PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION AND FURTHER RESPONSES 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Eugene D. Lee SB# 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: elee@LOEL.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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

COUNTY OF KERN; et al.
Defendants.

Case No. 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION BY THE DISTRICT
COURT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
COMPEL PRODUCTION AND FURTHER
RESPONSES

[28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Local Rule 72-303]

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

Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O. (“Plaintiff”) respectfully submits the following points and
authorities in support of his request for reconsideration of Magistrate Judge Theresa A. Goldner’s May
9, 2008 order (“Order”) granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff’s motion to compel production and
further responses by Defendant to requests for production, set one (“RPD1”). (Doc. 124).
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff David F. Jadwin, D.O., F.C.A.P., former Chair of Pathology at Kern Medical Center
(“KMC”) and senior pathologist since 2000, filed a complaint on January 6, 2007. The complaint
alleges, among other things, that Defendants engaged in the following illegal acts: defamation,
whistleblower retaliation, disability discrimination and failure to accommodate, medical leave
interference and retaliation, demotion and pay reduction without due process, and Fair Labor Standard
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 1 of 101




PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION AND FURTHER RESPONSES 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Act violations. When Plaintiff began reporting several patient care quality issues at KMC starting in
2001, Defendants responded by singling out and targeting Plaintiff for harassment, retaliation and
humiliation over the course of the next six years. In 2005, Defendants’ conduct finally caused Plaintiff
to suffer clinical depression. When Plaintiff began reduced work schedule sick leave in 2006 to treat his
depression, Defendants responded by demoting him and retaliating against him further, effectively
ending Plaintiff’s pathology chair career.
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On October 11, 2007, Plaintiff David F. Jadwin (“Plaintiff”) served Requests for Production of
Documents (“RPD1”) on Defendant County of Kern (“Defendant”).
On November 20, 2007, Defendant served initial responses to Plaintiff’s RPD1 (“Response 1”).
Thereafter, Plaintiff met and conferred extensively with Defendant in an attempt to resolve discovery
disputes.
On December 21, 2007, Plaintiff was forced to file a motion to compel production and further
responses to RPD1 (Doc. 82).
On January 14, 2008, Plaintiff’s motion was heard by Magistrate Judge Theresa Goldner. At the
hearing, Defendant withdrew objections to Requests 32, 33 and 40, among others. (See Exhibit 1, 6:10-
15 and Exhibit 2, 20:16-19).
On May 9, 2008, Magistrate Judge Goldner issued the Order granting in part and denying in part
Plaintiff’s motion to compel production and further responses to RPD1. (Doc. 124, Exhibit 2).
III. AUTHORITY FOR MOTION
A District Court judge may reconsider pre-trial matters where it has been shown that the
magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Local Rule
72-303. A motion to reconsider is appropriate if the court committed clear error or the initial decision
was manifestly unjust. School District No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263
(9th Cir. 1993).
IV. ARGUMENT
Plaintiff contends that the Order with regard to Request Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 28, 29, 30, 32,
33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 45, 51, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 65, 66, 67, 70, 71, 72, 73, and 78, is clearly
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 2 of 101




PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION AND FURTHER RESPONSES 3
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
erroneous and contrary to law.
A. Assertion of “Confidential Personnel Privilege” under Cal. Ev. C. § 1040 Does Not
Appear to Support Construing an Assertion of Federal Privacy Privilege
The Court held that wherever Defendant asserted “confidential personnel privilege” under
California Evidence Code § 1040 (§ 1157 only pertains to peer review privilege) as an objection, the
Court would sua sponte construe that as an assertion of federal privacy privilege:
Here, nearly all of Defendants’ discovery responses assert a “confidential personnel
privilege” without citing a specific source of law for the privilege. At the hearing on the
motion, Defendants’ counsel relied on California Evidence Code §§ 1040 and 1157 as
the source of this privilege. To the extent that Defendants assert a “confidential
personnel privilege” as a state law privilege, it is inapplicable for the same reasons that
the state law peer review privilege is inapplicable: state law privileges have no
application in federal question cases. Agster, 433 F. 3d at 838-839. However, given the
nature of documents requested and the reasons given for objecting to their disclosure,
the Court construes the assertion of this privilege as also raising a right of privacy.
(Order, 5:3-12) (emphasis added).

Using this approach, the Court sua sponte asserted the objection of federal privacy privilege with regard
to a large number of Plaintiff’s Requests – Request Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 36, 37,
38, 39, 40, 41, 45, 51, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 65, 66, 67, 70, 71, 72, 73, 78. The Court then engaged in a
balancing test and concluded in every instance that a protective order was required.
However, the “confidential personnel privilege” under California Evidence Code § 1040 does
implicate the constitutional right of privacy recognized by federal law. Cal. Ev. C. § 1040 states in
relevant part:
§ 1040. Privilege for official information
(a) As used in this section, "official information" means information acquired in
confidence by a public employee in the course of his or her duty and not open, or
officially disclosed, to the public prior to the time the claim of privilege is made.
(b) A public entity has a privilege to refuse to disclose official information, and to
prevent another from disclosing official information, if the privilege is claimed by a
person authorized by the public entity to do so and:
(1) Disclosure is forbidden by an act of the Congress of the United States or a statute of
this state; or
(2) Disclosure of the information is against the public interest because there is a
necessity for preserving the confidentiality of the information that outweighs the
necessity for disclosure in the interest of justice; but no privilege may be claimed under
this paragraph if any person authorized to do so has consented that the information be
disclosed in the proceeding. In determining whether disclosure of the information is
against the public interest, the interest of the public entity as a party in the outcome of
the proceeding may not be considered.

Defendant’s assertion of “confidential personnel privilege” concerns the conditional
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 3 of 101




PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION AND FURTHER RESPONSES 4
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
governmental privilege against disclosure of official information by public entities and public employees
whenever such disclosure is against the public interest. Put another way, it is a privilege that is intended
to enable the government to protect its state secrets.
To the extent the Court is construing Defendant’s confidential personnel privilege as raising
privacy concerns regarding County personnel records, which are at the center of several of Plaintiff’s
requests, it should be noted that federal courts, including the 9
th
Circuit, routinely order performance and
pay data regarding other employees of a defendant to be produced, over the privacy objections of
employers. See Garrett v. City & County of San Francisco, 818 F.2d 1515, 44 FEP Cases 865, 868 (9th
Cir. 1987)(personnel records of 16 other firefighters ordered produced despite privacy objection since
documents are relevant to claim that black firefighters and white firefighters received different
disciplinary sanctions for the same or similar offenses); Fritz v. Communications Test Design, 72 FEP
Cases 1505, 1506 (E.D. Pa. 1997)(performance reviews of plaintiff’s co-workers ordered to be
produced where co-workers expected to testify for defendant employer); Peterson v. City College, 70
FEP Cases 259, 261 (S.D. N.Y. 1994)(female professor alleging sex and age discrimination in denial of
tenure entitled to discover personnel files of younger and male professors); Yee v. Multnomah County,
53 FEP Cases 623,623-64(D. Ore. 1990)(employer ordered to produce personnel files for all other
employees in the plaintiff’s department).
To the extent any Request requires production of personnel files of other employees of
Defendant, such files are highly relevant to numerous issues in this action, including, but not limited to,
what the real criteria are for punishing “arrogant” behavior, granting medical/sick leaves, investigating
complaints, etc., whether those criteria were applied to Plaintiff in the same manner as his peers, and
whether Plaintiff was judged unduly harshly compared to others. There exists good cause to produce the
personnel file-type documents that Plaintiff has requested.
B. Neither Plaintiff Nor Defendant Were Able to Provide Input into the Court’s Privacy
Balancing Test
Resolution of a privacy objection . . . requires a balancing of the need for the
information sought against the privacy right asserted." Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 616; Johnson
ex rel. Johnson, 971 F.2d at 1497. The privacy objection also "must be evaluated against
the backdrop of the strong public interest in uncovering civil rights violations. . . ." Soto,
162 F.R.D. at 621. Furthermore, "a carefully drafted protective order [can] minimize the
impact of this disclosure." Soto, 162 F.R.D. at 616; Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D.
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 4 of 101




PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION AND FURTHER RESPONSES 5
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
653, 662 (N.D. Cal. 1987)
Keith H. v. Long Beach Unified Sch. Dist., 228 F.R.D. 652, 657 (C.D. Cal. 2005).

Upon construing the assertion of federal privacy privilege in the Order, the Court applied a
privacy balancing test to Request Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 45,
51, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 65, 66, 67, 70, 71, 72, 73, and 78 and concluded that a protective order was
required in every case. But with the exception of Request No. 40, input was not permitted to be given by
Plaintiff – as to his compelling need for the documents requested by each Request – or Defendant – as to
the third-party privacy interests at issue in each Request. The outcome of the Court’s privacy balancing
test was an a priori conclusion that a protective order was necessary in every case without exception.
The Court then ordered Plaintiff to meet and confer with Defendant on each Request and to negotiate a
federal right of privacy protective order within 5 days of issuance of the Order. However, the parties
have no guidance as to which privacy interests should yield to which pressing discovery needs of
Plaintiff. The parties’ first attempt at a joint stipulation and protective order (Doc. 128, Exhibit 4) was
rejected by the Court and the parties were ordered to submit a revised stipulation and protective order
(Doc. 131, Exhibit 5).
Defendant did not assert the federal privacy privilege during the meet and confer process, nor in
their motion briefing nor at the hearing, nor was it ever discussed. The Court asserted the federal privacy
privilege sua sponte for the first time in the Order. Plaintiff was not afforded any opportunity to submit
briefing or be heard on the federal privacy privilege or the balancing test as to all of the above Requests,
with the exception of Request No. 40. Even with respect to Request No. 40, Plaintiff is still ignorant of
the privacy concerns which Defendant has been construed to raise since Defendant did not specify any
privacy objections beyond a boilerplate assertion of “confidential personnel privilege” in meet and
confers, motion briefing and at the hearing itself.
It should be noted that, during the four months preceding the Court’s issuance of the Order,
Defendant chose to produce most of the documents responsive to the above Requests. In so doing,
Defendant engaged in little to no redaction of personal identifying information. Nevertheless, Plaintiff
remains concerned about the application of the Court’s protective order to future supplemental
productions by Defendant.
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 5 of 101




PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION AND FURTHER RESPONSES 6
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
C. The Court’s Protective Order with Regard to Request Nos. 32, 33, 63 and 70 Is
Overbroad
Request Nos. 32, 33, 63 and 70 are reproduced below, along with Defendant’s responses:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR discipline of any employee against
whom a complaint or grievance of discrimination, harassment, defamation, retaliation,
failure to accommodate, and/or failure to engage in an interactive process in their
employment was made from October 24, 2000 to date.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 63
[All objections withdrawn by Defendant at hearing. (See Exhibit 1)]


REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO complaints or grievances made by YOUR
past or present employees against YOU for defamation, retaliation, disability
discrimination, failure to accommodate, and/or failure to engage in an interactive
process, including but not limited to any informal or internal complaints, grievances or
charges to any state or federal agency, and complaints filed in any state or federal court
from October 24, 2000 to date.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 63
[All objections withdrawn by Defendant at hearing. (See Exhibit 1)]


REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 63
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO meeting minutes for the following Kern
Medical Center committees or groups from October 24, 2000 to the present:
a) Medical Executive Committee
b) Joint Conference Committee
c) Quality Management Committee
d) Cancer Committee
e) Second Level Peer Review Committee
f) Transfusion Committee
g) Executive Staff Meetings

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 63
Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain
confidential personnel information or information that is protected from disclosure by
state or federal law, including HIPAA and the peer review privilege, or documents that
are subject to the attorney/client privilege. Without waiving these objections, Defendants
will produce documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007. Defendants
will redact confidential or privileged information as appropriate.


REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 70
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO peer review RELATING TO Kern Medical
Center’s Pathology Department during the time period from January 1, 1995 to the
present, including but not limited to computer-generated data, monthly peer review
records completed by pathologists, and peer review comment sheets that are completed
by pathologists upon discovery of a discrepancy.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 70
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 6 of 101




PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION AND FURTHER RESPONSES 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendants object to this request on the ground that it requests privileged peer-review
information. Defendants also object on the ground that it requests information that is
confidential under HIPAA and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce
documents responsive to this request by January 7, 2008 if it is possible to redact the
confidential and privileged information without rendering the resulting document
useless.

With regard to Request Nos. 32, 33, 63 and 70, the Court concluded that a protective order was
necessary and took the further step of ordering Defendant to redact all personal identifying information
for all employees of Defendant (other than the Plaintiff). Plaintiff respectfully submits that the protective
order is overbroad and will render the documents requested effectively useless. Moreover, it is difficult
to discern what federal privacy interest is implicated by Plaintiff’s knowing the identities of the persons
who, with regard to Request No. 63 for instance, transcribed meeting minutes or attended certain
committee meetings.
D. It was Error to Construe the Assertion of Federal Privacy Privilege Where
“Confidential Personnel Privilege” under Cal. Ev. C. § 1040 Was Not Being Asserted at All
With regard to Request Nos. 32, 33, 40, and 70, Defendant did not assert a confidential personnel
privilege; hence, a federal privacy privilege should not have been construed as to these Requests.
Regarding Requests Nos. 32, 33 and 40, Defendant had withdrawn all objections at the January
14, 2007 hearing. As Defendant stated in the draft stipulation which they proposed to Plaintiff following
the January 14, 2008 hearing:
Plaintiff has amended Request No. 32 to limit it to complaints or grievances of the type
specified against core physicians only. As amended, Defendants have withdrawn their
objections to this Request.
(See Exhibit 1, 2:10-12)

and
Plaintiff has amended Request No. 33 to limit it to complaints or grievances, including
internal and informal complaints, of the type specified against past and present core
physicians only. As amended, Defendants have withdrawn their objections to this
Request.
(See Exhibit 1, 2:13-15).

Regarding Request No. 40, the Order states: “At the hearing on this motion, Defendants’ counsel
withdrew the objections to this request and agreed to produce the documents, without 1) waiving the
personnel privilege or privacy claims as to other persons, and 2) reserving the right to object to their
admissibility at trial”. (20:16-19)(emphasis added).
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 7 of 101




PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION AND FURTHER RESPONSES 8
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
Thus, Defendant was not asserting confidential personnel privilege regarding Request Nos. 32,
33 or, in effect, 40.
Regarding Request No. 70, Defendant asserted HIPAA, relevancy and peer review objections
only. Defendant did not assert confidential personnel privilege.
Given that Defendant was not asserting any applicable confidential personnel privilege, nor any
privacy privilege, in Request Nos. 32, 33, 40 and 70, Plaintiff respectfully submits that the it was error
to construe Defendant as having raised federal privacy privilege.
V. CONCLUSION
Plaintiff must respectfully object that the Court’s order is clearly erroneous and contrary to law
for the foregoing reasons. Plaintiff requests that the Court reconsider Magistrate Judge Goldner’s Order.

Respectfully submitted on May 19, 2008.

/s/ 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: elee@LOEL.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 8 of 101



EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT 1. Defendant Declaration re Inability to File Stipulation (Doc. 86)
EXHIBIT 2. Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff’s Motion to
Compel (Doc. 124).
EXHIBIT 3. Defendants’ Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production, Set One
EXHIBIT 4. Stipulation & Order re Protective Order (Doc. 128)
EXHIBIT 5. Minute Order Disapproving Stipulation (Doc. 131)

























Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 9 of 101




























EXHIBIT 1. Defendant Declaration re Inability to File Stipulation (Doc. 86)
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 10 of 101
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 86 Filed 01/23/2008 Page 1 of 19 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 11 of 101
Mark A. Wasser CA SB # 60160
LAW OFFlCES OF MARK A. WASSER
2 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100
Sacramento. CA 95814
3 Phone: (916) 444-6400
Fax: (916) 444-6405
4 E-mail: mwasser@markwasser.com
5 Bernard C. Barn1ann, Sr.
KERN COUNTY COUNSEL
6 Mark Nations. Chief Deputy
1115 Truxton Avenue. Fourth Floor
7 Bakersfield, CA 93301
Phone: (661) 868-3800
8 (661) 868-3805
E-mail: mnations@co.kern.ca.us
9
10 Attorneys Defendants of Kern..
Peter Bryan, Harris, Eugene Kercher,
11 Abraham, Scott Ragland, Smith
12
13
14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
15
hearing, the parties reached certain agreements regarding Plaintiff s first request for production
stated in this Declaration are within my own personal knowledge and I can testify competently to
I, Mark A. Wasser, declare as follows:
I. I am counsel of record for Defendants and am familiar with this action. The facts
Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007
Trial Date: December 3, 2008
Case No.: 1:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG
DECLARATION OF MARK A. WASSER
RE: INABILITY TO FILE STIPULAnON
FOLLOWING DISCOVERY HEARING
DAVID JADWIN, D.O. )
)
Plaintiff. )
)
vs. )
)
et )
)
Defendants. )
)
)
them if called as a witness.
2. I attended the January 14, 2008 hearing on Plaintiff s motion to compel. At the
16
17
19
18
26
27
28
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
DECLARATION OF MARK A. WASSER RE: INABILITY TO FILE STIPULATION
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 86 Filed 01/23/2008 Page 2 of 19 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 12 of 101
of documents. Among other things, the Court asked the parties to submit to the Court, no later
2 than today, Wednesday, January 23, 2008 a stipulation and proposed order regarding some of the
3 agreements that were reached.
4
o
., . I prepared a draft stipulation, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, and
5 forwarded it to Plaintiff s counsel for review. Plaintiff s counsel responded that the stipulation
6 included agreements on more topics than he was willing to include in a stipulation and he asked
7 me to revise the stipulation and narrow it so that it covered only the parties' agreements
8
regarding !lp,,;,p<'No.
Request records.
sent it to him
9 4. Upon receipt of the comments from Pla.intiff
J0 stipulation to it to the two topics he specified
counsel, I the draft
that draft
is attached to
rlp,-.bntinn as Ex:llibit
responded adding one
13 paragraphs he had asked me to delete from the first draft. He also added new language at the end
14 of the stipulation that would require Defendants to produce all medical, peer review and
15 personnel privileged documents previously withheld. A copy of the draft from Plaintiff s
16 counsel is attached hereto as Exhibit
17 6. I responded to Plaintiff s counsel by accepting some of the changes he proposed
18 but relect!rl\! language at the of stipulation have required the
J9 UClerloams to produce all medical records, personnel records preVlClUSIV
20 withheld. I also restored to the draft language Plaintiff s counsel had deleted that preserved
21 Defendants objections to request number 40. Defendants agreed to produce the Royce Johnson
22 personnel file, subject to their objections. Plaintiff s insistence that those objections be
23 withdrawn or waived goes beyond the scope of the parties' open-Court agreement and would
24 prejudice Defendants right to contest the admissibility of the records at trial. A copy of the final
25 draft I returned to Plaintiffs counsel is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
26 7. Plaintiff s counsel rejected my final draft of the proposed stipulation and I
27 reported to Plaintiff s counsel that I would prepare and file this Declaration relating our inability
28 to execute the stipulation.
2
DECLARAnON OF MARK A. WASSER RE: INABILITY TO FILE STIPULATION
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 86 Filed 01/23/2008 Page 3 of 19 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 13 of 101
1 8. The Court also asked the parties to report by today, Wednesday, January 23,
2 whether Defendants would be able to produce the exceptional event logs for histology and
3 pathology requested in Request No. 71 and the paper accession logs requested in Request No. 72.
4 As set forth in the first draft of the proposed stipulation (see Exhibit A), Defendants are able to
5 produce those documents.
6 I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
7 Executed this 23rd day of January, 2008, in Sacramento, California.
et
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
By:'_
Mark A Wasser
AtloHlev for lJetendarlts,
3
DECLARATION OF MARK A. WASSER RE: INABILITY TO FILE STIPULATION
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 86 Filed 01/23/2008 Page 4 of 19 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 14 of 101
EXHIBIT A
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 86 Filed 01/23/2008 Page 5 of 19 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 15 of 101
1 Mark A. Wasser CA SB #060160
LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER
2 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100
Sacramento, CA 95814
3 Phone: (916) 444-6400
Fax: (916) 444-6405
4 E-mail: mwasser(uJmarkwasscLcom
5 Bernard C. Barrnann, Sr.
KERN COUNTY COUNSEL
6 Mark Nations, Chief Dcputy
1115 Truxtun Avenue, Fourth Floor
7 Bakersfield, CA 93301
Phone: (661) 868-3800
8 (661) 868-3805
E-mail: mnations@co.kern.ca.us
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Defendants.
Plaintiff,
KERN, et
JADWIN, D.O.
Defendants of Kern,
Harris, Eugene .
nrangnn Ragiand,
VS.
) Case No.: 1:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG
)
) snpULAnON RE SUPPLEMENTAL
) RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR
) PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND
) ORDER
)
)
) Action Filed: January 6, 2007
) Trial Date: December _, 2008
)
)
)
)
------------)
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 DAVID
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 WHEREAS, Plaintiff served a Request for Production of Documents and Defendants
25 responded in part and objected in part and produced certain documents and a privilege log; and
26 WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses and the parties reached
27 certain agreements during the hearing on Plaintiff's motion to compel; and
28
1
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION 0
DAVID F. JADWIN
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 86 Filed 01/23/2008 Page 6 of 19 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 16 of 101
1 WHEREAS, the parties enter into this Stipulation to recite their agreements and submit
2 the same to the Court for approval;
3 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties through their respective
4 counsel, as follows:
requested employee directory information but shall redact any horne addresses or telephone
5
6
7
1.
numbers.
In supplemental response to Request No. II, Defendants shall produce the
8 2. SUf,plcmental reSjlon:,e to 26, Defendants
spe'citied "C'WL" core PhVSlClrms
harddrive from the County computer assigned to Plaintiff
it to complaints or vrl,evencr', ofthe\
,
I
to
As amended,
amem:led Request
contents of discs containing
objectIons to 12
9
10
11
13 4. Plaintiff has amended Request No. 33 to limit it to complaints or grievances,
14 including internal and informal complaints, of the type specified against past and present core
15 physicians only. As amended, Defendants have v,ithdravm their objections to the Request.
16 5. In response to Request No. 40, Defendants have agreed to produce the personnel
17 file of , Royce Johnson but are neither waiving nor withdrawing their objections to its
18 production or conceding
19
20
6.
7.
Plainti:ffhas v,1tli1dnlwn
Plaintiflhas amended Request No. 55 to limit it to documents relating to the
2I review of Plaintiff David Jadwin's placental evaluations and billing activity as conducted by
22 outside consultants. As amended, Defendants have withdrawn their objections to the Request.
23 8. In supplemental response to Request No, 57, Defendants will make the product
24 chart copy-related documents available to Plaintiff for inspection and copying at Kern Medical
25 Center, in a room to be designated, between 10:00 a,m., Monday, February 4 and 5:00 p.m,
26 Wednesday, February 6,
27
28
2
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION 0
DAVlD F. JADWIN
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 86 Filed 01/23/2008 Page 7 of 19 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 17 of 101
9. Plaintiff has amended Request No. 70 to limit it to documents relating to peer
2 review of Plaintiff, David Jadwin. As amended, Defendants have withdrawn their objeetions to
3 the Request
4 10. In supplemental response to Request No. 71, Defendants will produce exceptional
5 event logs for histology and pathology but are neither waiving nor withdrawing their objections
6 to their production or conceding their relevancy.
In supplemental response to Request No. 72, Defendants will produce paper
or obl!ecltl0J1S to nor wlthclra'wl
11. 7
8
9 conceding their releVJlnclv
10 12 supplemental Te<nn,,<p to Request 78. Defendants jJWUW,C placental
11 nor
obll eCi.lOflS to or cOJlcedmg
13 13. Defendants will produce all documents to be produced pursuant to this StipUlation
14 by delivering copies of them to Plaintiffs counsel on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 in Bakersfield,
15 California.
16 14. Defendants will prepare and deliver to Plaintiff amended privilege logs for all
17 documents for which the Defendants are asserting p r h ~ l e g e on or before Tuesday, January
18
19 of produced
20 patient information that is confidential under HlPAA, peer review information that is
21 confidential under California Evidence Code section 1157 or employee information that is
22 confidential under California Evidence Code section 1040. Plaintiff shall not reveal this
23 information to anyone other than his legal counsel, their assistants, and any consultants retained
24 to assist Plaintiff in the prosecution of this case. At the conclusion of this case, Defendants may
25 ask the Court for an order directing Plaintiff to either destroy all documents that contain
26 confidential infonnation or return them to Defendants.
27
28
[insert signatures and dates for counsel]
3 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION 0
DAVID F. JADWI
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 86 Filed 01/23/2008 Page 8 of 19 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 18 of 101
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
ORDER
The parties having stipulated as hereinabove set forth and good eause appearing,
IT IS SO ORDERED,
Honorable Teresa A. Goldner
Magistrate Judge
4 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION 0
DAVID F. JADWI
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 86 Filed 01/23/2008 Page 9 of 19 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 19 of 101
EXHIBITB
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 86 Filed 01/23/2008 Page 10 of 19 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 20 of 101
1 Mark A. WasserCA SB #060160
LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER
2 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100
Sacramento, CA 95814
3 Phone: (916) 444-6400
Fax: (916) 444-6405
4 E-mail: mwasser((/)markwasser.com
5 . Bernard C. Barmann, Sr.
KERN COUNTY COUNSEL
6 Mark Nations, Chief Deputy
1115 Truxtun Avenue, Fourth Floor
7 Bakersfield, CA 93301
Phone (661) 868-3800
8 (661) 868-3805
E-mail: mnati.)ns.(ci;(;o ..CUJJ.ca.. u.
9
10
11
12
20 Defendants.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
) Case No.: 1:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG
)
) snpULAnON RE SUPPLEMENTAL
) RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR
) PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND
) ORDER
)
)
) Action Filed: January 6, 2007
) Trial Date: December 3, 2008
)
)
)
)
-------------)
13
19 KERN. et
18 VS,
21
22
23
14
15
16 DAVIn F. JADWIN, D.O.
17
24 WHEREAS, Plaintiff served a Request for Production of Documents and Defendants
25 responded in part and objected in part and produced certain documents and a privilege log; and
26 WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses and the parties reached
27 certain agreements during the hearing on Plaintiff s motion to compel; and
28
1
STIPULATION RE: SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSETO REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND ORDER
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 86 Filed 01/23/2008 Page 11 of 19 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 21 of 101
1 WHEREAS, the parties enter into this Stipulation to recite their agreements and submit
2 the same to the Court for approval;
3 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties through their respective
4 counsel, as follows:
5 L In response to Request No. 40, Defendants have agreed to produce the personnel
6 tjle of Dr. Royce Johnson but are neither waiving nor withdrawing their objections to its
7 production or conceding its relevancy. Defendants' production ofthc personnel file shall not
the product
5
reganl to any
Defendants
confidential pe::sonn,el
supplemental response to Request No. 2.
COIPv·,relate,d documents iiVliHdUlt to Piaintifffor inspection and copying at Kern lVleUledl
constitute a we" V,,"
Center, in a room to be del31gl1ated, h,'lwF,pn 1
8
9
10
I 1
12 6,
13 Dated: January 23, 2008 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER
14
15
16
17
BY:_...JI",s,-1M""",a",rk,,-£A'-o-' _
Mark A. Wasser
Attorney for Defendants, Counts of Kern, et aL
18
2008 OF
19
20
21
By: lsi Eugene D. Lee (as authorized on 1/23/08)
Eugene D. Lee
Attorney for Plaintiff, David F. Jadwin, D.O.
22
23
ORDER
24
25
26
27
28
The parties having stipulated as hereinabove set forth and good cause appearing,
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Honorable Teresa A. Goldner
Magistrate Judge
2
STIPULATION RE: SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSETO REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND ORDER
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 86 Filed 01/23/2008 Page 12 of 19 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 22 of 101
EXHIBIT C
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 86 Filed 01/23/2008 Page 13 of 19 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 23 of 101
Mark A. Wasser CA SB #060160
LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER
2 400 Capitol Mall, Suite I 100
Sacramento, CA 95814
3 Phone: (9 I6) 444-6400
Fax: (916) 444-6405
4 E-mail: nnvasserra)markvvasseLcom
5 I Bernard C Barmann. Sf.
KERN COUNTY COUNSEL
6 Mark Nations, Chief Deputy
1115 Truxtun Avenue, Fourth Floor
7 Bakersfield, CA 93301
: Phone: (661) 868-3800
8', Fax: (661) 868-3805
.I E-mail: mnations@co.kem.ca.u5
91
Attornevs for Defendants County of Kern.
10 I Peter Brvan. irwin ~
'I Jennifer"Abraham, Scott "",;"",10,
1i I and \Vi!liam Rov
, -
12 Ii
" I
14
,
is i
Deleted: "1
16
17
18
I:
19 II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Action Filed: January 6, 2007
Trial Date: December 3, 2008
STIPULATION RE SUPPLEMENTAL
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND
ORDER
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.
VS.
COUNTY OF KERN. at aJ.,
Defendants.
) Case No.: l:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
l
)
)
)
)
)
STIPULATION RE SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSETO REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND ORDER
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 86 Filed 01/23/2008 Page 14 of 19 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 24 of 101
WHEREAS, Plaintiff served a Request for Production of Documents and Defendants
2 responded in part and objected in part and produced certain documents and a privilege log; and
3 WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses and the parties reached
4 I certain agreements during the hearing on Plaintiffs motion to compel; and
5 WHEREAS, the parties enter into this Stipulation to recite their agreements and submit
6 the same to the Court for approval;
I
7 '! IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED and bet'ween the parties through their respective
1. in response to Request No. 40, Defendants have
Deleted: b,t are Iwither nor
;(' It"
PWdHC!ion {)i
to
Defendants' prcldliciion oftne personnel file
counsel, as foilaws:
nn,rl,we the personnel file of Dr. 10
chart wnv.,elmp·c1 documents availab!e 10 Plaintifffof in'mpetinn and nonvnw at Kern Medica!
shaH not constitute a \-valver oftne confidential personnel privilege with regard to any other
11 Ii
'I
II
I
n I
,: II
L)
[4 !I
documents.
2. In supplenlcrltal response to Request No, 57. Defendants \viH make the product
ii
! 5 !I CentcL in a room to be
16 Wednesday, February 6.
l?
between! 0:00 a.m.. Mcrnday. Fe'"onrv 4 and 5:00 p.m.
18
19 I
20
21 i
221
1
23 I
,
,I
24
25
26
27
28
2
STIPUl.ATION RE SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSETO REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND ORDER
II
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 86 Filed 01/23/2008 Page 15 of 19 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 25 of 101
2
3 Dated: January 23, 2008
4
5
6
7
8 Dated: January 23, 2008
9
LAW OFFICES OF MARK A, WASSER
By: is/Mark A. Wasser
Mark A. Wasser
Attorney for Defendants, County of Kern. et a1.
LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE
10
The
By: /s/ Eugene D. Lee (as authorized on 1/23/08)
LU.ge"u D. Lee
Attorney for Plaintiff. David F. D.O.
ORDER
stillUlaLted as hereinabove set forth and cause amleatiDc,
16
Ih
:: II
20 II
21 I:
22\1
23
11
2 ~ \1
2) 'I
26
27
28
JT IS SO ORDERED.
Honorable Teresa A. Goldner
Magistrate Judge
3
STIPULATION RE SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSETO REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND ORDER
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 86 Filed 01/23/2008 Page 16 of 19 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 26 of 101
EXHIBIT D
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 86 Filed 01/23/2008 Page 17 of 19 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 27 of 101
II
Mark A. Wasser CA SB #060160
LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER
2 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100
Sacramento, CA 95814
3 Phone: (916) 444-6400
Fax: (916) 444-6405
4 E-mail: TIlwassen@markwasser.com
5 Bernard C. Barmann, Sf.
KERN COUNTY COUNSEL
6 Mark Nations, Chief Deputy
i I 1115 Truxtun Avenue, Fourth Floor
7
1
' Bakersfield. CA 93301
Phone: (661) 868-3800
8 Fax: (661) 868-3805
E-mail: mnations@co.kern.ca.lJs
9[1 Attorneys fO.f Def:ndants County ofKem,
10 IPeter Bryan, Invin Kercher.
I Jennifer"Abraham, Scott Toni Sn1ith
11 II and William Roy
12 I'
I
Deleted: ~
14
1
!
15 I.i
161
17
18
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNiA
19
I
DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.
21
Plaintiff.
Action filed: January 6, 2007
Trial Date: December 3, 2008
STIPULATION RE SUPPLEMENTAL
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND
ORDER
Defendants.
\IS.
COUNTY OF KERN, et al..
) Case No.: l:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG
j
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - )
24 I
28
20
23
26
27
25
22
STIPULATION RE SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSETO REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND ORDER
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 86 Filed 01/23/2008 Page 18 of 19 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 28 of 101
2
3
4
5
6
WHEREAS, Plaintiff served a Request for Production of Documents and Defendants
responded in part and objected in part and produced certain documents and a privilege log; and
WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses and the parties reached
certain agreements during the hearing on Plaintiffs motion to compel; and
WHEREAS, the parties enter into this Stipulation to recite their agreements and submit
the same to the COUrt for approval;
1. In response to Request No. 40, Defendants have agreed, among other things, to
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties through their respective
counseL as follows:
produce the personnel file ofDT. Johnson but are neither nor withejrawiag their
12
objections to its production or conceding its relevanc)!, Defendants' production oftne Derse,nr,eil
me shall not constitute a ,,\-'aiver of the confidential personnel privilege \vith regard to any other
chart copy-",Ialled documents available to Plaintiff for inllp"ction and CO,W,'M at Kern Medical
Center, in a room to be designated, between 10:00 a,m., Monday, February 4 and 5:00 p.m,
Wednesday, February 6.
Many of the documents Defendants have produced and will produce contain
17
18
documents.
In leraent'll response to lWyU"" No. Defendants \vilJ make the UHJW.M
Deleted: 15
19 II patient information that is confidential under HIPAA. peer review information that is
i
20 confidential under California Evidence Code section 1157 or employee information that is
21 confidential under California Evidence Code section 1040. Plaintiff shall not reveal this
Ii
22 Ii information to anyone other than his legal counsel, any consultants or experts retained to assist
!
L) Plaintiff in the pf(lSccetion of this case. and his and their assistants. At the conclusion of this
case, Defendants may ask the Court for an order directing Plaintiff to either destro)" aU
documents that contain confidential information or return them to
24
I
25 I
26
27
28
Dated: January 23, 2008 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER
By: /s/ Mark A. Wasser
2
Deleted: 1n consideration of the
foregoing, Defendants agrce to produce
discovery allY and all documents ·which
Defendants otherwise had or would have
vvithheld trom production as plltient
infortnalion that is confidentialllnder
HIPA!\. peer review infOllllation that is
(;on fidcntial tinder Cnlifol'l.1ifl Evidence
Code section] 157 or employee
infonnatioll that is confidential undel
Califomia Evidence Code section 1040
STIPULATION RE SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSETO REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND ORDER
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 86 Filed 01/23/2008 Page 19 of 19 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 29 of 101
2
3
4
Dated: January 23,2008
Mark A. Wasser
Attorney for Defendants, County of Kern, et al.
LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE
5i
6
7
By: lsi EU2:ene D. Lee (as authorized on l/23/08)
Eugene D. Lee
Attorney for Plaintiff, David F. Jadwin, D.O.
lT is SO OROERED.
8
9
10 Ii
11 II
1211
II
13
1
1
14 II
15
11
i6 ii
17
18,
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
28
The parties
ORDER
" •• j•••••" •• as hereinabove set forth and good cause 8DJlearine.
Honorable Teresa A. Goldner
Magistrate
3
STIPULATION RE SUPPLEMENTAL RLSPONSETO REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND ORDER





























EXHIBIT 2. Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff’s Motion to
Compel (Doc. 124).
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 30 of 101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 1 -
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
COUNTY OF KERN, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
Case No. 1:07-cv-0026-OWW-TAG
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTION TO
COMPEL PRODUCTION AND FURTHER
RESPONSES
(Doc. 82)
Plaintiff David F. Jadwin, D.O. moved to compel responses to his request for production
of documents (set one) directed to Defendant County of Kern. (Doc. 82). Defendant opposed
the motion, contending in essence that it has either produced or is prepared to produce all
documents to which Plaintiff is entitled. Counsel for the parties were unable to agree upon a
joint statement regarding their discovery disagreements. Both counsel filed separate declarations
explaining why they were not able to reach an agreement, and attached to their declarations
exhibits outlining their positions, including copies of various emails, letters, draft documents,
and the like. (Docs. 83, 84). At the hearing on the motion, both counsel stipulated to several of
the issues in dispute, and the Court directed them to file a written stipulation with a
corresponding proposed order for the Court’s consideration. (Doc. 85). Once the hearing
concluded, counsel were unable to agree upon a written stipulation. (Docs. 86, 87, 88).
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 124 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 1 of 31 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 31 of 101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 2 -
The Court has read and considered the pleadings and the arguments and stipulations of
counsel made at the hearing on the motion to compel, and makes the following ruling.
A. Discovery Overview
The purpose of discovery is to make trial “less a game of blind man’s bluff and more a
fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest extent possible,” United States
v. Proctor & Gamble, 356 U.S. 677, 683, 78 S. Ct. 983 (1958), and to narrow and clarify the
issues in dispute, Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501, 67 S. Ct. 385 (1947).
Fed.R. Civ. P. 26(b) establishes the scope of discovery and states in pertinent part:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant
to the claim or defense of any party, including the existence, description, nature,
custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things
and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable
matter. For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to
the subject matter involved in the action. Relevant information need not be
admissible at trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.
“The party who resists discovery has the burden to show that discovery should not be
allowed, and has the burden of clarifying, explaining, and supporting its objection.” Oakes v.
Halvorsen Marine Ltd., 179 F.R.D. 281, 283 (C.D. Cal. 1998); Nestle Foods Corp. v. Aetna
Casualty & Surety Co., 135 F.R.D. 101, 104 (D. N.J. 1990).
B. Request for Production of Documents Standards
Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b) requires a written response to a request for production to state, with
respect to each item or category, that inspection and related activities will be permitted as
requested, unless the request is objected to, in which event the reasons for the objection shall be
stated. A party is obliged to produce all specified relevant and nonprivileged documents or other
things which are in its “possession, custody or control” on the date specified in the request. Fed.
R, Civ, P. 34(a); Norman Rockwell Int’l. Corp. H, Wolfe Iron & Metal Co., 576 F. Supp. 511,
512 (W.D. Pa. 1983). The propounding party may seek an order for further disclosure regarding
“any objection to or other failure to respond to the request or any part thereof, or any failure to
permit inspection requested.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b). Failure to respond to a Rule 34 request
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 124 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 2 of 31 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 32 of 101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 3 -
within the time permitted waives all objections, including privilege and work product.”
Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F. 2d 1468, 1473 (9th Cir. 1992).
C. Peer Review Privilege
The majority of Defendants’ objections assert a state law peer-review privilege.
Defendants fail to cite to a specific statute in their written objections, but reported at the hearing
on the motion that the peer review privilege is contained in California Evidence Code §§ 1047,
1157. Except as otherwise provided by federal law, privileges in federal cases are governed by
federal common law. Fed. R. Evid. 501; United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 562, 109 S. Ct.
2619 (1989). The peer review privilege has been addressed and rejected by the Ninth Circuit. In
Agster v. Maricopa County, 422 F. 3d 836 (9th Cir. 2005), the Ninth Circuit refused to recognize
the peer review privilege. 422 F. 3d at 839-840. Here, Defendants have asserted a state law peer
review privilege. However, “[w]here there are federal question claims and pendent state law
claims present, the federal law of privilege applies.” Agster, 422 F.3d at 840-841(citations
omitted); Jackson v. County of Sacramento, 175 F.R.D. 653, 654 (E.D. Cal. 1997); Burrows v.
Redbud Community Hospital District, 187 F.R.D. 606, 610-611 (N.D. Cal. 1998). Defendants
contend that state privilege law applies to Plaintiff’s state law claims and not to his federal
claims. Platypus Wear, Inc. v. R.D. Company, Inc., 905 F. Supp. 808 (N.D.CAL. 1995).
Platypus is distinguishable from this case, because it was a diversity case that involved various
state law claims and a single federal claim where the evidence sought went only to state law
theories of liability and the plaintiff advanced no theory under which the evidence could be
relevant to the federal claim. Here, Plaintiff has several federal claims as well as state law claims,
and the evidence sought, which spans Plaintiff’s career at the Kern Medical Center, is relevant to
both his federal and state claims. “[W]here state law claims overlap with federal claims in a
federal question case such that particular documents are relevant to both the state and the federal
claims, federal privilege law also applies.” Boyd v. City and County of San Francisco, 2006 WL
1390423 * 3 (N.D. Cal. 2006)(citing Wm. T. Thompson Co. v. General Nutrition Corp., Inc., 671
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 124 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 3 of 31 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 33 of 101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 4 -
F.2d 100, 104 (3rd Cir. 1992)(additional citation omitted)). The Court concludes that federal
privilege law applies, and the state law peer review privilege has no application in this case.
D. HIPAA
The majority of Defendants’ objections also contend that the requested documents are
protected from disclosure under HIPAA. Defendants fail to cite a specific code section in their
written responses. HIPAA refers to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of
1996. Pub.L. No. 104-191, 110 Stat. 1936 (1936)(codified primarily in Titles 18, 26, and 42 of
the United States Code). Under HIPAA, a health care provider such as Defendant Kern Medical
Center, may disclose protected patient health information pursuant to a court order, subpoena, or
discovery request when the health care provider receives satisfactory assurance from the party
seeking the information that reasonable efforts have been made to obtain a qualified protective
order that: 1) prohibits the parties from using or disclosing the protected health information for
any purpose other than the subject litigation; and 2) requires the return to the healthcare provider
or destruction of the protected health information (including all copies made) at the end of the
litigation. See Allen v. Woodford, 2007 WL 309485, *5 (E.D. Cal. 2007). Here, the Court is not
satisfied that Defendants received HIPAA assurances from Plaintiff prior to the hearing on the
motion, and the record reflects that no stipulation for a protective order has ben filed. (See
Docket generally). Accordingly, Defendants’ objections to disclosure based on HIPAA are well-
taken as to documents that contain protected patient health information.
E. Right of Privacy
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) excludes privileged matters from discovery. Federal courts
generally recognize a constitutionally-based right of privacy that may be asserted response to
discovery requests. Johnson ex rel. Johnson v. Thompson, 971 F. 2d 1487, 1497 (9th Cir. 1992);
Megargee v. Wittman, 2007 WL *2 (E.D.Cal. 2007)(citations omitted). “Although the right to
privacy is not a recognized privilege, many courts have considered it in discovery disputes.”
Ragge v. MCA.Universal Studios, 165 F. R.D. 601, 604, n. 3 (C.D.Cal. 1995)(citation omitted).
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 124 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 4 of 31 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 34 of 101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 5 -
The right of privacy is not an absolute bar to discovery. Instead, it is subject to a balancing test
that requires courts to balance the need for privacy against the need for disclosure in litigation.
Ragge, 165 F. R.D. at 604 (C.D.Cal. 1995). Here, nearly all of Defendants’ discovery responses
assert a “confidential personnel privilege” without citing a specific source of law for the
privilege. At the hearing on the motion, Defendants’ counsel relied on California Evidence Code
§§ 1040 and 1157 as the source of this privilege.
To the extent that Defendants assert a “confidential personnel privilege” as a state law
privilege, it is inapplicable for the same reasons that the state law peer review privilege is
inapplicable: state law privileges have no application in federal question cases. Agster, 433 F. 3d
at 838-839. However, given the nature of documents requested and the reasons given for
objecting to their disclosure, the Court construes the assertion of this privilege as also raising a
right of privacy. Accordingly, the Court will apply the requisite balancing test in determining
whether the need for disclosure outweighs the privacy issues, and will also consider whether
additional orders are necessary to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment,
oppression, or under expense in connection with any disclosure that may be ordered as to such
documents.
F. Privilege Log
A concomitant requirement with a claim of privilege is an adequate privilege log.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 provides in relevant part that:
When a party withholds information otherwise discoverable under these
rules by claiming it is privileged or subject to protections as trial preparation
material , the party shall make the claim expressly and shall describe the nature of
the documents, communications or things not produced or disclosed in a manner
that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable other
parties to assess the applicability of the privilege or protection.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5) requires parties to provide a log or its equivalent when they
withhold information on grounds of privilege or work product protection. Etienne v. Wolverine
Tube, Inc., 185 F.R.D. 653, 656 (D. Kansas 1999). The Ninth Circuit has held that an adequate
privilege log identifies 1) the persons involved; 2) the nature of the document; 3) all persons or
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 124 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 5 of 31 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 35 of 101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 6 -
entities shown on the documents to have received or sent the documents; 4) all persons or entities
known to have been furnished the document or informed of its substance; and 5) the date the
document was generated, prepared, or dated. In re Grand Jury Investigation, 974 F. 2d 1068,
1071 (9th Cir. 1992).
Here, Defendants produced a privilege log, which Plaintiff asserts is inadequate for two
reasons. First, because it is not sufficiently specific. Second, because it pertains only to the first
installment of a two-phased document production. Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s requests
for production relate to approximately 30,000 pages of documents, and that due to the large
number of documents, they agreed to produce them in two installments. Defendants produced
the first installment, along with a privilege log that they contend is adequate. Defendants contend
that they were in the process of producing the second installment of documents, with a separate
privilege log as to those documents, when the instant discovery dispute arose over copying costs
and other issues. At the time of the motion hearing, the second installment of documents had not
been produced.
The Court has considered the first privilege log, and at the motion hearing, ordered
Defendants to amend the log to provide additional information. Given the nature of the
documents on the log and the Court’s orders made at the hearing, the Court declines to find a
waiver of privilege.
The Court next addresses the timing of the privilege log. Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(b)(5) requires
the party asserting privilege to adequately describe the documents withheld, but it does not
specify when the required description must be provided. Jackson v. County of Sacramento, 175
F.R.D. 653, 655 (E.D. Cal. 1997). In Burlington Northern & Sante Fe Railway Co. v. United
States District Court for the District of Montana, 408 F. 3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2005), the Ninth
Circuit held that “boilerplate objections or blanket refusals inserted into a response to a Rule 34
request for productions of documents are insufficient to assert a privilege.” Id. at 1149.
The Court also held that failure to serve a privilege log within 30 days was not a per se waiver ,
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 124 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 6 of 31 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 36 of 101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 7 -
and directed courts to make waiver determinations on a case-by-case basis, taking into account:
1) the relative specificity of the objection or assertion of privilege; 2) the timeliness of the
objection and accompanying information about the withheld documents; 3) the magnitude of the
document production; and 4) other particular circumstances of the litigation that make
responding to discovery unusually easy or unusually hard. Id. at 1149. The Ninth Circuit also
cautioned that the above factors should also be applied “in the context of a holistic realistic
analysis.” Id.
The Court has considered the Burlington factors, and the circumstances surrounding the
submission of Defendants’ privilege log. Defendants’ objections were timely, but essentially
boilerplate. Defendants did not produce a privilege log when they objected to the discovery
requests, but submitted one when they produced the first installment of documents. Defendants
produced documents in response to Plaintiff’s request, but did not produce them all at once.
Instead, as discussed, Defendants proceeded in accordance with what Defendants’ counsel
believed was an agreement between him and Plaintiff’s counsel. Although the precise details of
the agreement are difficult to divine from the declarations and their approximately 200 pages of
attachments, a task that is made more difficult by the absence of a joint statement regarding this
discovery dispute, the Court concludes there was an agreement that the document production
would be accomplished in at least two installments. Considering the timing dispute in the
context of a holistic realistic analysis, the Court concludes that the date of service of the first
privilege log and the fact that it addressed only the first installment of documents, does not
warrant a privilege waiver as to either the items on the log or as to documents to be produced in
the second installment. However, with respect to the latter, Defendants will be compelled to
provide an adequate log or face waiving privilege.
G. Reproduction Costs
A dispute has arisen over the cost to reproduce documents produced in discovery.
Plaintiff contends that Defendants refused to produce documents he requested to inspect, until he
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 124 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 7 of 31 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 37 of 101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 8 -
reimbursed them for reproduction costs. He contends that he is not required to pay for the cost to
reproduce the documents and that Defendants cannot unilaterally condition their production upon
payment of such costs. Defendants contend that the substantive and temporal scope of Plaintiff’s
document requests are unnecessarily broad, and require production of at least 30,000 pages of
documents, many of which have marginal or no relevance to this case. By way of example,
Defendants report that Plaintiff’s Document Request No. 57 seeks approximately
11, 000 pages of blood product chart copy records that relate to blood products delivered to
patients, that Plaintiff contends has no relation to any issue in this case. Plaintiff’s first
production of documents consisted of approximately 12,000 pages. Defendants served their first
installment of documents on Plaintiff in the form of electronic files copied on CDs. At first,
Defendants demanded that Plaintiff pay $10,000 for reproduction costs, and later reduced that
amount to $2, 932.00
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) defines the general scope of discovery, and
provides in relevant part that “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter
that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense ... .” Rule 26(b)(2) limits the frequency and extent
of discovery, providing in relevant part that:
On motion or on its own, the court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery
otherwise allowed by these rules of by local rule if it determines that: . . . (iii) the
burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit,
considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties’
resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance
of the discovery in resolving the issues.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C). Under the discovery rules, “the presumption is that the responding
party must bear the expense of complying with discovery requests, but may involve the district
court’s discretion under Rule 26(c) to grant protective orders protecting him from ‘undue burden
or expense’ in doing so, including orders conditioning discovery on the requesting party’s
payment of the costs of discovery.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 358, 98
S.Ct. 2380 (1978); Zubalake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 217 F.R.D. 309 (S.D. N.Y. 2003); OpenTV
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 124 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 8 of 31 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 38 of 101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 9 -
v. Liberate Technologies, 219 F.R.D. 474, 476 (N.D.Cal. 2003). Cost-shifting should only be
ordered when discovery imposes an “undue burden or expense” that outweighs the likely benefits
of the discovery and after consideration of all relevant factors.
Here, Defendants have not sought a protective order. Defendants have not provided any
case authority to support its position or an analysis of the factors to be considered in determining
whether cost-shifting is appropriate, other than contending that the many of the documents
requested by Plaintiff have little or no relevance to this case and the cost of their production
outweighs any likely benefit. At the hearing on the motion, the parties stipulated to resolve the
dispute as to responsive documents that were copied onto a CD but not delivered to Plaintiff,
agreeing that Plaintiff will pay Defendants’ counsel the sum of $2, 932, and that Defendants’
counsel will reimburse Plaintiff at the rate of 14 cents per page for any duplicate documents
contained on the CD. The Court accepts the parties’ stipulation and makes it an order of the
Court. As to the remaining documents requested by Plaintiff, the Court concludes that they do
not impose a benefit on Defendants that is sufficient to warrant cost-shifting at this time.
H. Defendants’ Supplemental Responses
On October 11, 2007, Plaintiff served his request for production of documents on
Defendants. Defendants’ written responses were due by November 12, 2007 and their
production of documents was due by November 16, 2007. Plaintiff and Defendants initially
agreed to extend the deadline for responses to November 20, 2007 as to some of the requests, and
later dates as to others. They also agreed to extend the deadline for production of documents to
December 21, 2007. On November 20, 2007, Defendants served timely written responses.
On December 14, 2007, Plaintiff agreed to extend the time for responses to December 21, 2007.
On December 19, 2007, Defendants served supplemental responses to the requests for
production. The supplemental responses included additional objections and assertions of
privilege, that were not contained in Defendants ’ initial responses. In light of the parties’
agreement to extend the time for responses to December 21, 2007, the supplemental responses
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 124 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 9 of 31 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 39 of 101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 10 -
were timely and the objections and assertions of privileges therein will be considered by the
Court. (Doc. 83, pp. 103-169).
I. Requests for Production
The Court summarizes Plaintiff’s document requests and Defendants’ responses, and
rules on each request as follows.
Request No. 11
Documents related to Kern Medical Center personnel directories or lists maintained
during Plaintiff’s employment with Kern Medical Center.
Defendants’ Response:
Defendants will produce all nonprivileged documents, redact privileged information, and
produce the documents subject to receipt of reimbursement for reproduction costs.
Ruling:
The motion to compel is GRANTED as to this request. Defendants’ assertion of
privilege lacks specificity. At the hearing on the motion, both counsel agreed that home
addresses would be redacted. If they have not already done so, Defendants shall produce the
documents for Plaintiff’s inspection and copying, within 10 days from the date of this order.
After inspecting the documents, Plaintiff shall decide what documents he wants copied, and pay
his own reproduction costs.
Request Nos. 12-14, 15
No. 12: Documents related to personnel policies, guidelines, fact sheets, posters,
employee and/or employer handbooks, training materials, and employee and/or employer
manuals that governed Plaintiff’s terms and conditions of employment at any time during the
period from October 1, 2000 to October 4, 2007.
No. 13: Documents related to personnel policies, guidelines, fact sheets, posters,
employee and/or employer handbooks, training materials, and employee and/or employer
manuals that were distributed or made available to employees ,whether management or non-
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 124 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 10 of 31 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 40 of 101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 11 -
management, from October 2000 to the present and the date of such asserted distribution.
No. 14: Documents related to peer review, quality management and quality assurance
policies and procedures at Kern Medical Center, including but not limited to Kern Medical
Center’s Quality Management and Performance Improvement Plan, from October 24, 2000 to the
present, and the effective dates.
No. 15: Documents related to any training provided to officers, directors, agents or
employees on the following subjects: a) disability discrimination, b) accommodation of an
employee’s disability, c) the interactive process regarding accommodation of an employee’s
disability; d) medical leave rights; e) whistleblower retaliation, f) medical leave retaliation,
g) due process required for demotion; h) due process required for pay cut, i) due process required
for termination of employment, j) defamation, and k) Fair Labor Standards Act.
Defendants’ Response:
Defendants agreed to produce redacted documents, subject to objections that the requests
seek documents that contain confidential personnel information, are protected from disclosure
by HIPAA and the peer review, personnel, and attorney-client privileges, and subject to
reimbursement of reproduction costs.
Ruling:
The motion to compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as to these requests.
The peer review and personnel privileges are not applicable. Defendants’ assertion of HIPAA
protection and the attorney-client privilege is appropriate. To the extent that Defendants assert a
right to privacy, the balancing test weighs in favor of limited disclosure and a protective order.
Defendants shall redact all HIPAA information from the documents. Defendants shall produce
the documents, excluding those that are subject to the attorney-client privilege. Defendants shall
also provide a detailed privilege log as required by Fed. R.Civ.P. 26(b)(5). The documents shall
be produced for Plaintiff’s inspection and copying, and the privilege log shall be provided to him,
within 20 days from the date of this order. After inspecting the documents, Plaintiff shall decide
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 124 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 11 of 31 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 41 of 101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 12 -
what documents he wants copied, and pay his own reproduction costs.
Request No. 17
Documents relating to the search, recruitment, application, interviewing, and hiring
process that resulted in Plaintiff’s employment.
Defendants’ Response:
Defendants agreed to produce documents, subject to redaction and objections that the
request seeks documents containing confidential personnel information, documents protected
from disclosure by HIPAA and the peer review, personnel, and attorney-client privileges.
Defendants agreed to produce the documents without waiving their objections, upon
reimbursement of reproduction costs.
Ruling:
The motion to compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as to this request.
The peer review and personnel privileges are inapplicable. Defendants’ assertion of HIPAA
protection and the attorney-client privilege is appropriate. To the extent that Defendants’
assertion of a right of privacy to personnel information of candidates is subject to a balancing
test, it weighs in favor of limited disclosure and a protective order. Defendants shall redact from
the documents all HIPAA information and all personal identifying information of candidates
other than Plaintiff. Defendants shall produce the documents, excluding those that are subject to
the attorney-client privilege, and also excluding all letters of reference for candidates other than
Plaintiff and all substantive evaluations of candidates other than Plaintiff. Defendants shall also
provide a detailed privilege log for those documents that are withheld for the attorney-client
privilege. The documents and the privilege log shall be produced within 20 days from the date of
this order. Plaintiff shall inspect the documents, decide what he wants copied, and pay his own
reproduction costs.
Requests Nos. 23-24
No. 23: Documents relating to Dr. Phillip Dutt’s time sheets, from April 20, 2005 to the
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 124 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 12 of 31 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 42 of 101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 13 -
present.
No. 24: Documents relating to Dr. Savita Shertukde’s time sheets, from January 4, 2005
to present.
Defendants’ Response:
Defendants agreed to produce documents redacted for privileged information, subject to
reimbursement for reproduction costs.
Ruling:
The motion to compel is GRANTED as to these requests. The responses fails to specify
the asserted privilege. Defendants shall produce the documents for Plaintiff’s inspection and
copying within 10 days from the date of this order. Plaintiff shall inspect the documents, decide
what he wants copied, and pay his own reproduction costs.
Request No. 25
Documents relating to performance reviews, comments, complaints, warnings,
reprimands, counseling, advisory notices or evaluations of Plaintiff’s performance of his job
duties throughout his employment, whether formal or informal.
Defendants’ Response:
Defendants objected to this request on the ground that it seeks documents containing
information protected by the attorney-client privilege. Without waiving the objection,
Defendants agreed to produce the documents, subject to redaction and reimbursement of
reproduction costs.
Ruling:
The motion to compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as to this request.
Defendants’ assertion of the attorney-client privilege is appropriate. Defendants shall produce the
documents, excluding those that are subject to the attorney-client privilege. Defendants shall
also provide a detailed privilege log. The documents shall be produced for Plaintiff’s inspection
and copying, and the privilege log shall be provided to him, within 20 days from the date of this
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 124 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 13 of 31 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 43 of 101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 14 -
order. After inspecting the documents, Plaintiff shall decide what documents he wants copied,
and pay his own reproduction costs.
Request No. 26
Documents maintained by Plaintiff at Kern Medical Center during his employment there,
including e-mails, Groupwise calendars, memoranda, written materials, and computer files,
stored on Plaintiff’s computer at Kern Medical Center.
Defendants’ Response:
Defendants objected to producing documents containing confidential personnel
information, documents protected from disclosure by HIPAA, and the peer review, personnel,
and attorney-client privileges. Groupwise calendar information was deleted as part of a routine
90-day software cycling sweep. Defendants agreed to produce redacted material that was
archived by December 21, 2007, provided that Plaintiff pay the reproduction costs.
Ruling:
The motion to compel is GRANTED as to this request. At the hearing on the motion,
Defendants’ counsel reported that Defendants do not object to this request and will produce the
documents requested. If Defendants have not already done so, they shall produce the documents
for Plaintiff’s inspection and copying within 10 days from the date of this order. Plaintiff shall
decide what documents he wants copied, and pay his reproduction costs.
Request No. 27
Documents relating to any meetings relating to Plaintiff or his employment at Kern
Medical Center.
Defendants’ Response:
Defendants objected to this request on the ground that it seeks documents protected from
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege. Without waiving their objection, Defendants agreed
to produce nonprivileged documents, subject to redaction and reimbursement of reproduction
costs
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 124 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 14 of 31 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 44 of 101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 15 -
Ruling:
The motion to compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as to these requests.
Defendants’ assertion of the attorney-client privilege is appropriate. Defendants shall redact all
HIPAA information from the documents. Defendants shall produce the documents, excluding
those that are subject to the attorney-client privilege. Defendants shall also provide a detailed
privilege log. The documents shall be produced for Plaintiff’s inspection and copying, and the
privilege log shall be provided to him, within 20 days from the date of this order. After
inspecting the documents, Plaintiff shall decide what documents he wants copied, and pay his
own reproduction costs.
Request No. 28:
Documents relating to performance reviews, comments, complaints, warnings,
reprimands, counseling, advisory notices or evaluations of the Kern Medical Center Pathology
Department, whether formal or informal, from October 24, 1995 to the present.
Defendants’ Response:
Defendants objected to this request , contending that it seeks documents that contain
confidential personnel information, and that are protected from disclosure by HIPAA and the
peer review, personnel, and attorney-client privileges. Without waiving their objections,
Defendants agreed to produce redacted documents subject to reimbursement of reproduction
costs.
Ruling:
The motion to compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as to this request. The
peer review and personnel privileges are inapplicable. Defendant’s assertion of HIPAA
protection and the attorney-client privilege is appropriate. To the extent that Defendants’
assertion of a right of privacy is subject to a balancing test, it weighs in favor of a protective
order. Defendants shall redact from the documents all HIPAA information. Defendants shall
produce the documents, excluding those that are subject to the attorney-client privilege.
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 124 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 15 of 31 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 45 of 101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 16 -
Defendants shall also produce a detailed privilege log for the documents that are withheld for the
attorney-client privilege. The documents shall be produced for Plaintiff’s inspection and
copying, and the privilege log provided to him, within 20 days from the date of this order.
Plaintiff shall inspect the documents, decide what he wants copied, and pay his own reproduction
costs.
Request Nos. 29-30
No. 29: Documents relating to Plaintiff’s complaints of a) disability discrimination,
b) failure to accommodate, c) failure to engage in an interactive process, d) violation of medical
leave rights; e) whistleblower retaliation, f) medical leave retaliation, g) deprivation of property
without due process , h) defamations, and i) Fair Labor Standards Act.
No. 30: Documents relating to investigation of Plaintiff ’s complaints of disability
discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in an interactive process, violation of
medical leave rights; whistleblower retaliation, medical leave retaliation, defamation, and/or
deprivation of property without due process
Defendants’ Response:
Defendants objected to Request Nos. 29 on the ground that it requests documents
containing information protected by the attorney-client privilege, and agreed to produce the
documents, subject to redaction of “confidential peer review and personnel information” and
reimbursement for reproduction costs.
Ruling:
The motion to compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as to these requests.
Defendants’ assertion of the attorney-client privilege is appropriate. The peer review privilege is
inapplicable. The Court construes Defendants’ “confidential personnel information” objection to
assert the personnel privilege, and finds the privilege inapplicable. To the extent that
Defendants’ assertion of a right of privacy to personnel information is subject to a balancing test,
it weighs in favor of a protective order. Defendants shall produce the documents, excluding
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 124 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 16 of 31 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 46 of 101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 17 -
those that are subject to the attorney-client privilege. Defendants shall also provide a detailed
privilege log for the documents that are withheld for the attorney-client privilege. Defendants
shall produce the documents for Plaintiff’s inspection and copying, and provide the privilege log,
within 20 days from the date of this order. Plaintiff shall inspect the documents, decide what he
wants copied, and pay for his reproduction costs.
Request Nos. 32-33
No. 32: Documents relating to your discipline of any employee against whom a
complaint or grievance of discrimination, harassment, defamation, retaliation, failure to
accommodate, and/or failure to engage in an interactive process in their employment was made
from October 24, 2000 to date.
No. 33: Documents relating to complaints or grievances made by Defendants’ past or
present employees against Defendants for defamation, retaliation, disability discrimination,
failure to accommodate, and/or failure to engage in an interactive process, including, but not
limited to information or internal complaints, grievances or charges to any state or federal
agency, and complaints filed in any state or federal court from October 24, 2004 to date.
Defendants’ Response:
Defendants objected on the grounds that these requests seek documents containing
confidential personnel information and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Defendants also contend that Request No. 33 is vague as to the phrase
“informal or internal”, and overbroad and burdensome because Defendant County of Kern
employees thousand employees.
Ruling:
At the hearing on the motion, Plaintiff’s counsel proposed to limit this Request No. 33 to
“complaints or grievances made by past or present core physicians at Kern Medical Center for
defamation, retaliation, disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and/or failure to
engage in an interactive process, including but not limited to any informal or internal complaints,
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 124 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 17 of 31 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 47 of 101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 18 -
grievances or charges to any state or federal agency, and complaints filed in any state or federal
court from October 24, 2000 to date.” The term “core physicians” means physicians at Kern
Medical Center who are under contract. Based on that limitation, Defendants’ counsel agreed to
produce the documents as to “core physicians” in response to Requests Nos. 32 and 33.
The motion to compel is GRANTED as to the limitation to “core physicians” at Kern
Medical Center for Requests Nos. 32 and 33, and is DENIED as to employees other than core
physicians at Kern Medical Center. To the extent that Defendants’ assertion of a right of privacy
is subject to a balancing test, it weighs in favor of limited disclosure and a protective order.
Defendants shall redact from the documents all HIPAA information and all personal identifying
information as to core physicians at Kern Medical Center other than Plaintiff. Defendants shall
produce the documents, excluding those that are subject to the attorney-client privilege.
Defendants shall also produce a detailed privilege log for those documents that are withheld for
the attorney-client privilege. The documents shall be produced for Plaintiff’s inspection and
copying, and the privilege log provided to him, within 20 days from the date of this order.
Plaintiff shall decide what documents he wants copied, and pay for his own reproduction costs.
Request No. 34:
Documents related to complaints or grievances made by Plaintiff.
Defendants’ Response:
Defendants produced documents in response to this request, and indicated they will
confirm this or produce any additional documents subject to receipt of reproduction costs.
Ruling:
The motion to compel is DENIED as to this request.
Request Nos. 36-39, 41
No. 36: Documents relating to Defendants’ search for, recruitment of, and evaluation of
candidates for the position of staff pathologist at Kern Medical Center from January 1, 2006 to
the present.
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 124 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 18 of 31 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 48 of 101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 19 -
No. 37: Documents relating to Defendants’ search for, recruitment of, and evaluation of
candidates for the position of Chair or Chief of Pathology at Kern Medical Center from January
1, 2006 to the present.
No. 38: Documents relating to Defendants’ search for, recruitment of, and evaluation of
candidates for the position of locum tenens pathologist at Kern Medical Center from January 1,
2006 to the present.
No. 39: Documents relating to Defendants’ search for, recruitment of, and evaluation of
candidates for the position of Chair of Chief of OB-GYN at Kern Medical Center during the
period from January 1, 2006 to present.
No. 41: Documents relating to Defendants’ search for, recruitment, of and evaluation of
candidates for the position of Chair or Chief of Medicine at Kern Medical Center during the
period from October 24, 2000 to present.
Defendants’ Responses:
Defendants objected to these requests on the ground that they seek documents containing
confidential personnel information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Defendants also objected based on HIPAA, and asserted the peer review,
personnel, and attorney-client privileges.
Ruling:
The motion to compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as to these requests.
The peer review and personnel privileges are inapplicable, and the relevancy objection is
overruled. Defendants’ assertion of the attorney-client privilege is appropriate. To the extent
that Defendants’ assertion of a right of privacy to personnel information of candidates other than
Plaintiff is subject to a balancing test, it weighs in favor of limited disclosure and a protective
order. Defendants shall redact from the documents all HIPAA information and all personal
identifying information of candidates other than Plaintiff. Defendants shall produce the
documents, excluding those that are subject to the attorney-client privilege, and also excluding
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 124 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 19 of 31 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 49 of 101
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
- 20 -
letters of reference for candidates other than Plaintiff and substantive evaluations of candidates
other than Plaintiff. Defendants shall also produce a detailed privilege log for those documents
that are withheld for the attorney-client privilege. The documents shall be produced for
Plaintiff’s inspection and copying, and the privilege log provided to him. within 20 days from the
date of this order. Plaintiff shall inspect the documents, decide what he wants copied, and pay
for his own reproduction costs.
Request No. 40
Documents relating to the removal of Dr. Royce Johnson from the position of Chair or
Chief of Medicine at Kern Medical Center.
Defendants’ Response:
Defendants objected on the ground that the requests seeks documents containing
confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in the case and is not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also object to
disclosure based on HIPAA, and the peer review and attorney-client privileges.
Ruling:
At the hearing on this motion, Defendants’ counsel withdrew the objections to this
request and agreed to produce the documents, without 1) waiving the personnel privilege or
privacy claims as to other persons, and 2) reserving the right to object to their admissibility at
trial. Accordingly, the motion to compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:
Defendants shall produce the documents pertaining to the removal of Dr. Royce Johnson as the
Chair or Chief of Medicine at Kern Medical Center for Plaintiff’s inspection, but it shall be
subject to a protective order. Defendants shall not produce documents that are subject to the
attorney-client privilege and provide a detailed privilege log. The documents shall be produced
for Plaintiff’s inspection and copying, and the privilege log provided to him, within 20 days from
the date of this order. Plaintiff shall inspect the documents, decide what he wants copied, and
pay for his own reproduction costs.
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 124 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 20 of 31 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 50 of 101
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
- 21 -
Request Nos. 42-43
No. 42: Documents relating to Plaintiff’s presentations made at the Kern Medical Center
oncology conference in May 2005, including but not limited to participant evaluation forms,.
No. 43: Documents relating to Plaintiff’s presentations made at the Kern Medical Center
oncology conference on or about October 12, 2005.
Defendants’ Response:
Defendants objected to these requests on the grounds that they seek documents that
contain certain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in this case
and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also
object to this request to the extent that it requests information protected by HIPAA , and the peer
review and attorney-client privileges. Defendants agreed to produce non-privileged documents
and to redact any privileged information.
Ruling:
The motion to compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as to these requests.
The peer review and personnel privileges are inapplicable. The assertion of the attorney-client
privilege is appropriate. Defendants shall redact and produce the nonprivileged documents and
provide a detailed privilege log, within 20 days from the date of this order. Plaintiff shall inspect
the documents, decide what he wants copied, and pay the reproduction costs.
Request No. 45
Documents relating to packets containing information about Plaintiff which Peter Bryan
collected at the end of Kern Medical Center’s Joint Conference Committee discussion and vote
on removal of Plaintiff from Chair of Pathology on July 10, 2006.
Defendants’ Response:
Defendants asserted the peer review, attorney-client, and confidential personnel
privilege. Without waiving these objections, Defendants agreed to produce the documents
subject to reimbursement of reproduction costs.
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 124 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 21 of 31 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 51 of 101
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
- 22 -
Ruling:
The motion to compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as to this request. The
peer review and personnel privileges are inapplicable. Defendants’ assertion of the attorney-
client privilege is appropriate. To the extent that Defendants’ assertion of the right of privacy to
personnel information is subject to a balancing test, it weighs in favor of a protective order. If
they have not already done so, Defendants are required to redact and produce the nonprivileged
documents and a detailed privilege log, within ten days from the date of this order. Plaintiff shall
inspect the documents, decide what he wants copied, and pay his own reproduction costs.
Request Nos. 51 and 54
No. 51: Documents relating to Kern Medical Center’s Disruptive Physician Policy,
including but not limited to Bylaw Committee meeting minutes.
No. 54: Documents relating to statistics relating to patient fatalities at Kern Medical
Center from October 24, 2000 to the present.
Defendant’s Response:
Defendants objected to Request No. 51 on the ground that it is vague, seeks documents
that contain confidential personnel information and documents protected from disclosure by
HIPAA and the peer review, personnel, and attorney-client privileges. Except for the vagueness
objection, Defendants made the same objections as to Request No. 54. Additionally, Defendants
objected to No. 54 on the ground that it is not relevant to any issues in this case and is not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving these
objections, Defendants agreed to produce documents in response to these requests, subject to
redaction of peer review and personnel information, and reimbursement for copy costs.
Ruling:
At the hearing on the motion, Defendants withdrew Request No. 54. The motion to
compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as to Request No. 51. The peer review and
personnel privileges are inapplicable. Defendants’ assertion of the attorney-client privilege is
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 124 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 22 of 31 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 52 of 101
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
- 23 -
appropriate. To the extent that Defendants’ assertion of a right of privacy of personnel
information is subject to a balancing test, it weighs in favor of a protective order. As to Request
No. 51, Defendants shall redact from the documents all HIPAA information. Defendants shall
produce the documents, excluding those that are subject to the attorney-client privilege.
Defendant shall produce a detailed privilege log for the documents that are withheld for the
attorney-client privilege. The documents and the privilege log shall be produced within 20 days
from the date of this order. Plaintiff shall inspect the documents, decide what he wants copied,
and pay his own reproduction costs.
Request No. 55
Documents relating to the review of Kern Medical Center’s placental evaluations and
billing activity as conducted by outside consultants, including but not limited to ProPay Physican
Services, L.L.C. from October 24, 2000 to the present.
Defendants’ Response:
Defendants objected to this request on the ground that it seeks documents that contain
confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issue in this case and is not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also contend
that it requests information protected from disclosure by HIPAA and the peer-review, personnel,
and attorney-client privileges.
Ruling:
At the hearing on this motion, Plaintiff narrowed his request to “documents relating to
Kern Medical Center’s review of Plaintiff’s placental evaluations and billing activity as conducted
by outside consultants, including, but not limited to, ProPay Physician Services, L.L.C. from
October 24, 200 to the present.” In response to that modification, Defendants withdrew their
objections, and agreed to produce the documents. There being no objections, Defendants are to
produce the documents for Plaintiff’s inspection within 10 days after the date of this order.
Plaintiff shall inspect the documents, decide what he wants copied, and pay his own copy costs.
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 124 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 23 of 31 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 53 of 101
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
- 24 -
Request No. 56
Documents relating to blood bank monthly reports, including but not limited to reports
generated by Michelle Burris, from January 2006 to present.
Defendants’ Response:
Defendants contend that this request seeks documents that contain confidential personnel
information that is not relevant to any issues in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also contend that it requests information
protected from disclosure by HIPAA and the peer review, personnel, and attorney-client
privileges.
Ruling:
The motion to compel is DENIED as to this request. The request seeks information that
is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence.
Request No. 57
Documents relating to product chart copy-related quality assurance reports from October
24, 2000 to the present.
Defendants’ Response:
Defendants contend that this request seeks documents that contain confidential personnel
information that is not relevant to any issues in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also contend that the requests seek information
protected from disclosure by HIPAA and the peer review, personnel, and attorney-client
privileges.
Ruling:
At the hearing on this motion, Plaintiff’s counsel represented that “it appears that we have
worked out a procedure whereby we will review it.” Accordingly, the motion is deemed
withdrawn as to this request.
///
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 124 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 24 of 31 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 54 of 101
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
- 25 -
Request Nos. 58-60, 61
No. 58: Documents relating to prostate needle biopsy reports produced by Dr. Elsa Ang
for which Plaintiff had requested a look back study in October 2005.
No. 60: Documents relating to Workplace Violence or Threat Incident Reports for all
Kern Medical Center personnel from October 24, 2000 to the present.
No. 61: Documents relating to Fine Needle Aspiration policies at Kern Medical Center
from October 24, 2000 to the present.
Defendants’ Responses:
Defendants contend that these requests seek documents that contain confidential personnel
information that is not relevant to any issues in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also contend that these requests seek
information protected from disclosure by HIPAA and the peer review, personnel, and attorney-
client privileges. Without waiving these objections, Defendants agreed to produce documents in
response to Request Nos. 60 and 61, subject to redaction of confidential or privileged information
and reimbursement for copy costs.
Ruling:
The motion to compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as to these requests.
The peer review and personnel privileges are inapplicable, and the relevancy objection is
overruled. Defendants’ objection to disclosure based on HIPAA is appropriate, as is its assertion
of the attorney-client privilege. To the extent that Defendants’ assertion of a right of privacy to
personnel information is subject to a balancing test, it weighs in favor of a protective order.
Defendants shall redact from the documents all HIPAA information. Defendants shall produce the
documents, excluding those that are subject to the attorney-client privilege. Defendants shall also
provide a detailed privilege log for the documents that are withheld for the attorney-client
privilege. Defendants shall produce the documents and the privilege log within 20 days from the
date of this order. Plaintiff shall inspect the documents, decide what he wants copied, and pay his
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 124 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 25 of 31 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 55 of 101
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
- 26 -
own reproduction costs.
Request No. 63
Documents relating to meeting minutes for the following Kern Medical Center committees
or groups from October 24, 2000 to the present: a) Medical Executive Committee, b) Joint
Conference Committee, c) Quality Management Committee, d) Cancer Committee, e) Second
Level Peer Review Committee, f) Transfusion Committee, and g) Executive Staff Meetings.
Defendants’ Response:
Defendants contend that this request seeks documents that contain confidential personnel
information, and information protected by HIPAA and the peer review and attorney-client
privileges. Without waiving these objections, Defendants agreed to produce responsive documents
subject to redaction of confidential or privileged information and reimbursement for copy costs.
Ruling:
The motion to compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as to this request. The
peer review and personnel privileges are inapplicable. However, to the extent that Defendants’
assertion of a right of privacy to personnel information is subject to a balancing test, it weighs in
favor of limited disclosure and a protective order. Defendant shall redact from the documents all
HIPAA information and all personal identifying information of employees other than Plaintiff
with respect to personnel matters. Defendants shall produce the documents, excluding those that
are subject to the attorney-client privilege and those that are excluded by other provisions of this
order. Defendants shall also produce a detailed privilege log for the documents that are withheld
for the attorney-client privilege. The documents and the privilege log shall be produced within 20
days from the date of this order. Plaintiff shall inspect the documents, decide what he wants
copied, and pay his own reproduction costs.
Request Nos. 65-67
No. 65: Documents relating to case send-out logs for Kern Medical Center’s Pathology
Department from January 1, 1999 to the present, including but not limited to corresponding Kern
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 124 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 26 of 31 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 56 of 101
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
- 27 -
Medical Center pathology reports and reports from outside consultants.
No. 66: Documents relating to case monthly turn-around time reports and logs -
by pathologist - for pathology reports processed at Kern Medical Center, including but not limited
to Pathology Department semi-annual reports to the Medical Staff, for the time period from
January 1, 1999 to the present
No. 67: Documents relating to case monthly turn-around time reports and logs - for Kern
Medical Center’s Pathology Department as a whole - for pathology reports processed at Kern
Medical Center including but not limited to surgical pathology, cytology and bone marrow
reports, for the time period from January 1, 1999 to the present.
Defendants’ Responses:
Defendants contend that these requests seek documents that contain confidential personnel
information, and seek information protected by HIPAA and the peer review, personnel, and
attorney-client privileges. Without waiving these objections, Defendants agreed to produce
responsive documents subject to redaction of peer review and personnel information and
reimbursement for copy costs.
Ruling:
The motion to compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as to these requests. The
peer review and personnel privileges are inapplicable. Defendants’ assertion of the attorney-client
privilege is appropriate. To the extent that Defendants’ assertion of a right of privacy to personnel
information is subject to a balancing test, it weighs in favor of a protective order. Defendants
shall redact all HIPAA information from the documents. Defendants shall produce the documents
and a detailed privilege log, excluding those that are subject to the attorney-client privilege, within
20 days from the date of this order. Plaintiff shall inspect the documents, decide what he wants
copied, and pay his own reproduction costs.
Request No. 68
Documents relating to pathology reports authored, reviewed or approved by Plaintiff sent
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 124 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 27 of 31 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 57 of 101
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
- 28 -
to any outside pathologist for outside review from June 14, 2006 to the present.
Defendants’ Response:
Defendants objected to this request on the ground that it seeks documents containing
privileged peer review information. Without waiving this objection, Defendants agreed to
produce responsive documents subject to redaction of privileged information.
Ruling:
The motion to compel is GRANTED as to this request. The peer review privilege is
inapplicable. Defendants shall redact any HIPAA information from the documents, and produce
the documents for Plaintiff’s inspection within 10 days from the date of this order. Plaintiff shall
inspect the documents, decide what he wants copied, and pay his own reproduction costs.
Request No. 69
Documents relating to pathology reports for case numbers S06-4131, S06-4619, S06 -
5229, and S06-73276.
Defendants’ Response:
Defendants contend that this request seeks documents that contain information protected
by HIPAA and the peer review privilege. Without waiving these objections, Defendants agreed to
produce responsive documents subject to redaction.
Ruling:
The motion to compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as to this request. The
peer review privilege is not applicable. Defendants’ assertion of HIPAA protection is appropriate.
Defendants shall redact all HIPAA information from the documents and produce them for
Plaintiff’s inspection and copying, within 10 days from the date of this order. Plaintiff shall
inspect the documents, decide what he wants copied, and pay his own reproduction costs.
Request No. 70
Documents relating to peer review of Kern Medical Center’s Pathology Department during
the time period from January 1, 1995 to the present.
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 124 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 28 of 31 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 58 of 101
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
- 29 -
Defendants’ Response:
Defendants contend that this request seeks documents that contain confidential personnel
information that is not relevant to any issues in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also object to disclosure of information
protected by HIPAA and the peer review, personnel, and attorney-client privileges.
Ruling:
The motion to compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as to this request. The
peer review and personnel privileges are inapplicable, and the relevancy objection is overruled.
Defendants’ objection based on HIPAA is appropriate, as is its assertion of the attorney-client
privilege. To the extent that Defendants’ assertion of a right of privacy to personnel information
is subject to a balancing test, it weighs in favor of limited disclosure and a protective order.
Defendants shall redact from the documents all HIPAA information and all personal identifying
information for employees other than Plaintiff. Defendants shall produce a detailed privilege log
for all documents that are withheld for the attorney-client privilege. The documents and the
privilege log shall be produced within 20 days from the date of this order. Plaintiff shall inspect
the documents, decide what he wants copied, and pay his own reproduction costs.
Request Nos. 71-73, 78
No: 71: Documents relating to exceptional event logs for histology and pathology on Kern
Medical Center’s Pathology Department from January 1, 2006 to the present.
No. 72: Documents related to paper accession logs at Kern Medical Center’s Pathology
Department from January 1, 2006 to the present.
No. 73: Documents relating to tissue disposal records for skull-flaps from January 1, 2006
to the present.
No. 78: Documents relating to placental evaluations conducted by Plaintiff from June 14,
2006 to the present.
///
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 124 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 29 of 31 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 59 of 101
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
- 30 -
Defendants’ Response:
Defendants objected to these requests on the grounds that they calls for the production of
documents that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in this
case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants
also objected on the grounds that the requests seek information protected from disclosure by
HIPAA, and the peer review, personnel, and attorney-client privileges.
Ruling:
The motion to compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as to this request. The
peer review privilege and personnel privilege are inapplicable. Defendants’ objection based on
HIPAA is appropriate, as is their assertion of the attorney-client privilege. To the extent that
Defendants’ assertion of a right of privacy to personnel information is subject to a balancing test,
it weighs in favor of a protective order. Defendants shall exclude all HIPAA information from the
documents. Defendants shall produce the documents, excluding those that are subject to the
attorney-client privilege. Defendants shall also produce a detailed privilege log for the documents
that are withheld for the attorney-client privilege. The documents and the privilege log shall be
produced for Plaintiff’s inspection and copying within 20 days from the date of this order.
Plaintiff shall inspect the documents, decide what he wants copied, and pay his own reproduction
costs.
Request No. 74
Documents relating to audits of Kern Medical Center’s Pathology Department by outside
consultants, including but not limited to Dr. Stacy Garry, from October 24, 2000 to the present.
Defendants’ Response:
Defendants objected to this request on the ground that it seeks documents that contain
information that is protected by HIPAA and the peer review privilege. Without waiving these
objections, Defendants agreed to produce responsive documents, subject to reimbursement for
reproduction costs.
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 124 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 30 of 31 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 60 of 101
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
- 31 -
Ruling:
The motion to compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as to this request.
The peer review privilege is inapplicable. Defendants’ objection based on HIPAA is appropriate.
Defendants shall redact all HIPAA information from the documents and produce them for
Plaintiff’s inspection and copying within 20 days from the date of this order. Plaintiff shall
inspect the documents, decide what he wants copied, and pay for his own reproduction costs.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's motion for an order to compel the production of documents is GRANTED in
part and DENIED in part.
2. No later than five days from the date of this order, Plaintiff’s counsel and Defendants’
counsel shall meet, confer, and stipulate to a mutually acceptable form of protective order. If
either party is concerned about the misuse of the documents or the information by either party,
they may propose a “counsel only ” protective order. In the event the parties are unable to
stipulate to a form of protective order within five days from the date of this order, then each party
shall file a proposed form of protective order for the Court’s consideration, to be filed no later
than six days from the date of this order. Counsel shall also send digital copies of the proposed
protective orders to the Court’s chambers at tagorders@caed.uscourts.gov.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 8, 2008 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner
j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 124 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 31 of 31 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 61 of 101





























EXHIBIT 3. Defendants’ Responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production, Set One
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 62 of 101



DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Mark A. Wasser CA SB #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: mwasser@markwasser.com

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
E-mail: mnations@co.kern.ca.us


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


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA



DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.
Plaintiff,
vs.
COUNTY OF KERN, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO
PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET
ONE)

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

)
PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., F.C.A.P.
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant COUNTY OF KERN
SET NUMBER: ONE (1)


Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 63 of 101



DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendants hereby submit these responses to Plaintiff David F. Jadwin’s Request for
Production of Documents, Set One. Defendants have not located all the documents that are
responsive to this request and, for that reason, many of the production dates set forth herein are
estimates. Defendants will supplement or amend this response, if necessary, as additional
documents are located and reviewed.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the First Affirmative Defense listed in
Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff’s Second Supplemental Complaint.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 1
Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of
documents that are protected by the attorney-work-product and attorney-client privileges.
Without waiving those objections, after diligent search, Defendants’ have not been able to locate
any documents that are responsive to this request.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Second Affirmative Defense listed in
Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff’s Second Supplemental Complaint.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 2
Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of
documents that are protected by the attorney-work-product and attorney-client privileges.
Without waiving those objections, after diligent search, Defendants’ have not been able to locate
any documents that are responsive to this request.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Third Affirmative Defense listed in
Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff’s Second Supplemental Complaint.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 3
Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of
documents that are protected by the attorney-work-product and attorney-client privileges.
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 64 of 101



DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
3
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
Without waiving those objections, after diligent search, Defendants’ have not been able to locate
any documents that are responsive to this request.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Fourth Affirmative Defense listed in
Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff’s Second Supplemental Complaint.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 4
Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of
documents that are protected by the attorney-work-product and attorney-client privileges.
Without waiving those objections, after diligent search, Defendants’ have not been able to locate
any documents that are responsive to this request.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Fifth Affirmative Defense listed in
Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff’s Second Supplemental Complaint.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 5
Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of
documents that are protected by the attorney-work-product and attorney-client privileges.
Without waiving those objections, Defendants will produce all non-privileged documents
responsive to this request on or before December 21, 2007. This request is duplicative of other
requests contained in Plaintiff’s request for production, set one, and the documents produced in
response to this request may refer to the documents produced in response to other requests.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Sixth Affirmative Defense listed in
Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff’s Second Supplemental Complaint.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 6
Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of
documents that are protected by the attorney-work-product and attorney-client privileges.
Without waiving those objections, after diligent search, Defendants’ have not been able to locate
any documents that are responsive to this request.
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 65 of 101



DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
4
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
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Seventh Affirmative Defense listed in
Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff’s Second Supplemental Complaint.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 7
Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of
documents that are protected by the attorney-work-product and attorney-client privileges.
Without waiving those objections, after diligent search, Defendants’ have not been able to locate
any documents that are responsive to this request.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Eighth Affirmative Defense listed in
Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff’s Second Supplemental Complaint.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 8
Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of
documents that are protected by the attorney-work-product and attorney-client privileges.
Without waiving those objections, Defendants will produce all non-privileged documents
responsive to this request on or before December 21, 2007. This request is duplicative of other
requests contained in Plaintiff’s request for production, set one, and the documents produced in
response to this request may refer to the documents produced in response to other requests.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Ninth Affirmative Defense listed in
Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff’s Second Supplemental Complaint.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 9
Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of
documents that are protected by the attorney-work-product and attorney-client privileges.
Without waiving those objections, after diligent search, Defendants’ have not been able to locate
any documents that are responsive to this request.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 66 of 101



DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR organizational structure during
Plaintiff’s employment with YOU, including but not limited to organizational charts, diagrams
and drawings.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 10
Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request. Production may occur
in stages. The first stage of production will be on November 20, 2007 and may include all
responsive documents. If other responsive documents are discovered, they will be produced by
December 7, 2007.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Kern Medical Center personnel directories
or lists, including but not limited to names, direct work phone numbers, departments, etc. which
were maintained by YOU during Plaintiff’s employment with YOU.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 11
Defendants will produce all non-privileged documents responsive to this request.
Production may occur in stages. The first stage of production will be on November 20, 2007 and
may include all responsive documents. If other responsive documents are discovered, they will
be produced by December 7, 2007. Defendants will redact personal or confidential information
as appropriate.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR personnel policies, guidelines, fact
sheets, posters, employee and/or employer handbooks, training materials, and employee and/or
employer manuals maintained by YOU that YOU contend governed Plaintiff’s terms and
conditions of employment at any time during the period from October 1, 2000 to October 4,
2007. These include but are not limited to YOUR ordinances, Kern Medical Center’s
Administrative Procedures Manual, Kern Medical Center’s Policy & Administrative Procedures
Manual, policies RELATING TO disability discrimination, reasonable accommodation,
interactive process, personal leave, administrative leave, medical leave, retaliation, investigations
into complaints of unlawful employment practices, discipline of employees, investigation of
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 67 of 101



DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
6
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
employees, appointment of Kern Medical Center acting department chairs, hiring of Kern
Medical Center department chairs, demotion of Kern Medical Center department chairs, and
policies RELATING TO Kern Medical Center’s Pathology Department.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 12
Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain
confidential personnel information, documents protected from disclosure by state or federal law,
including the peer-review privilege, or documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege.
Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce documents responsive to this request
by December 21, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential peer review and personnel
information as appropriate.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR personnel policies, guidelines, fact
sheets, posters, employee and/or employer handbooks, training materials, and employee and/or
employer manuals maintained by YOU that YOU contend was distributed or made available to
YOUR employees, whether management or non-management, from October 24, 200 to the
present and the date of such asserted distribution. These include but are not limited to YOUR
ordinances, Kern Medical Center’s Administrative Procedures Manual, Kern Medical Center’s
Policy & Administrative Procedures Manual, policies RELATING TO disability discrimination,
reasonable accommodation, interactive process, personal leave, administrative leave, medical
leave, retaliation, investigations into complaints of unlawful employment practices, discipline of
employees, investigation of employees, appointment of Kern Medical Center acting department
chairs, hiring of Kern Medical Center department chairs, demotion of Kern Medical Center
department chairs, and policies RELATING TO Kern Medical Center’s Pathology Department.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 13
Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain
confidential personnel information, documents protected from disclosure by state or federal law,
including the peer-review privilege, or documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege.
Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce documents responsive to this request
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 68 of 101



DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
7
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
by December 21, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential peer review and personnel
information as appropriate.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO peer review, quality management and
quality assurance policies and procedures at Kern Medical Center, included but not limited to
Kern Medical Center’s Quality Management and Performance Improvement Plan, from October
24, 2000 to the present, and the effective dates.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 14
Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain
confidential personnel information, documents protected from disclosure by state or federal law,
including the peer-review privilege, or documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege.
Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce documents responsive to this request
by December 7, 2007.1. Defendants will redact confidential peer review and personnel
information as appropriate.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any training provided by YOU to YOUR
officers, directors, agents or employees on the following subjects:
a) disability discrimination
b) accommodation of an employee’s disability
c) the interactive process regarding accommodation of an employee’s disability
d) medical leave rights
e) whistleblower retaliation
f) medical leave retaliation
g) due process required for demotion
h) due process required for pay cut
i) due process required for termination of employment
j) defamation
k) Fair Labor Standards Act
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 69 of 101



DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
8
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
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 15
Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain
confidential personnel information, documents protected from disclosure by state or federal law,
including the peer-review privilege, or documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege.
Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce documents responsive to this request
by December 21, 2007.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING To the PERSONNEL FILES of the following
people.
a) Plaintiff David F. Jadwin
b) Elsa Ang
c) Ellen Bunyi-Teopengco
d) Philip Dutt
e) Carol Gates
f) Adam Lang
g) Fangluo Liu
h) Savita Shertukde
i) Navin Amin
j) Kathy Griffith
k) Alice Hevle
l) Denise Long
m) Gilbert Martinez
n) Albert McBride
o) Javad Naderi
p) Jane Thornton
q) Nitin Athavale
r) Chester Lau
s) Jennifer J. Abraham
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 70 of 101



DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
t) Bernard C. Barmann
u) Karen S. Barnes
v) Peter K. Bryan
w) David Culberson
x) Irwin E. Harris
y) Royce Johnson
z) Eugene K. Kercher
aa) Alan Scott Ragland
bb) William Roy
cc) Maureen Martin
dd) Steven O‘Connor
ee) Antoinette Smith
ff) Edward Taylor
gg) Marvin Kolb
hh) Dianne McConnehey
ii) Renita Nunn
jj) Ravi Patel
kk) Jose Perez
ll) Evangeline Gallegos
mm) Sergio Perticucci
nn) Bonnie Quinonez
oo) James Sproul
pp) Rebecca Rivera
qq) Sheldon Freedman
rr) Joseph Mansour
ss) George Alkouri
tt) Nicole Sharkey
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 16
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 71 of 101



DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendants have already produced the personnel file of David F. Jadwin. Defendants
will confirm that the personnel file previously produced was complete as of the time of its
production and, on or before December 7, 2007, will augment the documents previously
produced with any additional materials, if any, that have been added into Mr. Jadwin’s personnel
file since the file was produced. Plaintiff has narrowed the scope of this request by eliminating
all other documents initially requested.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the search, recruitment, application,
interviewing, and hiring process that resulted in Plaintiff’s employment by YOU.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 17
Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain
confidential personnel information, documents protected from disclosure by state or federal law,
including the peer-review privilege, or documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege.
Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this
request by December 21, 2007.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the terms, conditions and privileges of
Plaintiff’s employment with YOU.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 18
Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Plaintiff’s job duties and responsibilities for
each position held by Plaintiff during this employment with YOU.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 19
Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Plaintiff’s payroll, compensation, base
salary and “professional fee payments”, as that term is defined in Plaintiff’s employment
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 72 of 101



DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
11
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
contracts with YOU, including but not limited to any and all changes in compensation and the
reasons for changes, throughout Plaintiff’s employment with YOU.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 20
Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 7, 2007.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR policies, guidelines and practices
regarding base salary steps, salary guidelines, deferred compensation plans, pension plans, health
insurance and employment benefits applicable to Plaintiff’s position s held throughout his
employment with YOU.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 21
Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Plaintiff’s work schedule and/or removal
there from, including but not limited to timesheets, from October 24, 200 to present.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 22
Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Dr. Phillip Dutt’s timesheets, from April 20
2005 to the present.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 23
Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain
confidential personnel information, documents protected from disclosure by state or federal law,
including the peer-review privilege, or documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege.
Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce all non-privileged documents
responsive to this request by December 21, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential
information, in any, as appropriate.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 73 of 101



DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Dr. Savita Shertukde’s timesheets, from
January 4, 2005 to present.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 24
Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain
confidential personnel information, documents protected from disclosure by state or federal law,
including the peer-review privilege, or documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege.
Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce all non-privileged documents
responsive to this request by December 21, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential
information, in any, as appropriate.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO performance reviews, comments,
complaints, warnings, reprimands, counseling, advisory notices or evaluations of Plaintiff’s
performance of his job duties throughout his employment with YOU, whether formal or
informal.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 25
Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain
confidential personnel information, documents protected from disclosure by state or federal law,
including the peer-review privilege, or documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege.
Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce all non-privileged documents
responsive to this request by December 7, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential
information, in any, as appropriate.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26
Any and all DOCUMENTS maintained by Plaintiff at Kern Medical Center during his
employment by YOU, including any and all e-mails, Groupwise calendars, memoranda, written
materials, and computer files stored on Plaintiff’s computer at Kern Medical Center’s servers.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 26
After diligent search, Defendants believe Groupwise calendar information was deleted
many months ago as part of the routine 90-day cycling of the Groupwise software. Defendants
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 74 of 101



DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
13
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
are continuing to search for other materials that were on the computer that was assigned to
Plaintiff. Some material was archived before the computer was reassigned. Defendants have
identified about 3,000 pages of documents that appear to be responsive to this request but have
not yet concluded their search. Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request
by December 7, 2007.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any meetings RELATING TO Plaintiff or
Plaintiff’s employment at Kern Medical Center.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 27
Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain
confidential personnel information, documents protected from disclosure by state or federal law,
including the peer-review privilege, or documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege.
Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce documents responsive to this request
by December 7, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential peer review and personnel
information, if any, as appropriate.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO performance reviews, comments,
complaints, warnings, reprimands, counseling, advisory notices or evaluations of the Kern
Medical Center Pathology Department, whether formal or informal, from October 24, 1995 to
the present.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 28
Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain
confidential personnel information, documents protected from disclosure by state or federal law,
including the peer-review privilege, or documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege.
Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce documents responsive to this request
by December 7, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential peer review and personnel
information as appropriate.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 75 of 101



DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Plaintiff’s complaints of:
a) disability discrimination
b) failure to accommodate
c) failure to engage in an interactive process
d) violation of medical leave rights
e) whistleblower retaliation
f) medical leave retaliation
g) deprivation of property without due process
h) defamation
i) Fair Labor Standards Act violations
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 29
Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain
confidential personnel information, documents protected from disclosure by state or federal law,
including the peer-review privilege, or documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege.
Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce documents responsive to this request
by December 21, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential peer review and personnel
information as appropriate.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any investigation of Plaintiff’s complaints
of disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in an interactive process,
violation of medical leave rights, whistleblower retaliation, medical leave retaliation, defamation,
and/or deprivation of property without due process.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 30
Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain
confidential personnel information, documents protected from disclosure by state or federal law,
including the peer-review privilege, or documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege.
Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce documents responsive to this request
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 76 of 101



DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
15
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
by December 21, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential peer review and personnel
information as appropriate.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any procedures available to YOUR
employees to complain of corruption, fraud and other wrongful, illegal or unethical conduct, that
YOU contend was distributed or made available to YOUR employees, whether management or
non-management, from October 24, 2000 to the present, and the date of such asserted
distribution(s).
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 31
Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR discipline of any employee against
whom a complaint or grievance of discrimination, harassment, defamation, retaliation, failure to
accommodate, and/or failure to engage in an interactive process in their employment was made
from October 24, 2000 to date.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 32
Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it requests documents that contain
confidential personnel information, documents protected from disclosure by state or federal law,
including HIPAA and the peer-review privilege, and documents that contain information that is
subject to the attorney-client privilege. Defendants do not believe these objections can be
resolved by redaction. Defendants also object on the grounds that the request is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO complaints or grievances made by YOUR
past or present employees against YOU for defamation, retaliation, disability discrimination,
failure to accommodate, and/or failure to engage in an interactive process, including but not
limited to any informal or internal complaints, grievances or charges to any state or federal
agency, and complaints filed in any state or federal court from October 24, 2000 to date.
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 77 of 101



DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
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
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 33
Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of
documents that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in
this case. Consequently, this request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Defendants also object on the ground that the phrase, “informal or internal
complaints” is vague and, depending on interpretation, could include any off-hand gripe by any
employee, to the extent it was memorialized in writing. Defendant County of Kern employs
several thousand employees. In the past seven years, there could be many documents that fit the
description of this request yet none have anything to do with the issues in this case. This request
is, accordingly, overbroad and burdensome. Defendants do not believe redaction would resolve
these objections.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any complaints or grievances made to YOU
by Plaintiff.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 34
Defendants believe all documents responsive to this request have been previously
produced to Plaintiff. Defendants will confirm this, or produce additional documents if
necessary, by December 7, 2007.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Plaintiff which YOU sent to or received
from any governmental or regulatory authority, including but not limited to the California
Department of Fair Employment and Housing, the California Labor and Workforce Development
Agency, and the U.S. Department of Labor.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 35
Defendants believe all documents responsive to this request have been previously
produced to Plaintiff. Defendants will confirm this, or produce additional documents if
necessary, by December 7, 2007.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 78 of 101



DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TOYOUR search for, recruitment, of and
evaluation of candidates for the position of staff pathologist at Kern Medical Center during the
period from January 1, 2006 to present.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 36
Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of
documents that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in
this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Defendants also object to this request to the extent it requests information protected from
disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA and the peer review privilege, and
documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege. Without waving these objections,
Defendants will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this request, if any, by
December 7, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential and privileged information as
appropriate.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TOYOUR search for, recruitment, of and
evaluation of candidates for the position of Chair or Chief of Pathology at Kern Medical Center
during the period from January 1, 2006 to present.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 37
Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of
documents that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in
this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Defendants also object to this request to the extent it requests information protected from
disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA and the peer review privilege, and
documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege. Without waving these objections,
Defendants will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this request, if any, by
December 7, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential and privileged information as
appropriate.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 79 of 101



DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TOYOUR search for, recruitment, of and
evaluation of candidates for the position of locus tenens pathologist at Kern Medical Center
during the period from January 1, 2006 to present.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 38
Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of
documents that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in
this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Defendants also object to this request to the extent it requests information protected from
disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA and the peer review privilege, and
documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege. Without waving these objections,
Defendants will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this request, if any, by
December 7, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential and privileged information as
appropriate.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TOYOUR search for, recruitment, of and
evaluation of candidates for the position of Chair or Chief of OB-GYN at Kern Medical Center
during the period from January 1, 2006 to present.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 39
Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of
documents that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in
this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Defendants also object to this request to the extent it requests information protected from
disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA and the peer review privilege, and
documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege. Without waving these objections,
Defendants will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this request, if any, by
December 7, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential and privileged information as
appropriate.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 40
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 80 of 101



DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TOYOUR removal of Dr. Royce Johnson from
the position of Chair or Chief of Medicine at Kern Medical Center.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 40
Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of
documents that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in
this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Defendants also object to this request to the extent it requests information protected from
disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA and the peer review privilege, and
documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TOYOUR search for, recruitment, of and
evaluation of candidates for the position of Chair or Chief of Medicine at Kern Medical Center
during the period from October 24, 2000 to present.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 41
Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of
documents that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in
this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Defendants also object to this request to the extent it requests information protected from
disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA and the peer review privilege, and
documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege. Without waving these objections,
Defendants will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this request, if any, by
December 21, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential and privileged information as
appropriate.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 42
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO presentations made at the Kern Medical
Center oncology conference in May 2005, including but not limited to participant evaluation
forms.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 42
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 81 of 101



DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of
documents that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in
this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Defendants also object to this request to the extent it requests information protected from
disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA and the peer review privilege, and
documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege. Without waving these objections,
Defendants will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this request, if any, by
December 7, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential and privileged information as
appropriate.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 43
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Plaintiff’s presentations made at the Kern
Medical Center oncology conference on or about October 12, 2005.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 43
Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 7, 2007.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 44
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR decision to demote Plaintiff from
Chair of Kern Medical Center’s Pathology Department to staff pathologist.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 44
Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that are privileged
under the attorney-client privilege. Without waiving this objection Defendants will produce all
non-privileged documents responsive to this request by December 7, 2007.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 45
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING To the “packets containing information about
Dr. Jadwin” which Peter Bryan collected at the end of Kern Medical Center’s Joint Conference
Committee discussion and vote on removal of Plaintiff from Chair of Pathology on July 10,
2006.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 45
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 82 of 101



DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendants are searching for documents responsive to this request. Because of
administrative and management changes at Kern Medical Center, it may not be possible to
reconstruct the “packets” requested. Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests
information protected by the peer-review or attorney-client privileges. Defendants also object to
this request to the extent it seeks documents that contain confidential personnel information.
Without waiving these objections, and to the extent that the “packets” can be reconstructed,
Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request, if any, by December 21, 2007.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 46
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR decision to place Plaintiff on
administrative leave on or about December 7, 2006.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 46
Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests information protected by the
attorney-client privilege. Without waiving that objection, Defendants believe all documents
responsive to this request have been previously produced to Plaintiff. Defendants will confirm
this, or produce additional documents if necessary, by December 7, 2007.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 47
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR decision to restrict Plaintiff to his
home during working hours from on or about December 7, 2006 to on or about May 1, 2007
while he was on administrative leave.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 47
Defendants believe all documents responsive to this request have been previously
produced to Plaintiff. Defendants will confirm this, or produce additional documents if
necessary, by December 7, 2007.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 48
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR decision to lift the restriction of
Plaintiff to his home during working hours from on or about December 7, 2006 to on or about
May 1, 2007 while he was on administrative leave.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 48
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 83 of 101



DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendants believe all documents responsive to this request have been previously
produced to Plaintiff. Defendants will confirm this, or produce additional documents if
necessary, by December 7, 2007.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 49
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR decision not to renew Plaintiff’s
employment contract with YOU that was purportedly made on or about May 1, 2007.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 49
Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests information protected by the
attorney-client privilege. Without waiving that objection, Defendants believe all documents
responsive to this request have been previously produced to Plaintiff. Defendants will confirm
this, or produce additional documents if necessary, by December 7, 2007.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 50
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any discipline, coaching, reprimand or
corrective action taken against Plaintiff by YOU.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 50
Defendants believe all documents responsive to this request have been previously
produced to Plaintiff. Defendants will confirm this, or produce additional documents if
necessary, by December 21, 2007.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 51
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Kern Medical Center’s Disruptive Physician
Policy, including but not limited to Bylaw Committee meeting minutes.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 51
Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain
confidential personnel information, documents protected from disclosure by state or federal law,
including the HIPAA and the peer-review privilege, or documents that are subject to the
attorney-client privilege. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce documents
responsive to this request by December 7, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential peer review
and personnel information as appropriate.
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 84 of 101



DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
23
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
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 52
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Dr. Rebecca Rivera’s lawsuit against Kern
Medical Center filed in Kern County California Superior Court.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 52
Plaintiff has narrowed this request to eliminate any documents that have been filed with
the Kern County Superior Court. As so limited, this request seeks documents in the County
Counsel’s litigation file, many of which are protected by the attorney work product and attorney-
client privileges. To the extent this request seeks information that is protected by the attorney-
client privilege, Defendants object to it. Defendants also object to this request on the grounds
that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants
are in the process of reviewing documents that are may be responsive to this request and, without
waiving these objections, will produce non-privileged documents, if any, by December 21, 2007.
Defendants may redact privileged information if appropriate.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 53
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO services provided to YOU by the Camden
Group RELATING TO Kern Medical Center.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 53
Defendants believe all documents responsive to this request have been previously
produced to Plaintiff. Defendants will confirm this, or produce additional documents if
necessary, by December 7, 2007.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 54
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO statistics maintained by YOU RELATING
TO patient fatalities at Kern Medical Center from October 24, 2000 to the present.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 54
Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of
documents that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in
this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Defendants also object to this request to the extent it requests information protected from
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 85 of 101



DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
24
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
disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA and the peer review privilege, and
documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege. Without waving these objections,
Defendants will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this request, if any, by
December 21, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential and privileged information as
appropriate. If the redaction process renders the resulting document useless, Defendants will
inform Plaintiff.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 55
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the review of Kern Medical Center’s
placental evaluations and billing activity as conducted by outside consultants, including but not
limited to ProPay Physician Services, LLC, from October 24, 2000 to the present.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 55
Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of
documents that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in
this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Defendants also object to this request to the extent it requests information protected from
disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA and the peer review privilege, and
documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege. Without waving these objections,
Defendants will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this request, if any, by
December 21, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential and privileged information as
appropriate.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 56
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO blood bank monthly reports, included but
not limited to reports generated by Michelle Burris, from January 2006 to present.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 56
Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of
documents that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in
this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Defendants also object to this request to the extent it requests information protected from
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 86 of 101



DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
25
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
disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA and the peer review privilege, and
documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege. Without waving these objections,
Defendants will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this request, if any, by
December 21, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential and privileged information as
appropriate.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 57
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO product chart copy-related quality assurance
reports from October 24, 2000 to the present.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 57
Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of
documents that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in
this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Defendants also object to this request to the extent it requests information protected from
disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA and the peer review privilege, and
documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege. Without waving these objections,
Defendants will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this request, if any, by
December 21, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential and privileged information as
appropriate.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 58
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO prostate needle biopsy reports produced by
Dr. Elsa Ang for which Plaintiff had requested a lookback study in October 2005.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 58
Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of
documents that contain confidential personnel information that is not relevant to any issues in
this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Defendants also object to this request to the extent it requests information protected from
disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA and the peer review privilege, and
documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege. Without waving these objections,
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 87 of 101



DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendants will produce non-privileged documents responsive to this request, if any, by
December 21, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential and privileged information as
appropriate.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 59
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO sign-in sheets for Kern Medical Center’s
Cancer Clinic from January 1, 2003 to the present.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 59
Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 60
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Workplace Violence or Threat Incident
Reports for all Kern Medical Center personnel from October 24, 2000 to the present.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 60
Defendants object to this request to the extent it seeks documents that contain
confidential personnel information or information protected by the attorney-client privilege.
Defendants also object to the extent the documents contain information protected by the peer-
review privilege and on the grounds that the request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce
all documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007. Defendants will redact
confidential or privileged information as appropriate.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 61
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Fine Needle Aspiration policies at Kern
Medical Center from October 24, 2000 to the present, including but not limited to
DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the outside consultant study conducted by Dr. David Lieu in
2004.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 61
Defendants object to this request to the extent it seeks documents that contain
confidential personnel information or information protected by the attorney-client privilege.
Defendants also object to the extent the documents contain information protected by the peer-
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 88 of 101



DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
review privilege and on the grounds that the request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce
all documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007. Defendants will redact
confidential or privileged information as appropriate.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 62
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Peter Bryan’s appointment calendar from
January 1, 2004 to September 1, 2006.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 62
Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 7, 2007.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 63
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO meeting minutes for the following Kern
Medical Center committees or groups from October 24, 2000 to the present:
a) Medical Executive Committee
b) Joint Conference Committee
c) Quality Management Committee
d) Cancer Committee
e) Second Level Peer Review Committee
f) Transfusion Committee
g) Executive Staff Meetings
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 63
Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain
confidential personnel information or information that is protected from disclosure by state or
federal law, including HIPAA and the peer review privilege, or documents that are subject to the
attorney/client privilege. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce documents
responsive to this request by December 21, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential or
privileged information as appropriate.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 64
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 89 of 101



DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO policies of Kern Medical Center’s
Pathology Department from October 24, 2000 to the present.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 64
Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 65
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO case send-out logs for Kern Medical
Center’s Pathology Department from January 1, 1999 to the present, including but not limited to
corresponding Kern Medical Center pathology reports and reports from outside consultants.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 65
Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain
confidential personnel information or information that is protected from disclosure by state or
federal law, including HIPAA and the peer review privilege, or documents that are subject to the
attorney/client privilege. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce documents
responsive to this request by December 7, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential or
privileged information as appropriate.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 66
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO monthly turn-around-time reports and logs
– by pathologist – for pathology reports processed at Kern Medical Center, including but not
limited to Pathology Department Semi-annual Reports to the Medical Staff, for the time period
from January 1, 1999 to the present.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 66
Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain
privileged peer review information. Without waiving this objection Defendants will produce all
documents responsive to this request by December 7, 2007. Defendants will redact all privileged
information as appropriate.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 67
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO monthly or semi-monthly turn-around-time
reports and logs – for Kern Medical Center’s Pathology Department as a whole – for pathology
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 90 of 101



DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
29
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
reports processed at Kern Medical Center including but not limited to surgical pathology,
cytology and bone marrow reports, for the time period from January 1, 1999 to the present.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 67
Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain
privileged peer review information. Without waiving this objection Defendants will produce all
documents responsive to this request by December 7, 2007. Defendants will redact all privileged
information as appropriate.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 68
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO PATHOLOGY REPORTS authored,
reviewed or approved by Plaintiff which YOU sent to any outside pathologists for outside review
from June 14, 2006 to the present.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 68
Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain
privileged peer review information. Without waiving this objection Defendants will produce all
documents responsive to this request by December 7, 2007. Defendants will redact all privileged
information as appropriate.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 69
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO PATHOLOGY REPORTS RELATING TO
Case Numbers S06-4131, S06-4619, S06-5229, S06-73276.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 69
Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain
information that is confidential under HIPAA. Defendants also object to the extent that it
requests documents that contain privileged peer-review information. Without waiving these
objections Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 7,
2007. Defendants will redact confidential and privileged information as appropriate.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 70
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO peer review RELATING TO Kern Medical
Center’s Pathology Department during the time period from January 1, 1995 to the present,
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 91 of 101



DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
30
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
including but not limited to computer-generated data, monthly peer review records completed by
pathologists, and peer review comment sheets that are completed by pathologists upon discovery
of a discrepancy.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 70
Defendants object to this request on the ground that it requests privileged peer-review
information. Defendants also object on the ground that it requests information that is
confidential under HIPAA and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce documents responsive to
this request by January 7, 2008 if it is possible to redact the confidential and privileged
information without rendering the resulting document useless.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 71
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO exceptional event logs for histology and
pathology on Kern Medical Center’s Pathology Department from January 1, 2006 to the present.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 71
Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain
information that is confidential under HIPAA. Defendants also object to the extent that it
requests documents that contain privileged peer review information. Without waiving these
objections Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 7,
2007. Defendants will redact confidential and privileged information as appropriate.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 72
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO paper accession logs at Kern Medical
Center’s Pathology Department from January 1, 2006 to present.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 72
Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain
information that is confidential under HIPAA. Defendants also object to the extent that it
requests documents that contain privileged peer review information. Without waiving these
objections Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 7,
2007. Defendants will redact confidential and privileged information as appropriate.
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 92 of 101



DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
31
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
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 73
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO tissue disposal records for skull-flaps from
January 1, 2006 to the present.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 73
Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain
information that is confidential under HIPAA. Defendants also object to the extent that it
requests documents that contain privileged peer review information. Without waiving these
objections Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 7,
2007. Defendants will redact confidential and privileged information as appropriate.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 74
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO audits of Kern Medical Center’s Pathology
Department by outside consultants, including but not limited to Dr. Stacey Garry, from October
24, 2000 to the present.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 74
Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain
information that is confidential under HIPAA. Defendants also object to the extent that it
requests documents that contain privileged peer review information. Without waiving these
objections Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 7,
2007. Defendants will redact confidential and privileged information as appropriate.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 75
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Kern Medical Center laboratory personnel
defections from June 14, 2006 to the present, including but not limited to exit interview notes.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 75
Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it is vague. Defendants do not know
what “personnel defections” means. If Plaintiff intends to request a list of employees who have
separated from County employment or transferred out of the laboratory, Defendants can prepare
such a list but Defendants believe such a list will need to be redacted to remove confidential
personnel information. Defendants will produce a list of employees who have separated from
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 93 of 101



DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
County employment or transferred out of the laboratory by December 21, 2007 and will redact
the information as appropriate.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 76
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO dictation transcription logs for Plaintiff
from June 14, 2006 to the present.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 76
Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 7, 2007.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 77
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO dictation transcription logs for Dr. Philip
Dutt from June 14, 2006 to the present.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 77
Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 7, 2007.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 78
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO placental evaluations conducted by Plaintiff
from June 14, 2006 to the present.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 78
Plaintiff has attempted to narrow this request but the revised request is broader, more
burdensome and less calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence than the original
request. Defendants object to it for that reason. Defendants object to this request because it is
not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and is burdensome.
Defendants also object to this request on the grounds that it seeks information that is shielded
from disclosure under HIPAA. There are thousands of placental evaluations for the time period
specified and they are not centrally filed or maintained. Locating ones conducted by Plaintiff
will require writing a computer program that will sort the files. After the files are sorted, it will
require a manual review of each file to find the placental evaluation. It will have to be copied
and redacted and copied again. Defendants estimate it will take approximately 90 days to
comply with this request. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will attempt to locate,
copy and produce the documents requested
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 94 of 101



DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
33
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
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 79
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Golden Empire Pathology Associates.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 79
After diligent search, Defendants’ have not been able to locate any documents that are
responsive to this request.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 80
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Golden Empire Medical Group.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 80
After diligent search, Defendants’ have not been able to locate any documents that are
responsive to this request.



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

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

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 95 of 101





























EXHIBIT 4. Stipulation & Order re Protective Order (Doc. 128)
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 96 of 101

1

STIPULATION RE: PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: BALANCING OF PRIVACY INTERESTS; ORDER THEREON
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Mark A. Wasser CA SB #060160
LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 444-6400
Fax: (916) 444-6405
E-mail: mwasser@markwasser.com

Bernard C. Barman, Sr. CA SB #060508
KERN COUNTY COUNSEL
Mark Nations, Chief Deputy CA SB #101838
1115 Truxtun Avenue, Fourth Floor
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Phone: (661) 868-3800
Fax: (661) 868-3805
E-mail: mnations@co.kern.ca.us

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

Eugene D. Lee SB# 236812
LAW OFFICES OF EUGENE LEE
555West Fifth Street, Suite 3100
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Phone: (213) 992-3299
Fax: (213) 596-0487
E-mail: elee@LOEL.com

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


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.
Plaintiff,
vs.
COUNTY OF KERN, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:07-cv-26

STIPULATION RE: PROTECTIVE
ORDER RE: BALANCING OF PRIVACY
INTERESTS; ORDER THEREON



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

Pursuant to the Order of the Court issued by Magistrate Judge Goldner on May 9, 2008
(Doc. 124), IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto through their
respective counsel that, with regard to balancing the privacy interests of the Defendants against
the Plaintiff’s need for disclosure, the Plaintiff’s need for disclosure prevails as to documents
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 128 Filed 05/14/2008 Page 1 of 2 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 97 of 101

2

STIPULATION RE: PROTECTIVE ORDER RE: BALANCING OF PRIVACY INTERESTS; ORDER THEREON
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
that reveal the nature of interpersonal work relationships at KMC between core physicians and
others, on-the-job behavior towards other members of KMC staff by core physicians, complaints
against core physicians regarding their behavior at KMC and the County’s actions in response.
The foregoing notwithstanding, the parties acknowledge that Plaintiff intends to file a motion for
reconsideration of the above-referenced Order which may challenge Judge Goldner’s directive to
the parties to enter into this privacy-based protective order. Plaintiff’s agreement to this
stipulation is therefore conditioned on this challenge. The parties agree that this stipulation does
not constitute a waiver of objections at trial to admissibility of any documents to be produced.

Dated: May 14, 2008 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER

By: /s/ Mark A. Wasser
Mark A. Wasser (as authorized on 5/14/08)
Attorney for Defendants, County of Kern, et al.


Dated: May 14, 2008 LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE

By: /s/ Eugene D. Lee
Eugene D. Lee
Attorney for Plaintiff, David F. Jadwin, D.O.


ORDER

The parties having stipulated as hereinabove set forth and good cause appearing
therefore;

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May , 2008 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

By:
The Honorable Teresa A. Goldner
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 128 Filed 05/14/2008 Page 2 of 2 Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 98 of 101






























EXHIBIT 5. Minute Order Disapproving Stipulation (Doc. 131)
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 99 of 101
1
Eugene D. Lee
From: caed_cmecf_helpdesk@caed.uscourts.gov
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 1:19 PM
To: caed_cmecf_nef@caed.uscourts.gov
Subject: Activity in Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Jadwin v. County of Kern, et al. Minute Order
This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to
this e-mail because the mail box is unattended.
***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits
attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of
all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees
apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy each document during this first viewing.
However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply.
U.S. District Court
Eastern District of California - Live System
Notice of Electronic Filing

The following transaction was entered on 5/16/2008 at 1:18 PM PDT and filed on 5/16/2008
Case Name: Jadwin v. County of Kern, et al.
Case Number: 1:07-cv-26
Filer:
Document Number: 131(No document attached)
Docket Text:
MINUTE ORDER (TEXT ONLY) by Magistrate Judge Goldner: re [128] Stipulation and Proposed
Order. In its order dated 5/8/08 (Doc 124), the Court directed counsel to submit a stipulated
form of protective order. A protective order prevents the disclosure of sensitive information
except to certain individuals under certain circumstances. The purpose of the Court's order
directing counsel to submit a stipulated form of protective order is for counsel to agree upon
the terms necessary to protect the information to be produced by Defendant in response to
Plaintiff's Request for Production Nos. 12-15, 17, 28-30, 32, 33, 36-41, 45, 51-54, 58-61, 63, 65-
67, 70-73, and 78. The stipulation [128] is not approved as a protective order because it does
not address who will be given access to the information or under what circumstances.
Counsel are to submit a stipulated proposed form of protective order containing those terms
within 5 days from the date of this minute order. If they cannot agree, then each counsel shall
submit their own proposed form of protective order within six days from the date of this order.
(Leon Guerrero, A)

1:07-cv-26 Electronically filed documents will be served electronically to:

Joan Elizabeth Herrington jh@baelo.com

Eugene David Lee elee@LOEL.com, attorneylee@gmail.com

Mark A Wasser mwasser@markwasser.com
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 100 of 101
2

1:07-cv-26 Electronically filed documents must be served conventionally by the filer to:

David F. Jadwin
1635 Heather Ridge Dr.
Glendale, CA 91207

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 101 of 101

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful