23/2008
Page 12 of 21
EXHIBIT 3. Meet and confer emails between Plaintiff’s attorney and Defendants’ attorney, dated 1/22/08 to 1/23/08
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Document 87
Filed 01/23/2008
Page 13 of 21
Eugene D. Lee From: Sent: To: Subject:
Eugene D. Lee [[email protected]] Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:22 PM '[email protected]' RE: Stipulation re Supp Response to Request for Production
Hi Mark, Unfortunately, this issue appears to be consuming more of both of our time than is warranted. Judge Goldner ordered the parties to enter into two stipulations and orders. If you want to memorialize Defendants’ intention to comply with Plaintiff’s requests for the exceptional event logs, accession logs, and other documents and information, Defendants are welcome to do that by meet and confer email confirming that Defendants do indeed intend to produce documents responsive to Plaintiff’s requests. There’s no need to stipulate to Defendants’ compliance. I thought we had already established Defendants’ decision to comply in yesterday’s call, which I then followed up with confirmatory email confirming this understanding. As I recall, on the call, you had mentioned that the accession logs and exceptional event logs did not seem to bear on patient care issues. I responded that they bear on establishing retaliatory intent against Plaintiff (as I had stated at the motion hearing). You then said Defendants would produce. You also mentioned the placental evaluation documents and that Plaintiff’s interest seemed to be to substantiate billing fraud by Dr. Dutt. I agreed with that. You then said Defendants would produce. I then went over each of the outstanding document requests and we agreed on Defendants’ disclosure of those documents. I followed this up with a confirmatory email to memorialize our discussion. Your draft stip in its current overly broad form changes and narrows Plaintiff’s requests in ways which Plaintiff never agreed to. Just by way of example, the stip states Defendants will only produce Royce Johnson’s personnel files, in response to Plaintiff’s request for all documents relating to Dr. Johnson’s removal. We never discussed this, either at the hearing or afterward, and Plaintiff will not agree to such a narrowing of its request. I would greatly appreciate it if you were to limit the draft stip & order to what Judge Goldner had ordered. 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
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Document 87
Filed 01/23/2008
Page 14 of 21
From: Mark Wasser [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 9:33 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Stipulation re Supp Response to Request for Production Gene, I think the stipulation should address the agreements we made at the hearing. There is good reason to memorialize them somewhere. We are not limited to just two issues. Judge Goldner asked me to inform her no later than today, for example, if we had been able to reach agreement on the exceptional event logs and accession logs. Including them in the stipulation makes sense for that reason alone. If you won’t sign it, then you won’t sign it but I suggest you reconsider the draft. It is a good draft. If I need to narrow it to just two issues, I will but I prefer to leave it the way it is. Mark
From: Eugene D. Lee [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 9:41 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Stipulation re Supp Response to Request for Production
Hi Mark, Thank you for your email. I’ve looked at your draft stip. I regret to say I’m not comfortable signing it. I feel it goes substantially beyond the scope of what the Judge had ordered. I don’t think that’s necessary or desirable. As you will recall, Judge Goldner had ordered the parties to enter into a Stip & Order regarding two issues only (both at Defendants’ insistence): (1) disclosure of Royce Johnson’s personnel file does not constitute a waiver by Defendant of Defendants’ objections to producing personnel files in general and (2) stip & protective order re PCC-related HIPAA patient information. I would add that Plaintiff is not willing to stip that production of Royce Johnson’s personnel file alone fulfills Request 40 (Plaintiff seeks all removal-related documents) or otherwise narrow any other discovery requests outside of what was ordered by Judge Goldner. May I suggest you pare down the stip to the above items only? If you wish to discuss this, please feel free to contact me at any time. Thank you. Sincerely, Gene Lee ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
LAW
OFFICE
OF
EUGENE
EMPLOYMENT
LAW
555 WEST FIFTH ST., STE. 3100 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 Tel: (213)992-3299 Fax: (213)596-0487 E - m a i l : [email protected] 2
LEE
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG W eDocument 87 Filed 01/23/2008 b s i t e : www.LOEL.com
Page 15 of 21
B l o g : www.CaLaborLaw.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.
From: Mark Wasser [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 1:53 PM To: Eugene Lee Subject: Stipulation re Supp Response to Request for Production Gene, Here is a draft stipulation for your review. Mark
3
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Document 87
Filed 01/23/2008
Page 16 of 21
EXHIBIT 4. Meet and confer email from Plaintiff’s attorney to Defendants’ attorney, dated 1/23/08
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Document 87
Filed 01/23/2008
Page 17 of 21
Eugene D. Lee From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments:
Eugene D. Lee [[email protected]] Wednesday, January 23, 2008 1:18 PM '[email protected]' Jadwin/KC: Stipulation re RPD1 Stipulation - RPD1_080122.doc
Hi Mark, Thank you for your email and the draft stip. As you may recall, Defendants had withdrawn objections to Request 40. Also, at the hearing, we had discussed including HIPAA in the stip. I’ve made the suggested revisions in the attached for your review. Regarding the Plaintiff’s upcoming depositions, Plaintiff will need to postpone them to a later mutually agreeable time. Please let the deponents know so that they don’t incur any charges. I will contact you shortly with new dates. Yesterday you had mentioned you would be personally serving the latest supplemental document production on me on January 29, day one of the depositions. Since the depositions won’t take place, please just deliver them to my office. If you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank 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.
1
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Document 87
Filed 01/23/2008
Page 18 of 21
EXHIBIT 5. Meet and confer emails between Plaintiff’s attorney and Defendants’ attorney, dated 1/23/08
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Document 87
Filed 01/23/2008
Page 19 of 21
Eugene D. Lee From: Sent: To: Subject:
Eugene D. Lee [[email protected]] Wednesday, January 23, 2008 4:39 PM '[email protected]' RE: Draft stipulation
Hi Mark, To ensure that there is no misunderstanding, Plaintiff did not ask for any language in the stip regarding objections being or not being withdrawn. Defendants added that language unilaterally. My understanding is that the stip was to establish that Defendants’ disclosure of the Royce Johnson personnel file did not constitute a waiver as to other personnel files. Defendants took it upon themselves to broaden the scope of the stip beyond what was discussed and agreed. It appears we will need to review the transcript of the hearing. 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.
From: Mark Wasser [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:33 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Draft stipulation Gene, No. I will not agree to what you ask. You are asking for more than we agreed to in Court. I will prepare a declaration and report to the Court that we cannot agree to a written version of what we agreed to in open court. Mark
1
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
From: Eugene D. Lee [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:25 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Draft stipulation
Document 87
Filed 01/23/2008
Page 20 of 21
Mark, The draft you sent me does NOT reflect what was agreed to at the hearing. You are on record as saying at the hearing that you withdrew objections to Request 40. You said you wanted a stip that disclosure of Royce Johnson’s personnel file would not represent a waiver of objections as to other personnel files. We can review the hearing transcript if you wish. Also, you already have a protective order in place in the Joint Scheduling Report. There’s no need to deal with it again here. If you won’t agree to the sentence I’ve added, then you need to narrow the last paragraph to HIPAArelated confidentiality as to the PCCs only. That is what was decided at the hearing, no more no less. I won’t be available for much longer. If we can’t stop bickering over this stip and agree to something soon, we won’t be able to file anything today. 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.
From: Mark Wasser [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:09 PM To: Eugene Lee Subject: Draft stipulation Gene, Here it is again. I do not agree to some of your changes. We are not withdrawing our objections to the Royce Johnson personnel file. We are producing it subject to the objections. We have never even discussed the sentence you added that would require us to produce all patient, peer review and personnel records. Where did you come up with that? 2
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Document 87
Mark
3
Filed 01/23/2008
Page 21 of 21
Related Documents
86 Declaration Re Inability To File Stip
May 2020 6
Resolve
July 2020 14
How To Resolve Loops
May 2020 7More Documents from ""
141 Request For Recon - Kc Opp
May 2020 3
56 Kc Mx Protective Order
May 2020 11
137 Stip & Order Re Privacy Po - Signed
May 2020 3
110 Kc Msc Notice Of Statement
May 2020 4
275-283 D Msj Opp
May 2020 7