227 P MTC Docs Rpd1-3 - P JT STMT

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 227 Filed 09/23/2008 Page 1 of 19
1 Eugene D. Lee SB#: 236812

LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE
2 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100
Los Angeles, CA 90013
3 Phone: (213) 992-3299
Fax: (213) 596-0487
4 email: elee@LOEL.com
5 Attorneys for Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.
6
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG
10 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE re:
v. INABILITY TO SECURE COOPERATION
11 OF DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL TO
COUNTY OF KERN, et al., PREPARE AND EXECUTE JOINT
12 STATEMENT re: MOTION TO COMPEL
Defendants. PRODUCTION
13
Date: September 26, 2008
14 Time: 9:30 a.m.
Place: U.S. District Court, Bankruptcy Courtroom
15 1300 18th St., Bakersfield, CA
16 Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007
Date Set for Trial: December 2, 2008
17
18 Plaintiff submits this Declaration of Eugene D. Lee pursuant to Local Rule 37-251(d) in lieu of a
19 joint statement re discovery disagreement.
20 I, Eugene D. Lee, declare as follows:
21 1. I am counsel of record for Plaintiff. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth
22 below and I could and would competently testify thereto if called as a witness in this matter.
23 2. Pursuant to Local Rule 37-251, I attempted to secure the cooperation of Defendants’
24 counsel, Mark Wasser, to prepare and execute a joint statement re discovery disagreement. On
25 September 23, 2008, I faxed Mr. Wasser a draft version of the Joint Statement re: Discovery
26 Disagreement, requesting his input. I explained that the draft was a work in progress and remained
27 subject to change.
28 3. Attached hereto as Attachment A is a true and correct copy of the draft Joint Statement
DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE re: INABILITY TO SECURE COOPERATION OF

DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL TO PREPARE AND EXECUTE JOINT STATEMENT re: MOTION TO
COMPEL PRODUCTION 1
1 which I served.
2 4. To date, I have not received any response from Mr. Wasser regarding the draft Joint
3 Statement.
4
5 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the United States
6 that the foregoing is true and correct.
7
8
Executed on: September 23, 2008
9
10
11 /s/ Eugene D. Lee
12 EUGENE D. LEE
Declarant
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

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

COMPEL PRODUCTION 3

3 Phone: (213) 992-3299
Fax: (213) 596-0487
6 Mark A. Wasser CA SB #06160
LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER
7 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100
Sacramento, CA 95814
8 Phone: (916) 444-6400
Fax: (916) 444-6405
9 Email: mwasser@markwasser.com
10 Bernard C. Barmann, Sr.
KERN COUNTY COUNSEL
11 Mark Nations, Chief Deputy
1115 Truxton Avenue, Fourth Floor
12 Bakersfield, CA 93301
Phone: (661) 868-3800
13 Fax: (661) 868-3805
Email: mnations@co.kern.ca.us
14
Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern, Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher, Jennifer
15 Abraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smith, and William Roy.
19 Plaintiff, JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY
v. DISAGREEMENT re: MOTION TO
20 COMPEL PRODUCTION
COUNTY OF KERN, et al.,
21 Date: September 26, 2008
Defendants. Time: 9:30 a.m.
22 Place: U.S. District Court, Bankruptcy Courtroom
1300 18th St., Bakersfield, CA
23
Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007
24 Date Set for Trial: December 2, 2008
25
26
27
28
JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION 1

1 This joint statement re: discovery disagreement is submitted pursuant to Local Rule 37-251(a) in
2 advance of the September 26, 2008 hearing on Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to interrogatories
3 and for sanctions.
4
I. DETAILS OF THE PARTIES’ DISCOVERY CONFERENCES
5
6 On October 11, 2007, Plaintiff served Requests for Production, Set One (“RPD1”) on Defendant
7 County of Kern. On July 18, 2008, Plaintiff served Requests for Production, Set Three (“RPD3”) on
8 Defendant County of Kern. On January 18, 2008, Defendants served a privilege log on Plaintiff. On
9 January 25, they served a supplemented privilege log on Plaintiff. Defendants have produced documents
10 responsive to the requests in general in multiple installments. However, to date, Defendants have failed
11 to produce documents which they stated they would produce in response to the specific requests detailed
12 below. Moreover, Defendants have withheld documents as indicated in their privilege logs which they
13 should have produced but, to date, have not.
14 The parties met and conferred extensively in person and in writing on the Requests which are at
15 issue in this motion. Defendant initially agreed to produce the documents at various times but ultimately
16 failed to do so. Plaintiff was left no choice but to bring a motion to compel.
17
II. A STATEMENT OF THE NATURE OF THE CASE AND FACTUAL DISPUTES
18
19 Plaintiff David F. Jadwin, D.O., F.C.A.P., former Chair of Pathology at Kern Medical Center
20 (“KMC”) and senior pathologist from October 24, 2000 to October 4, 2007, filed a Complaint with this
21 Court on January 6, 2007. Plaintiff contends that various defendants retaliated against and defamed him
22 for reporting his concerns about patient care quality issues and regulatory violations at KMC. As a
23 result, Plaintiff was forced to take medical and recuperative leave for disabling chronic clinical
24 depression in early 2006. While Plaintiff was on leave, Defendants demoted him in June 2006 to a staff
25 pathologist for “unavailability” and refused to reinstate him upon his return to work on October 4, 2006.
26 On December 7, 2006, he was placed on involuntary administrative leave and restricted to his home
27 during working hours until May 1, 2007. Around May 1, 2007, Defendant informed Plaintiff of its
28 decision to either “buy out” the remaining term of his contract (due to expire on October 4, 2007) or

1 simply let the contract “run out”. On October 4, 2007, Defendants did not renew Plaintiff’s employment
2 contract.
3 Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges whistleblower retaliation, disability discrimination, medical leave
4 interference and retaliation, defamation and deprivation of compensation and professional fees without
5 procedural due process.
6 Defendants contend that the dispute arose out of Plaintiff’s tenure as a pathologist at Kern
7 Medical Center. Plaintiff’s relationship with other members of the medical staff deteriorated to the point
8 of intimidation, hostility and antagonism. Defendants contend, to the extent that any hostile work
9 environment existed, it was caused by Plaintiff.
10
III. THE CONTENTION OF EACH PARTY AS TO EACH CONTESTED ISSUE
11
12 A. PRIVILEGE LOG
13 Defendants’ privilege log indicates that the following documents were withheld.
14 BATES BATES DATE TO FROM CC DOCUMENT REASON FOR
BEG END TYPE WITHOLDING/
15 REDACTING
16 9336 9337 2003 Disciplinary Privileged Peer
17 Actions and Review and
Involuntary Confidential
18 Terminations Personnel, Evid.
Code 1040 and
19 1157
20 10925 10926 3/3/2003 Peter H. Peter K. Marvin Memorandum Privileged
Parra Bryan Kolb re Personnel Confidential
21 Barbara Item – Adam Personnel, Evid.
Patrick Lang, M.D. Code 1040
22 14793 15315 9/06 – Surgical Confidential
23 12/06 Pathology Medical
Reports Records
24 (HIPAA)
25
16683 16894 Nov-02 Performance Peer Review,
26 Evaluations – Evid Code 1157
Pathology
27 Department
28

1 16897 16900 7/25/2006 David Hill Gilbert Email Peer Review,

Irwin Martinez relating to Evid Code 1157
2 Change of
Harris
3 Philip Dutt Laboratory
Director
4 16902 16905 7/20/2006 Laboratory Peer Review,
Personnel Evid Code 1157
5 Report re
6 Gilbert
Martinez
7 15934 15934 1/6/2003 Medical Peter Pete Memorandum Confidential
Executive Bryan Parra Personnel Evid.
8 Committee Code 1040
9 15935 15935 6/10/2003 Medicine Maureen Navin Memorandum Confidential
10 Search Martin Amin Personnel Evid.
Committee Marvin Peter Code 1040
11 Kolb Bryan
Eugene
12 Kercher
13 Saman
Ratnayaki
14
Tai Yoo
15 15936 15936 1/6/2003 Eugene Navin Memorandum Confidential
Kercher Amin Personnel Evid.
16
Marvin Peter Code 1040
17 Kolb Bryan
Maureen
18 Martin
Tai Yoo
19
20
PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
21
These documents should have been produced long ago.
22
Regarding peer review privilege, this Court has already ruled that there is no peer review
23
privilege in federal law per Agster v. Maricopa County, 422 F.3d 836 (9th Cir. 2005) and that state law
24
based privileges do not apply to this federal action per Boyd v. City and County of San Francisco, 2006
25
WL 1390423 *3 (N.D. Cal. 2006). See Doc. 124, 3:3 - 4:2.
26
Defendants’ privacy objections do not comply with the Stipulation & Order re Privacy (Doc.
27
137). Doc. 137 states in pertinent part:
28

1 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
2 against the Plaintiff's need for disclosure, the Plaintiff's need for disclosure prevails as to
documents that reveal the nature of interpersonal work relationships at KMC between
3 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
4 and the County's actions in response.
5 As for the HIPAA concern stated with respect to surgical pathology reports, that is baseless.
6 Defendants have had no difficulty producing hundreds of pages of surgical pathology reports in this
7 action with patient identifying information redacted.
8 Plaintiff requests an in camera review by the Court of the above withheld documents to
9 determine whether Defendants’ asserted grounds for withholding them have merit.
10 DEFENDANT’S POSITION
11 [INSERT HERE]
12
B. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 65
13
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO case send-out logs for Kern Medical Center’s
14
Pathology Department from January 1, 1999 to the present, including but not limited to corresponding
15
Kern Medical Center pathology reports and reports from outside consultants.
16
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 65
17
Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request on March 11, 2008.
18
19
The vast majority of documents requested have not been produced and should have been
20
produced long ago. There should be about 800 or more cases, probably 5 boxes full. These are located in
21
files in the pathology office, and some in pathology storage. These are logs of cases that were sent out to
22
outside facilities, both slides and KMC reports. Most will have a report from the outside facility when
23
the slides were returned to KMC after review.
24
DEFENDANT’S POSITION
25
[INSERT HERE]
26
27 C. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 66
28 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO monthly turn-around-time reports and logs – by

1 pathologist – for pathology reports processed at Kern Medical Center, including but not limited to
2 Pathology Department Semi-annual Reports to the Medical Staff, for the time period from January 1,
3 1999 to the present.
4 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 66
5 Defendants previously produced documents responsive to this request for years 2001 to 2005.
6 Those documents are bates numbered 0014575 – 0014595. Defendants are continuing to search for
7 documents for years 1999, 2000 and 2006 but have not been able to find them yet.
8 PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
9 Bates numbers 0014575 – 0014595 are Pathology Department Semi-Annual Reports authored by
10 Plaintiff. They do NOT include the information requested, nor have semi-annual reports authored by
11 pathologists OTHER THAN Plaintiff been produced. The vast majority of documents requested have
12 not been produced and should have been produced long ago.
13 The TAT reports should be printed by pathologist for monthly (or quarterly) periods using the
14 HBO reporting system. Ms. Kathy Griffith should know how to generate these reports. Reports should
15 be generated for all pathologists including Drs. Freedman, Ang, Lang, Liu, Jadwin, Dutt, Shertudke, and
16 Yakhoub. Reports can be generated for Surgical Cases (S99- through S08-), Fine Needle Aspiration
17 (F01- through F08-), Non-Gynecologic Cytology (N01- through N08-) and Bone Marrows (B01-
18 through B08-).
20 [INSERT HERE]
21
D. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 67
22
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO monthly or semi-monthly turn-around-time reports
23
and logs – for Kern Medical Center’s Pathology Department as a whole – for pathology reports
24
processed at Kern Medical Center including but not limited to surgical pathology, cytology and bone
25
marrow reports, for the time period from January 1, 1999 to the present.
26
27
28

2 Defendants have produced such documents, but only for a subset of pathology reports and for
3 only a restricted time period. The vast majority of documents requested have not been produced and
4 should have been produced long ago.
6 [INSERT HERE]
7
E. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 70
8
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO peer review RELATING TO Kern Medical
9
Center’s Pathology Department during the time period from January 1, 1995 to the present, including
10
but not limited to computer-generated data, monthly peer review records completed by pathologists, and
11
peer review comment sheets that are completed by pathologists upon discovery of a discrepancy.
12
13
Defendants previously produced documents responsive to this request for 2006. The documents
14
are bates numbered 0014504 - 0014569. Defendants are continuing to search for documents for the other
15
years requested but have not found them yet.
16
17
Bates numbers 0014504 – 0014569 are just peer review logs, a miniscule subset of the
18
documents requested. The vast majority of documents requested have not been produced and should
19
have been produced long ago.
20
The request includes peer review data contained in the peer review Access File maintained by
21
the department secretary (Tracy Lindsey). This should be printed out by year for each and every
22
pathologist in the system (anyone that worked from 2001 onwards). This report should print out case
23
numbers with an associated original pathologist, reviewing pathologist and review code (letter-number):
24
A-C and 0 or 1. This data should be provided in paper and electronic formats.
25
The request also includes corresponding peer review logs that are filled out each month by each
26
and every pathologist. These are also maintained in the pathology office.
27
The request also includes all corresponding peer review sheets containing comments related to
28

1 review that are filled out by hand by the reviewing pathologist. There should be a review sheet for any
2 consultation (A) and any case scored (“1”). There are about 20 four inch binders in the pathology
3 department containing these sheets completed by the reviewer. Some may be in pathology storage
4 behind the hospital.
6 [INSERT HERE]
7
F. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 71
8
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO exceptional event logs for histology and pathology
9
on Kern Medical Center’s Pathology Department from January 1, 2006 to the present.
10
11
12
13
Only a tiny subset of the documents covered by this request has been produced. The vast
14
majority of documents requested have not been produced and should have been produced long ago.
15
There should be exceptional event sheets filled out by pathologist and the histology section each
16
month from 2001 to present. Typically there are 5 to 10 sheets generated each month. They are
17
maintained in the pathology office and/or in pathology storage.
18
19
[INSERT HERE]
20
21 G. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 72
22 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO paper accession logs at Kern Medical Center’s
23 Pathology Department from January 1, 2006 to present.
25 Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request on March 11, 2008.
27 The accession logs produced are a miniscule subset of the documents covered by this request.
28 The vast majority of documents requested have not been produced and should have been produced long

1 ago.
2 These are specimen accession logs in which Ms. Vangie Gallegos or other persons in histology
3 record all incoming specimens that are received each day by the pathology department. It lists the case
4 number, the number of specimens and the labeling of each container
6 [INSERT HERE]
7
H. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 73
8
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO tissue disposal records for skull-flaps from January
9
1, 2006 to the present.
10
11
Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain information that
12
is confidential under HIPAA. Defendants also object to the extent that it requests documents that contain
13
privileged peer review information. Without waiving these objections Defendants will produce all
14
documents responsive to this request by December 7, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential and
15
privileged information as appropriate.
16
17
These documents have not been produced. They should have been produced long ago.
18
The request includes all tissue destruction and/or disposal logs for tissue disposed by the
19
pathology department that included skull flaps removed during surgery.
20
21
22
23
WL 1390423 *3 (N.D. Cal. 2006). See Doc. 124, 3:3 - 4:2.
24
25
[INSERT HERE]
26
27 I. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 74
28 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO audits of Kern Medical Center’s Pathology

1 Department by outside consultants, including but not limited to Dr. Stacey Garry, from October 24,
4 Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain information that
5 is confidential under HIPAA. Defendants also object to the extent that it requests documents that contain
6 privileged peer review information. Without waiving these objections Defendants will produce all
7 documents responsive to this request by December 7, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential and
8 privileged information as appropriate.
10 These documents have not been produced. They should have been produced long ago.
11 Regarding peer review privilege, this Court has already ruled that there is no peer review
12 privilege in federal law per Agster v. Maricopa County, 422 F.3d 836 (9th Cir. 2005) and that state law
13 based privileges do not apply to this federal action per Boyd v. City and County of San Francisco, 2006
14 WL 1390423 *3 (N.D. Cal. 2006). See Doc. 124, 3:3 - 4:2.
16 [INSERT HERE]
17
J. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 76
18
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO dictation transcription logs for Plaintiff from June
19
20
21
Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 7, 2007.
22
23
24
The request includes reports generated by the transcription department, which are generated on a
25
daily basis and stored in the pathology office in binders. If there are missing reports, then the
26
transcription department can print the reports by day listing the dictation of each pathologist, the case
27
number, the type of dictation, the length of dictation, etc.
28

2 [INSERT HERE]
3
K. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 77
4
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO dictation transcription logs for Dr. Philip Dutt from
5
June 14, 2006 to the present.
6
7
8
9
10
The request includes reports generated by the transcription department, which are generated on a
11
daily basis and stored in the pathology office in binders. If there are missing reports, then the
12
transcription department can print the reports by day listing the dictation of each pathologist, the case
13
number, the type of dictation, the length of dictation, etc.
14
15
[INSERT HERE]
16
17 L. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 78
18 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO placental evaluations conducted by Plaintiff from
19 June 14, 2006 to the present.
20 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 78
23 These documents have not been produced. They should have been produced long ago.
25 [INSERT HERE]
26
M. REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 102
27
Any and all consultation reports issued by John Hopkins Hospital or John Hopkins University of
28

1 their affiliates RELATING TO the following KMC medical record numbers:

2 S06-37
3 806-495
4 806-3511
5 806-4619
7 The numbers listed in this request are not KMC medical record numbers. Nevertheless,
8 Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request.
10 Some but not all documents were produced.
12 [INSERT HERE]
13
N. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 103
14
Any and all PATHOLOGY REPORTS RELATING TO the patient(s) corresponding to the
15
following KMC medical record numbers:
16
S06-4131
17
S06-5229
18
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 103
19
The numbers listed in this request are not KMC medical record numbers. Nevertheless,
20
Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request.
21
22
Some but not all documents were produced.
23
24
[INSERT HERE]
25
26 O. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 104.
27 Any and all handwritten notes in this action which were authored by Marvin Kolb during his
28 tenure at KMC RELATING TO complaints, investigations, corrective action, discipline, demotion,

1 termination, anger management, and/or behavior RELATING TO any of the following PERSONS:
2 a. Plaintiff
3 b. Royce Johnson
4 c. Edward Taylor
5 d. Joseph Mansour
6 e. Scott Ragland
7 f. Jennifer Abraham
8 g. Eugene Kercher
9 h. Irwin Harris
10 i. Peter Bryan
11 j. Toni Smith
12 RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 104
13 With regard to Plaintiff, all such notes that Defendants are aware of have been previously
14 produced. With regard to the other individuals, Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it
15 calls for the production of information that is protected by the privacy interests of individuals who are
16 not "comparators" as that term has been defined in the reported cases and is not reasonably calculated to
17 lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
19 Defendants are not complying with the Stipulation & Order re Privacy (Doc. 137). Doc. 137
20 states in pertinent part:
21 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
22 against the Plaintiff's need for disclosure, the Plaintiff's need for disclosure prevails as to
documents that reveal the nature of interpersonal work relationships at KMC between
25 Given that Plaintiff was a chair when he was demoted and a non-chair core physician when he
26 was placed on administrative leave and his contract was not renewed, all core physicians are
27 comparators. It is well settled that Plaintiff is entitled to access comparator evidence to prove his claims.
28 It is not for Defendants to say who is a comparator and who is not for purposes of Plaintiff’s claims.

2 [INSERT HERE]
3
P. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 105.
4
Any and all handwritten notes which were authored by Peter Bryan during his tenure at KMC
5
RELATING TO complaints, investigations, corrective action, discipline, demotion, termination, anger
6
management, and/or behavior RELATING TO any of the following PERSONS.
7
a. Plaintiff
8
b. Royce Johnson
9
c. Edward Taylor
10
d. Joseph Mansour
11
e. Scott Ragland
12
f. Jennifer Abraham
13
g. Eugene Kercher
14
h. Irwin Harris
15
i. Peter Bryan
16
j. Toni Smith
17
18
With regard to Plaintiff, all such notes that Defendants are aware of have been previously
19
produced. With regard to the other individuals, Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it
20
calls for the production of information that is protected by the privacy interests of individuals who are
21
not “comparators” as that term has been defined in the reported cases and is not reasonably calculated to
22
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
23
24
Defendants are not complying with the Stipulation & Order re Privacy (Doc. 137). Doc. 137
25
states in pertinent part:
26
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto through their
27 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
28 documents that reveal the nature of interpersonal work relationships at KMC between

3 Given that Plaintiff was a chair when he was demoted and a non-chair core physician when he
4 was placed on administrative leave and his contract was not renewed, all core physicians are
5 comparators. It is well settled that Plaintiff is entitled to access comparator evidence to prove his claims.
6 It is not for Defendants to say who is a comparator and who is not for purposes of Plaintiff’s claims.
8 [INSERT HERE]
9
Q. ASSERTION OF PEER REVIEW PRIVILEGE AND PRIVACY PRIVILEGE
10
In their responses to Plaintiff’s foregoing requests, Defendants at times assert peer review
11
privilege and privacy privilege.
12
13
14
15
16
WL 1390423 *3 (N.D. Cal. 2006). See Doc. 124, 3:3 - 4:2.
17
Regarding privacy privilege, Defendants are not complying with the Stipulation & Order re
18
Privacy (Doc. 137). Doc. 137 states in pertinent part:
19
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto through their
20 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
21 documents 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
22 core physicians, complaints against core physicians regarding their behavior at KMC
and the County's actions in response.
23
24
[INSERT HERE]
25
26 IV. CONCLUSION
27
The party who prevails on a motion to compel is entitled to his or her expenses, including
28

1 reasonable attorney fees, unless the losing party was substantially justified in making or opposing the
2 motion (or other circumstances make such an award unjust). FRCP 37(a)(5); H. K. Porter Co., Inc. v.
3 Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (6th Cir. 1976) 536 F2d 1115, 1124–1125.
4 Plaintiff has met and conferred several times with Defendants in person and in writing, clearing
5 up any “confusion” and responding to any concerns. Despite this, Defendants have insisted on
6 withholding a vast amount of documents in violation of discovery rules and the orders of this Court.
7 Plaintiff requests this court compel Defendants to fully and properly produce documents in response to
8 the foregoing requests without further delay.
9 Pursuant to Rule 37, plaintiff further seeks attorney fees in the amount of $5,120 in consideration
10 of 8.8 of the hours which plaintiff has spent meeting and conferring, preparing this motion and hours
11 Plaintiff anticipates spending attending the hearing on this motion. Finally, plaintiff requests whatever
12 other sanctions this court deems proper and just.
13
14 Respectfully submitted,
15
16
Dated: September 23, 2008 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER
17
18
By:__________________________________________
19 Mark A. Wasser,
Attorney for Defendants
20 COUNTY OF KERN, PETER BRYAN, IRWIN
HARRIS, EUGENE KERCHER, JENNIFER
21 ABRAHAM, SCOTT RAGLAND,TONI SMITH,
AND WILLIAM ROY
22
23 Dated: September 23, 2008 LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE
24
25 By:__________________________________________
Eugene D. Lee
26 Attorney for Plaintiff
DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.
27
28

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

3 Phone: (213) 992-3299
Fax: (213) 596-0487
8 Phone: (916) 444-6400
Fax: (916) 444-6405
9 Email: mwasser@markwasser.com
KERN COUNTY COUNSEL
Phone: (661) 868-3800
13 Fax: (661) 868-3805
Email: mnations@co.kern.ca.us
14
Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern, Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher, Jennifer
15 Abraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smith, and William Roy.
19 Plaintiff, EXHIBITS TO JOINT STATEMENT re:
v. DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT re:
20 REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
23
25
26
27
28
EXHIBITS TO JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT
re: REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 1
1
2 EXHIBIT 1: Plaintiff’s Requests for Production, Set One (RPD1)
3 EXHIBIT 2: Defendant’s Responses to RPD1
4 EXHIBIT 3: Defendant’s First Supplemental Responses to RPD1
5 EXHIBIT 4: Defendant’s Privilege Log
6 EXHIBIT 5: Defendant’s Supplemental Privilege Log
7 EXHIBIT 6: Defendant’s Second Supplemental Responses to RPD1
8 EXHIBIT 7: Defendant’s Fourth Supplemental Responses to RPD1
9 EXHIBIT 8: Plaintiff’s Requests for Production, Set Three (RPD3)
10 EXHIBIT 9: Meet and confer correspondence between the parties
12 EXHIBIT 11: Defendant’s Responses to RPD3
18 EXHIBIT 17: Declaration of Eugene D. Lee
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
re: REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 EXHIBIT 1:
27 Plaintiff’s Requests for Production, Set One (RPD1)
28
re: INTERROGATORIES 1
To: 213-596-0487 From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee Pg 1/20 10/11/07 11 :55 pm
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 227-2 Filed 09/23/2008 ELEE@LOEL.COM

Page 4 of 182
(213) 992-3299
TELEPHONE
LAW OFFICE OF EMAIL
E U G ENE L E E
(213) 596-0487 555 WEST FIFTH STREET SUITE 3100 WWW.LOEL.COM
FACSIMILE Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9001 3-1 01 0 WEBSITE
FAX
To: From: Law Office of Eugene Lee
Fax Number: 2135960487 Date: 10/11/2007
Pages: 20 (including cover page)
Re: Jadwin/KC: Requests for Production of Docs, 51
Comments:
Mark,
Transmitted herewith are Plaintiff's Requests for Production of Documents

from Defendant Kern county, Set One.
Sincerely.
I Eugene D. Lee SB# 236812

Los Angeles, California 90013
3 Telephone: (213) 992-3299
Facsimile: (213) 596-0487
4 Email: elee@LOEL.com
5 Joan Herrington, SB# 178988

BAY AREA EMPLOYMENT LAW OFFICE
6 5032 Woodminster Lane
Oakland, CA 94602-2614
7 Telephone: (510) 530-4078
Facsimile: (510) 530-4725
8 Email: jh@baelo.com
Of Counsel to LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE
9
Attorneys for Plaintiff
10 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.
II UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13
14 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., Case No. 1:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG
15 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS ON
16 v. DEFENDANT COUNTY OF KERN (SET
ONE)
17 COUNTY OF KERN; et aI.
18 Defendants. Date Set for Trial: August 26, 2008
19
20
PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., F.C.A.P.
21
ANSWERING PARTY: Defendant COUNTY OF KERN
22
SET NO.: One
23
24
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 34, Plaintiff David F. Jadwin hereby requests
25
that you (i) respond in writing to the following requests by no later than November 12,2007, and (ii)
26
produce and permit the inspection and copying ofthe documents described below on November 16,
27
2007,10.00 a.ill. at the Law Office of Eugene Lee, 555 West Fifth St., Suite 3100, Los Angeles, CA
28
PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM

DEFENDANT COUNTY OF KERN
1 90013.
2 DEFINITIONS
3 A. The term "PERSON" as used herein includes, without limitation, any natural person,
4 firm, entity, corporation, partnership, association, cooperative, governmental entity or agency, or any
5 other entity.
6 B. The terms "YOU" and "YOUR" as used herein include Defendant County of Kern
7 ("Defendant") and include without limitation each predecessor and successor-in-interest, as well as any
8 officer, agent, employee, attorney, representative of Defendant and/or any other PERSONS acting under
9 the control of Defendant or on behalf of Defendant.
10 C. The term "DOCUMENT" or "DOCUMENTS" as used herein is broadly defined to
11 include all media on which information is recorded or stored, as well as all non-identical copies thereof
12 including copies which bear any notes, notations or markings not found on the originals and all
13 preliminary, intermediate, final and revised drafts of such document. This includes but is not limited to
14 any writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, video or audio recordings, microfilm, data
15 compilations, and electronically-stored information stored in any medium from which information can
16 be obtained such as e-mails, internet browser bookmarks and history, voicemail messages, websites,
17 electronic messages or bulletin boards. As used herein, the term "writings" shall include but is not
18 limited to letters, memoranda, reports, and notes whether handwritten or otherwise recorded, whether
19 internal or external to you. Electronically-stored information should be printed for production.

20 D. The phrase "RELATING TO" as used herein includes referring to, relating to, relates to,
21 responding to, concerning, connected with, commenting on, in respect of, about, regarding, discussing,
22 showing, describing, depicting, mentioning, reflecting, analyzing, comprising, constituting, evidencing,
23 and pertaining to, whether in whole or in part.
24 E. The term "PERSONNEL FILE" as used herein is broadly defined to include all
25 DOCUMENTS RELATING TO an process improvement file; employee's credentials; qualifications for
26 employment, promotions, transfers, salary, raises, pension eligibility, discipline, separation or other
27 employment action; as well as the "folder", "jacket" or other container of each such file and any
28 attachments thereto and all files maintained by persons employed by you.

DEFENDANT COUNTY OF KERN 2
1 F. The term "PATHOLOGY REPORT" as used herein is broadly defined to include all
2 DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the description of cells and tissues made by a pathologist based on
3 microscopic evidence and lab testing and used to render a diagnosis of a disease, including but not
4 limited to the DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the following associated items: original requisitions and
5 attached DOCUMENTS, HBO electronic documentation logs, peer reviewer comment sheets and
6 attached DOCUMENTS, pathology specimens listed in the clinical history, subsequent pathology
7 specimens, operative reports for pathology specimens, progress notes made by pathology, outside
8 pathologist reports, correspondence and contracts with outside reviewing pathologists, dictation logs
9 from transcription, laboratory reports, surgical pathology reports, cytology reports, and bone marrow
10 reports.
11 G. The terms "and" and "or" when used herein each mean "and/or".
12 H. All references to the singular include the plural, and all references to the plural include
13 the singular. All references to the masculine gender include the feminine and neuter genders and vice-
14 versa.
15 INSTRUCTIONS
16 A. This request requires that YOU identifY and produce the original or an exact copy of the
17 original of all DOCUMENTS responsive to any ofthe following numbered requests which are in YOUR
18 possession, custody or control. A DOCUMENT is deemed to be in YOUR possession, custody or
19 control if it is in YOUR physical custody, or if it is in the physical custody of any PERSON, and YOU:
20 (l) own such DOCUMENT in whole or in part; (2) have a right by contract, statute or otherwise to use,
21 inspect, examine or copy such DOCUMENT on any terms; (3) have an understanding, express or
22 implied, that YOU may use, inspect, examine or copy such DOCUMENT on any terms; or (4) have, as a
23 practical matter, been able to use, inspect, examine or copy such DOCUMENT when YOU have sought
24 to do so. Specifically, and without limiting the foregoing, this request encompasses all DOCUMENTS
25 in the possession, custody or control of YOU, YOUR attorneys, YOUR employees, YOUR agents,
26 YOUR affiliates, and/or any other PERSON substantially owned or controlled by you.
27 B. YOU are required to engage in a diligent search and make reasonable inquiries in an
28 effort to locate the DOCUMENTS requested.

1 C. If any requested DOCUMENT is not in YOUR possession, custody or control, YOU are
2 required to set forth in YOUR response the location of such DOCUMENT.
3 D. YOU are required to identify with specificity each DOCUMENT which is responsive to
4 this request and to organize and label them to correspond with each ofthe following numbered requests.
5 If a requested DOCUMENT has already been produced in Defendants' Rule 26 initial disclosures, then
6 YOU are requested to indicate such DOCUMENTS by stating their Bates Numbers rather than
7 producing physical duplicates (so as to conserve natural resources).
8 E. All DOCUMENTS which are responsive in whole or in part to any of the following
9 numbered requests shall be produced in full, without abridgement, abbreviation, redaction or
10 expurgation of any sort. If any such DOCUMENTS cannot be produced in full, YOU are required to
11 produce the DOCUMENT to the extent possible and indicate in YOUR written response what portion of
12 the DOCUMENT is not produced and why it could not be produced.
13 F. If any requested DOCUMENT has been destroyed, lost or stolen, YOU are required to se
14 forth in YOUR response the subject matter of such DOCUMENT; the location of any copies of the
15 DOCUMENT; whether the DOCUMENT was destroyed, lost or stolen; the date of its destruction, loss
16 or theft; and if destroyed, the name of the PERSON who ordered or authorized or was responsible for
17 such destruction.
18 G. Whenever YOU refuse to produce any DOCUMENTS responsive to any of the following
19 numbered requests based upon an objection, YOU are required to (1) identify and describe each such
20 DOCUMENT in sufficient detail to enable Plaintiffto assess the applicability ofthe objection, (2)
21 produce as much ofthe material requested as to which such objection is not made, and (3) separately,
22 with respect to each remaining part, (a) state the nature of YOUR objection, (b) set forth each and every
23 ground for YOUR objection, and (c) describe the factual basis, if any, upon which YOU rely in making
24 such objections.
25 H. Whenever YOU refuse to produce any DOCUMENTS responsive to any of the following
26 numbered requests based upon a claim of privilege, YOU are required to: (1) state which privilege is
27 claimed, including the identity of any specific attorney(s) with whom YOU claim a privileged
28 relationship, if any; (2) give a precise statement of the facts upon which the claim of privilege is based;

1 (3) identify and describe each DOCUMENT in sufficient detail to enable Plaintiff to assess the
2 applicability ofthe privilege or protection by stating: (a) its DOCUMENT type, e.g. letter,
3 memorandum, note, diskette, tape, etc.; (b) the date it was prepared; (c) the name, address, telephone
4 number and title of the PERSON who prepared it; and (d) the name, address, telephone number, and title
5 of each PERSON who received it, if any; and (e) its subject matter;.
6 DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED
7 REQUEST NO.1.
8 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the First Affirmative Defense listed in Defendants'
9 Answer to Plaintiff's Second Supplemental Complaint.

10 REQUEST NO.2.
11 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Second Affirmative Defense stated in
12 Defendants' Answer to Plaintiff's Second Supplemental Complaint.

13 REQUEST NO.3.
14 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Third Affirmative Defense stated in
16 REQUEST NO.4.
17 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Fourth Affirmative Defense stated in
19 REQUEST NO.5.
20 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Fifth Affirmative Defense stated in Defendants'
21 Answer to Plaintiff's Second Supplemental Complaint.

22 REQUEST NO.6.
23 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Sixth Affirmative Defense stated in
25 REQUEST NO.7.
26 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Seventh Affirmative Defense stated in
28 REQUEST NO.8.

1 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Eighth Affirmative Defense stated in
3 REQUEST NO.9.
4 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Ninth Affirmative Defense stated in
6 REQUEST NO. 10.
7 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR organizational structure during Plaintiff's
8 employment with YOU, including but not limited to organizational charts, diagrams and drawings.
9 REQUEST NO. 11.
10 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Kern Medical Center personnel directories or lists,
11 including but not limited to names, direct work phone numbers, departments, etc. which were
12 maintained by YOU during Plaintiff's employment with you.

13 REQUEST NO. 12.
14 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR personnel policies, guidelines, fact sheets,
15 posters, employee and/or employer handbooks, training materials, and employee and/or employer
16 manuals maintained by YOU that YOU contend governed Plaintiff's terms and conditions of
17 employment at any time during the period from October 1, 2000 to October 4, 2007. These include but
18 are not limited to YOUR ordinances, Kern Medical Center's Administrative Procedures Manual, Kern
19 Medical Center's Policy & Administrative Procedures Manual, policies RELATING TO disability
20 discrimination, reasonable accommodation, interactive process, personal leave, administrative leave,

21 medical leave, retaliation, investigations into complaints of unlawful employment practices, discipline 0
22 employees, investigation of employees, appointment of Kern Medical Center acting department chairs,
23 hiring of Kern Medical Center department chairs, demotion of Kern Medical Center department chairs,
24 and policies RELATING TO Kern Medical Center's Pathology Department.
25 REQUEST NO. 13.
26 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR personnel policies, guidelines, fact sheets,
27 posters, employee and/or employer handbooks, training materials, and employee and/or employer
28 manuals maintained by YOU that YOU contend was distributed or made available to YOUR employees,

1 whether management or non-management, from October 24, 2000 to the present and the date of such
2 asserted distribution. These include but are not limited to YOUR ordinances, Kern Medical Center's
3 Administrative Procedures Manual, Kern Medical Center's Policy & Administrative Procedures Manual,
4 policies RELATING TO disability discrimination, reasonable accommodation, interactive process,
5 personal leave, administrative leave, medical leave, retaliation, investigations into complaints of
6 unlawful employment practices, discipline of employees, investigation of employees, appointment of

7 Kern Medical Center acting department chairs, hiring of Kern Medical Center department chairs,
8 demotion of Kern Medical Center department chairs, and policies RELATING TO Kern Medical
9 Center's Pathology Department.

10 REQUEST NO. 14.
11 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO peer review, quality management and quality
12 assurance policies and procedures at Kern Medical Center, including but not limited to Kern Medical
13 Center's Quality Management and Performance Improvement Plan, from October 24, 2000 to the
14 present, and the effective dates.

15 REQUEST NO. 15.
16 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any training provided by YOU to YOUR officers,
17 directors, agents or employees on the following subjects:

18 a) disability discrimination
19 b) accommodation of an employee's disability

20 c) the interactive process regarding accommodation of an employee's disability
21 d) medical leave rights

22 e) whistleblower retaliation
23 f) medical leave retaliation
24 g) due process required for demotion
25 h) due process required for pay cut
26 i) due process required for termination of employment
27 j) defamation
28 k) Fair Labor Standards Act

1 REQUEST NO. 16.
2 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the PERSONNEL FILES of the following people.
3 a) Plaintiff David F. Jadwin
4 b) Elsa Ang
5 c) Ellen Bunyi-Teopengco
6 d) Philip Dutt
7 e) Carol Gates
8 f) Adam Lang
9 g) Fangluo Liu
10 h) Savita Shertukde
11 i) Navin Amin
12 j) Kathy Griffith
13 k) Alice Hevle
14 1) Denise Long
15 m) Gilbert Martinez
16 n) Albert McBride
17 0) Javad Naderi
18 p) Jane Thornton
19 q) Nitin Athavale
20 r) Chester Lau
21 s) Jennifer J Abraham
22 t) Bernard C Barmann
23 u) Karen S Barnes
24 v) Peter K Bryan
25 w) David Culberson
26 x) Irwin E Harris
27 y) Royce Johnson
28 z) Eugene E Kercher

1 aa) Alan Scott Ragland
2 bb) William Roy
3 cc) Maureen Martin

4 dd) Steven O'Connor
5 ee) Antoinette Smith
6 ft) Edward Taylor
7 gg) Marvin Kolb
8 hh) Dianne McConnehey
9 ii) Renita Nunn
10 jj) Ravi Patel
11 kk) Jose Perez
12 11) Evangeline Gallegos
13 mm) Sergio Perticucci
14 nn) Bonnie Quinonez
15 00) James Sproul
16 pp) Rebecca Rivera
17 qq) Sheldon Freedman
18 IT) Joseph Mansour
19 ss) George Alkouri
20 tt) Nicole Sharkey

21 REQUEST NO. 17.
22 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the search, recruitment, application, interviewing,
23 and hiring process that resulted in Plaintiff's employment by YOu.
24 REQUEST NO. 18.
25 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the terms, conditions and privileges of Plaintiff's
26 employment with YOu.
27 REQUEST NO. 19.
28 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Plaintiff's job duties and responsibilities for each

1 position held by Plaintiff during his employment with you.

2 REQUEST NO. 20.
3 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Plaintiff's payroll, compensation, base salary and
4 "professional fee payments", as that term is defined in Plaintiff's employment contracts with YOU,
5 including but not limited to any and all changes in compensation and the reasons for the changes,
6 throughout Plaintiff's employment with you.

7 REQUEST NO. 21.
8 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR policies, guidelines and practices regarding
9 base salary steps, salary guidelines, deferred compensation plans, pension plans, health insurance and
10 employment benefits applicable to Plaintiff's positions held throughout his employment with you.
11 REQUEST NO. 22.
12 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Plaintiff's work schedule and/or removal
13 therefrom, including but not limited to timesheets, from October 24, 2000 to the present.
14 REQUEST NO. 23.
15 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Dr. Phillip Dutt's timesheets, from April 20, 2005
16 to the present.
17 REQUEST NO. 24.
18 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Dr. Savita Shertukde's timesheets, from January 4,

20 REQUEST NO. 25.
21 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO performance reviews, comments, complaints,

22 warnings, reprimands, counseling, advisory notices or evaluations of Plaintiff's performance of his job
23 duties throughout his employment with YOU, whether formal or informaL

24 REQUEST NO. 26.
25 Any and all DOCUMENTS maintained by Plaintiff at Kern Medical Center during his
26 employment by YOU, including any and all e-mails, Groupwise calendars, memoranda, written
27 materials, and computer files stored on Plaintiff's computer or Kern Medical Center's servers.
28 REQUEST NO. 27.

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

2 Plaintiff's employment at Kern Medical Center.
3 REQUEST NO. 28.

4 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO performance reviews, comments, complaints,
5 warnings, reprimands, counseling, advisory notices or evaluations of the Kern Medical Center Pathology
6 Department, whether formal or informal, from October 24, 1995 to the present.
7 REQUEST NO. 29.
8 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Plaintiff's complaints of:
l O b ) failure to accommodate
11 c) failure to engage in an interactive process
12 d) violations of medical leave rights
15 g) deprivation of property without due process
16 h) defamation
17 i) Fair Labor Standards Act violations

18 REQUEST NO. 30.
19 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any investigation of Plaintiff's complaints of
20 disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in an interactive process, violation 0

21 medical leave rights, whistleblower retaliation, medical leave retaliation, defamation, and/or deprivation
22 of property without due process.
23 REQUEST NO. 31.
24 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any procedures available to YOUR employees to
25 complain of corruption, fraud and other wrongful, illegal or unethical conduct, that YOU contend was
26 distributed or made available to YOUR employees, whether management or non-management, from
27 October 24, 2000 to the present, and the date of such asserted distribution(s).
28 REQUEST NO. 32.

1 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR discipline of any employee against whom a
2 complaint or grievance of discrimination, harassment, defamation, retaliation, failure to accommodate,
3 and/or failure to engage in an interactive process in their employment has been made from October 24,
4 2000 to date.
5 REQUEST NO. 33.
6 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO complaints or grievances made by YOUR past or
7 present employees against YOU for defamation, retaliation, disability discrimination, failure to
8 accommodate, and/or failure to engage in an interactive process, including but not limited to any
9 informal or internal complaints, grievances or charges to any state or federal agency, and complaints
10 filed in any state or federal court from October 24, 2000 to date.
11 REQUEST NO. 34.
12 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any complaints or grievances made to YOU by
13 Plaintiff.
14 REQUEST NO. 35.
15 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Plaintiff which YOU sent to or received from any
16
governmental or regulatory authority, including but not limited to the California Department of Fair
17
Employment and Housing, the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency, and the U.S.
18
Department of Labor.
19
REQUEST NO. 36.
20
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR search for, recruitment of and evaluation of
21
candidates for the position of staff pathologist at Kern Medical Center during the period from January 1,
22
2006 to the present.
23
REQUEST NO. 37.
24
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR search for, recruitment of and evaluation of
25
candidates for the position of Chair or Chief of Pathology at Kern Medical Center during the period
26
from January 1, 2006 to the present.
27
REQUEST NO. 38.
28

1 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR search for, recruitment of and evaluation of
2 candidates for the position oflocum tenens pathologist at Kern Medical Center during the period from
3 January 1, 2006 to the present.

4 REQUEST NO. 39.
6 candidates for the position of Chair or Chief of OB-GYN at Kern Medical Center during the period from

8 REQUEST NO. 40.
9 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR removal of Dr. Royce Johnson from the
10 position of Chair or Chief of Medicine at Kern Medical Center.

11 REQUEST NO. 41.
13 candidates for the position of Chair or Chief of Medicine at Kern Medical Center during the period from
14 October 24, 2000 to the present.
15 REQUEST NO. 42.
16 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO presentations made at the Kern Medical Center
17 oncology conference in May 2005, induding but not limited to participant evaluation forms.
18 REQUEST NO. 43.
19 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Plaintiff's presentation at the Kern Medical Center
20 oncology conference on or about October 12,2005.

21 REQUEST NO. 44.
22 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR decision to demote Plaintiff from Chair of
23 Kern Medical Center's Pathology Department to staff pathologist.

24 REQUEST NO. 45.
25 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the "packets containing information about Dr.
26 Jadwin" which Mr. Peter Bryan collected at the end of Kern Medical Center's Joint Conference
27 Committee discussion and vote on removal of Plaintiff from Chair of Pathology on July 10, 2006.
28 REQUEST NO. 46.

1 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR decision to place Plaintiff on administrative
2 leave on or about December 7, 2006.
3 REQUEST NO. 47.

4 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR decision to restrict Plaintiff to his home
5 during working hours from on or about December 7, 2006 to on or about May 1, 2007 while he was on
6 administrative leave.
7 REQUEST NO. 48.
8 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR decision to lift the restriction of Plaintiff to
9 his home during working hours from on or about December 7, 2006 to on or about May 1, 2007 while he
10 was on administrative leave.

11 REQUEST NO. 49.
12 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR decision not to renew Plaintiff's
13 employment contract with YOU that was purportedly made on or about May 1,2007.
14 REQUEST NO. 50.
15 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any discipline, coaching, reprimand or corrective
16 action taken against Plaintiff by you.
17 REQUEST NO. 51.
18 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Kern Medical Center's Disruptive Physician
19 Policy, including but not limited to Bylaw Committee meeting minutes.

20 REQUEST NO. 52.
21 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Dr. Rebecca Rivera's lawsuit against Kern Medical
22 Center filed in Kern County California Superior Court.
23 REQUEST NO. 53.
24 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO services provided to YOU by The Camden Group
25 RELATING TO Kern Medical Center.

26 REQUEST NO. 54.
27 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO statistics maintained by YOU RELATING TO

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

1 REQUEST NO. 55.
2 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the review of Kern Medical Center's placental
3 evaluations and billing activity as conducted by outside consultants, including but not limited to ProPay
4 Physician Services, LLC, from October 24, 2000 to the present.
5 REQUEST NO. 56.
6 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO blood bank monthly reports, including but not
7 limited to reports generated by Michelle Burris, from January 2006 to the present.
8 REQUEST NO. 57.
9 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO product chart copy-related quality assurance reports
10 from October 24, 2000 to the present.

11 REQUEST NO. 58.
12 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO prostate needle biopsy reports produced by Dr. Elsa
13 Ang for which Plaintiff had requested a lookback study in October 2005.
14 REQUEST NO. 59.
15 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO sign-in sheets for Kern Medical Center's Cancer
16 Clinic from January 1, 2003 to the present.

17 REQUEST NO. 60.
18 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Workplace Violence or Threat Incident Reports for
19 all Kern Medical Center personnel from October 24,2000 to the present.
20 REQUEST NO. 61.
21 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Fine Needle Aspiration policies at Kern Medical
22 Center from October 24,2000 to the present, including but not limited to DOCUMENTS RELATING
23 TO the outside consultant study conducted by Dr. David Lieu in 2004.

24 REQUEST NO. 62.
25 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Peter Bryan's appointment calendar from January
26 1,2004 to September 1, 2006.

27 REQUEST NO. 63.
28 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO meeting minutes for the following Kern Medical

1 Center connnittees or groups from October 24, 2000 to the present:
2 a) Medical Executive Committee
3 b) Joint Conference Committee
4 c) Quality Management Committee
5 d) Cancer Connnittee
6 e) Second Level Peer Review Committee
7 f) Transfusion Committee
8 g) Executive Staff Meetings
9 REQUEST NO. 64.
10 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO policies of Kern Medical Center's Pathology
11 Department from October 24, 2000 to the present.
12 REQUEST NO. 65.
13 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO case send-out logs for Kern Medical Center's
14 Pathology Department from January 1, 1999 to the present, including but not limited to corresponding
15 Kern Medical Center pathology reports and reports from outside consultants.
16 REQUEST NO. 66.
17 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO monthly turn-around-time reports and logs - by
18 pathologist - for pathology reports processed at Kern Medical Center, including but not limited to
19 Pathology Department Semi-annual Reports to the Medical Staff, for the time period from January 1,
21 REQUEST NO. 67.
22 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO monthly or semi-monthly turn-around-time reports
23 and logs - for Kern Medical Center's Pathology Department as a whole - for pathology reports
24 processed at Kern Medical Center including but not limited to surgical pathology, cytology and bone
25 marrow reports, for the time period from January 1, 1999 to the present.
26 REQUEST NO. 68.
27 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO PATHOLOGY REPORTS authored, reviewed or
28 approved by Plaintiff which YOU sent to any outside pathologists for outside review from June 14,2006

1 to the present.
2 REQUEST NO. 69.
3 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO PATHOLOGY REPORTS RELATING TO Case

4 Numbers S06-4131, S06-4619, S06-5229, S06-73276,.
5 REQUEST NO. 70.
6 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO peer review RELATING TO Kern Medical
7 Center's Pathology Department during the time period from January 1, 1995 to the present, including
8 but not limited to computer-generated data, monthly peer review records completed by pathologists, and
9 peer review comment sheets that are completed by pathologists upon discovery of a discrepancy.
10 REQUEST NO. 71.
11 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO exceptional event logs for histology and pathology
12 at Kern Medical Center's Pathology Department from January 1, 2006 to the present.
13 REQUEST NO. 72.
14 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO paper accession logs at Kern Medical Center's
15 Pathology Department from January 1, 2006 to the present.

16 REQUEST NO. 73.
17 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO tissue disposal records for skull-flaps from January
18 1, 2006 to the present.
19 REQUEST NO. 74.
20 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO audits of Kern Medical Center's Pathology
21 Department by outside consultants, including but not limited to Dr. Stacey Garry, from October 24,
23 REQUEST NO. 75.
24 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Kern Medical Center laboratory personnel
25 defections from June 14,2006 to the present, including but not limited to exit interview notes.
26 REQUEST NO. 76.
27 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO dictation transcription logs for Plaintiff from June

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

4 REQUEST NO. 78.
5 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO placental evaluations conducted by Plaintiff from

7 REQUEST NO. 79.
8 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Golden Empire Pathology Associates.
9 REQUEST NO. 80.
10 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Golden Empire Pathology Medical Group.
11
12 Date: October 11, 2007
13
14
fJJ?J"--\-
~neD.Lee
15 W OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE
555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100
16 Los Angeles, California 90013
Telephone: (213) 992-3299
17 Facsimile: (213) 596-0487
Email: elee@LOEL.com
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2 I, the undersigned, hereby declare:
3 I am a resident of Los Angeles in the State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party
to the action described herein. I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, California. My business
4 address is LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE, 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100, Los Angeles, CA
90013. On the date of execution ofthis DOCUMENT, I served the following:
5
PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS ON DEFENDANT
6 COUNTY OF KERN (SET ONE)
7 on the following parties in this action by and through their attorneys addressed as follows:
8 Mark A. Wasser
10 Fax: (916) 444-6405
11 Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern, Peter
Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher, Jennifer
12 Abraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smith and
William Roy
13
14 [gJ BY UNITED STATES MAIL: I enclosed the DOCUMENT(s) listed above in a sealed envelope
with postage thereon fully prepaid, addressed to the PERSON(s) listed above, and deposited the sealed
15 envelope with the United States Postal Service at Los Angeles, California. I am aware that on motion of
the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more
16 than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
17 [gJ BY FACSIMILE: I transmitted via facsimile the DOCUMENT(s) listed above to the fax
number(s) set forth above on this date at approximately 1:00 a.ill. The outgoing facsimile machine
18 telephone number in this office is (213) 596-0487. The facsimile service used in this office creates a
transmission report for each outgoing facsimile transmitted. A copy ofthe transmission report(s) for the
19 service ofthis DOCUMENT, properly issued by the facsimile service that transmitted this DOCUMENT
and showing that such transmission was (transmissions were) completed without error, is attached
20 hereto.
21 [gJ FEDERAL: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America
that the above is true and correct and that I took said actions at the direction of a licensed attorney
22 authorized to practice before this Federal Court.
23 Executed on October 11,2007, at Los Angeles, California.
-A~
24
25
26
~ \ Eugene
V0}':U D. Lee
27
28
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 EXHIBIT 2:
27 Defendant’s Responses to RPD1
28

3 Phone: (916) 444-6400
Fax: (916) 444-6405
4 E-mail: mwasser@markwasser.com
KERN COUNTY COUNSEL
Phone: (661) 868-3800
8 Fax: (661) 868-3805
E-mail: mnations@co.kern.ca.us
9
10 Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern,
Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher,
11 Jennifer Abraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smith
and William Roy
12
15
16 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O. ) Case No.: 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
)
17 Plaintiff, ) DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO
) PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR
18 vs. ) PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET
) ONE)
19 COUNTY OF KERN, et al., )
) Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007
20 Defendants. ) Trial Date: August 26, 2008
)
21 )
)
22 )
)
23 )
24 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., F.C.A.P.
25 RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant COUNTY OF KERN
26 SET NUMBER: ONE (1)
27
28
1
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
1 Defendants hereby submit these responses to Plaintiff David F. Jadwin’s Request for
2 Production of Documents, Set One. Defendants have not located all the documents that are
3 responsive to this request and, for that reason, many of the production dates set forth herein are
4 estimates. Defendants will supplement or amend this response, if necessary, as additional
5 documents are located and reviewed.
6 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1
7 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the First Affirmative Defense listed in
8 Defendants’ Answer to Plaintiff’s Second Supplemental Complaint.
10 Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of
11 documents that are protected by the attorney-work-product and attorney-client privileges.
12 Without waiving those objections, after diligent search, Defendants’ have not been able to locate
13 any documents that are responsive to this request.
15 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Second Affirmative Defense listed in
23 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Third Affirmative Defense listed in
28
2

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

3


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

1 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR organizational structure during

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

5

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

4 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO peer review, quality management and
5 quality assurance policies and procedures at Kern Medical Center, included but not limited to
6 Kern Medical Center’s Quality Management and Performance Improvement Plan, from October
7 24, 2000 to the present, and the effective dates.
13 by December 7, 2007.1. Defendants will redact confidential peer review and personnel
16 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any training provided by YOU to YOUR
17 officers, directors, agents or employees on the following subjects:
19 b) accommodation of an employee’s disability
20 c) the interactive process regarding accommodation of an employee’s disability
27 j) defamation
28 k) Fair Labor Standards Act

7


6 by December 21, 2007.
8 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING To the PERSONNEL FILES of the following
9 people.
11 b) Elsa Ang
13 d) Philip Dutt
14 e) Carol Gates
15 f) Adam Lang
16 g) Fangluo Liu
18 i) Navin Amin
20 k) Alice Hevle
21 l) Denise Long
23 n) Albert McBride
24 o) Javad Naderi
25 p) Jane Thornton
26 q) Nitin Athavale
27 r) Chester Lau
28 s) Jennifer J. Abraham
8

1 t) Bernard C. Barmann
2 u) Karen S. Barnes
3 v) Peter K. Bryan
5 x) Irwin E. Harris
6 y) Royce Johnson
7 z) Eugene K. Kercher
9 bb) William Roy
11 dd) Steven O‘Connor
13 ff) Edward Taylor
14 gg) Marvin Kolb
16 ii) Renita Nunn
17 jj) Ravi Patel
18 kk) Jose Perez
19 ll) Evangeline Gallegos
22 oo) James Sproul
25 rr) Joseph Mansour

9

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

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

1 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Dr. Savita Shertukde’s timesheets, from
2 January 4, 2005 to present.
11 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO performance reviews, comments,
12 complaints, warnings, reprimands, counseling, advisory notices or evaluations of Plaintiff’s
13 performance of his job duties throughout his employment with YOU, whether formal or
14 informal.
25 materials, and computer files stored on Plaintiff’s computer at Kern Medical Center’s servers.
27 After diligent search, Defendants believe Groupwise calendar information was deleted
28 many months ago as part of the routine 90-day cycling of the Groupwise software. Defendants
12

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

13

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

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

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


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

16

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

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

17

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

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

18

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

19

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

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

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

21

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

22


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

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

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

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


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

2 discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce
3 all documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007. Defendants will redact
4 confidential or privileged information as appropriate.
6 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Peter Bryan’s appointment calendar from
7 January 1, 2004 to September 1, 2006.
11 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO meeting minutes for the following Kern
12 Medical Center committees or groups from October 24, 2000 to the present:
14 b) Joint Conference Committee
16 d) Cancer Committee
17 e) Second Level Peer Review Committee
22 confidential personnel information or information that is protected from disclosure by state or
23 federal law, including HIPAA and the peer review privilege, or documents that are subject to the
24 attorney/client privilege. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce documents
25 responsive to this request by December 21, 2007. Defendants will redact confidential or
28
27

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

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

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

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

30


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

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

32


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

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 EXHIBIT 3:
27 Defendant’s First Supplemental Responses to RPD1
28

3 Phone: (916) 444-6400
Fax: (916) 444-6405
KERN COUNTY COUNSEL
Phone: (661) 868-3800
8 Fax: (661) 868-3805
9
and William Roy
12
15
16 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O. ) Case No. : 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
)
17 Plaintiff, ) DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENTAL
) RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S
18 vs. ) REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
) DOCUMENTS (SET ONE)
19 COUNTY OF KERN, et al., )
) Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007
20 Defendants. ) Trial Date: August 26, 2008
)
21 )
)
22 )
)
23 )
25 RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant COUNTY OF KERN
27
28
1
DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S

1 Defendants hereby submit these responses to Plaintiff David F. Jadwin’s Request for
2 Production of Documents, Set One. Defendants have not located all the documents that are
3 responsive to this request and, for that reason, many of the production dates set forth herein are
4 estimates. Defendants will supplement or amend this response, if necessary, as additional
5 documents are located and reviewed.
6
8 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the First Affirmative Defense listed in
13 Without waiving those objections, after diligent search, Defendants have not been able to locate
16 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Second Affirmative Defense listed in
24 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Third Affirmative Defense listed in
2

4 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Fourth Affirmative Defense listed in
12 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Fifth Affirmative Defense listed in
18 responsive to this request on or before December 21, 2007, depending on receipt of
19 reimbursement for estimated copy costs. This request is duplicative of other requests contained
20 in Plaintiff’s REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, set one, and the documents produced in response
21 to this request may refer to the documents produced in response to other requests.
23 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Sixth Affirmative Defense listed in
28
3

4 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Seventh Affirmative Defense listed in
12 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Eighth Affirmative Defense listed in
18 responsive to this request on or before December 21, 2007, depending on receipt of
19 reimbursement for estimated copy costs. This request is duplicative of other requests contained
20 in Plaintiff’s REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, set one, and the documents produced in response
21 to this request may refer to the documents produced in response to other requests.
23 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the Ninth Affirmative Defense listed in
28
4

2 any documents that are responsive to this request
4 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR organizational structure during
5 Plaintiff’s employment with YOU, including but not limited to organizational charts, diagrams
6 and drawings.
8 Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request. Production is expected
9 to be complete on or about December 21, 2007, depending on receipt of reimbursement for
10 estimated copy costs.
14 were maintained by YOU during Plaintiff’s employment with YOU.
16 Defendants will produce all non-privileged documents responsive to this request.
17 Production is expected to be complete on or about December 21, 2007, depending on receipt of
18 reimbursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants will redact privileged information as
19 appropriate.
23 employer manuals maintained by YOU that YOU contend governed Plaintiff’s terms and
24 conditions of employment at any time during the period from October 1, 2000 to October 4,
25 2007. These include but are not limited to YOUR ordinances, Kern Medical Center’s
26 Administrative Procedures Manual, Kern Medical Center’s Policy & Administrative Procedures
27 Manual, policies RELATING TO disability discrimination, reasonable accommodation,
28 interactive process, personal leave, administrative leave, medical leave, retaliation, investigations
5

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

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

1 including HIPAA, the peer-review privilege and the personnel privilege, and documents that are
2 subject to the attorney-client privilege Without waiving these objections, Defendants will
3 produce documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007, depending on receipt of
7 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO peer review, quality management and
8 quality assurance policies and procedures at Kern Medical Center, included but not limited to
9 Kern Medical Center’s Quality Management and Performance Improvement Plan, from October
10 24, 2000 to the present, and the effective dates.
15 subject to the attorney-client privilege. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will
20 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any training provided by YOU to YOUR
21 officers, directors, agents or employees on the following subjects:
23 b) accommodation of an employee’s disability
24 c) the interactive process regarding accommodation of an employee’s disability
7


3 j) defamation
4 Fair Labor Standards Act
11 reimbursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants will redact privileged information, if any, as
12 appropriate.
14 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING To the PERSONNEL FILES of the following
15 people.
17 b) Elsa Ang
19 d) Philip Dutt
20 e) Carol Gates
21 f) Adam Lang
22 g) Fangluo Liu
24 i) Navin Amin
26 k) Alice Hevle
27 l) Denise Long
8

1 n) Albert McBride
2 o) Javad Naderi
3 p) Jane Thornton
4 q) Nitin Athavale
5 r) Chester Lau
6 s) Jennifer J. Abraham
7 t) Bernard C. Barmann
8 u) Karen S. Barnes
9 v) Peter K. Bryan
11 x) Irwin E. Harris
12 y) Royce Johnson
13 z) Eugene K. Kercher
15 bb) William Roy
17 dd) Steven O‘Connor
19 ff) Edward Taylor
20 gg) Marvin Kolb
22 ii) Renita Nunn
23 jj) Ravi Patel
24 kk) Jose Perez
25 ll) Evangeline Gallegos
28 oo) James Sproul
9


3 rr) Joseph Mansour
7 Defendants have already produced the personnel file of David F. Jadwin. Defendants will
8 confirm that the personnel file previously produced was complete as of the time of its production
9 and, on or before December 21, 2007, will augment the documents previously produced with any
10 additional materials, if any, that have been added into Dr. Jadwin’s personnel file since the file
11 was produced. Plaintiff has narrowed the scope of this request by eliminating all other
12 documents initially requested.
14 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the search, recruitment, application,
15 interviewing, and hiring process that resulted in Plaintiff’s employment by YOU.
21 produce all documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007, depending on receipt of
23 appropriate.
25 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the terms, conditions and privileges of Plaintiff’s
28
10

1 Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007,
2 depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs.
4 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Plaintiff’s job duties and responsibilities for
5 each position held by Plaintiff during this employment with YOU.
10 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Plaintiff’s payroll, compensation, base
11 salary and “professional fee payments”, as that term is defined in Plaintiff’s employment
12 contracts with YOU, including but not limited to any and all changes in compensation and the
13 reasons for changes, throughout Plaintiff’s employment with YOU.
18 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR policies, guidelines and practices
19 regarding base salary steps, salary guidelines, deferred compensation plans, pension plans, health
20 insurance and employment benefits applicable to Plaintiff’s position s held throughout his
23 Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December21, 2007,
26 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Plaintiff’s work schedule and/or removal
27 therefrom, including but not limited to timesheets, from October 24, 2000 to present.
11

4 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Dr. Phillip Dutt’s timesheets from April 20
8 depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants will redact
9 privileged information, if any as appropriate.
11 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Dr. Savita Shertukde’s timesheets, from
16 privileged information, if any, as appropriate
19 complaints, warnings, reprimands, counseling, advisory notices or evaluations of Plaintiff’s
20 performance of his job duties throughout his employment with YOU, whether formal or
21 informal.
24 information protected by the attorney-client privilege. Without waiving that objection,
27 privileged information, if any, as appropriate.
12

3 materials, and computer files stored on Plaintiff’s computer at Kern Medical Center’s servers.
8 subject to the attorney-client privilege. After diligent search, Defendants believe Groupwise
9 calendar information was deleted many months ago as part of the routine 90-day cycling of the
10 Groupwise software. Defendants are continuing to search for materials that were on the computer
11 that was assigned to Plaintiff. Some material was archived before the computer was reassigned
12 and Defendants will produce copies of the material that was archived by December 21, 2007,
17 Plaintiff’s employment at Kern Medical Center.
21 Defendants will produce documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007, depending
22 on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants will redact privileged
23 information, if any, as appropriate.
26 complaints, warnings, reprimands, counseling, advisory notices or evaluations of the Kern
27 Medical Center Pathology Department, whether formal or informal, from October 24, 1995 to
28 the present.
13


5 subject to the attorney-client privilege. Without waiving that objection, Defendants will produce
8 appropriate.
10 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Plaintiff’s complaints of:
12 b) failure to accommodate
14 d) violation of medical leave rights
18 h) defamation
24 on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants will redact confidential peer
25 review and personnel information as appropriate.
27 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any investigation of Plaintiff’s complaints
28 of disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in an interactive process,
14

1 violation of medical leave rights, whistleblower retaliation, medical leave retaliation, defamation
2 and/or deprivation of property without due process.
7 on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs Defendants will redact confidential peer
8 review and personnel information as appropriate.
10 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any procedures available to YOUR
11 employees to complain of corruption, fraud and other wrongful, illegal or unethical conduct, that
12 YOU contend was distributed or made available to YOUR employees, whether management or
13 non-management, from October 24, 2000 to the present, and the date of such asserted
14 distribution(s).
16 Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 21, 2007
17 depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs
19 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR discipline of any employee against
20 whom a complaint or grievance of discrimination, harassment, defamation, retaliation, failure to
21 accommodate, and/or failure to engage in an interactive process in their employment was made
22 from October 24, 2000 to date.
24 Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it requests documents that contain
26 including HIPAA, the peer-review privilege and the personnel privilege, and documents that
27 contain information protected by the attorney-client privilege. Defendants do not believe these
28
15

1 objections can be resolved by redaction. Defendants also object on the grounds that the request is
2 not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
4 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO complaints or grievances made by YOUR
5 past or present employees against YOU for defamation, retaliation, disability discrimination,
6 failure to accommodate, and/or failure to engage in an interactive process, including but not
7 limited to any informal or internal complaints, grievances or charges to any state or federal
8 agency, and complaints filed in any state or federal court from October 24, 2000 to date.
12 this case. Consequently, this request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
13 admissible evidence. Defendants also object on the ground that the phrase, “informal or internal
14 complaints” is vague and, depending on interpretation, could include any off-hand gripe by any
15 employee, to the extent it was memorialized in writing. Defendant County of Kern employs
16 several thousand employees. In the past seven years, there could be many documents that fit the
17 description of this request yet none have anything to do with the issues in this case. This request
18 is, accordingly, overbroad and burdensome. Defendants do not believe redaction would resolve
19 these objections.
21 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any complaints or grievances made to YOU
22 by Plaintiff
25 produced. Defendants will confirm this or produce additional documents, if there are any, by
26 December 21, 2007, depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs.
28
16

1 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Plaintiff which YOU sent to or received
2 from any governmental or regulatory authority, including but not limited to the California
3 Department of Fair Employment and Housing, the California Labor and Workforce Development
4 Agency, and the U.S. Department of Labor.
10 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR search for, recruitment, of and
11 evaluation of candidates for the position of staff pathologist at Kern Medical Center during the
12 period from January 1, 2006 to present.
18 disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA, the peer-review privilege and the personnel
19 privilege, and documents that contain information protected by the attorney-client privilege.
20 After review of the documents potentially responsive to this request, Defendants have
21 determined that the burden of redacting privileged information outweighs the marginal relevancy
22 of the remaining information in the documents.
25 evaluation of candidates for the position of Chair or Chief of Pathology at Kern Medical Center
28
17

11 evaluation of candidates for the position of locum tenens pathologist at Kern Medical Center
25 evaluation of candidates for the position of Chair or Chief of OB-GYN at Kern Medical Center
28
18

3 this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence
11 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR removal of Dr. Royce Johnson from
12 the position of Chair or Chief of Medicine at Kern Medical Center.
19 documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege.
22 evaluation of candidates for the position of Chair or Chief of Medicine at Kern Medical Center
23 during the period from October 24, 2000 to present.
19

7 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO presentations made at the Kern Medical
8 Center oncology conference in May 2005, including but not limited to participant evaluation
9 forms.
18 December 21, 2007. Defendants will redact privileged, if any, information as appropriate.
20 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Plaintiff’s presentations made at the Kern
21 Medical Center oncology conference on or about October 12, 2005.
20


2 December21, 2007. Defendants will redact privileged, if any, information as appropriate.
4 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR decision to demote Plaintiff from
5 Chair of Kern Medical Center’s Pathology Department to staff pathologist.
7 Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that are privileged
8 under the attorney-client privilege. Without waiving this objection Defendants will produce all
9 non-privileged documents responsive to this request by December21, 2007, depending on receipt
10 of reimbursement for estimated copy costs.
12 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING To the “packets containing information about
13 Dr. Jadwin” which Peter Bryan collected at the end of Kern Medical Center’s Joint Conference
15 2006.
17 Defendants are searching for documents responsive to this request. Because of
18 administrative and management changes at Kern Medical Center, it may not be possible to
19 reconstruct the “packets” requested. Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests
20 information protected by the peer-review or attorney-client privileges. Defendants also object to
21 this request to the extent it seeks documents that contain confidential personnel information.
22 Without waiving these objections, and to the extent that the “packets” can be reconstructed,
23 Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request, if any, by December21, 2007,
26 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR decision to place Plaintiff on administrative
27 leave on or about December 7, 2006.
21

3 responsive to this request have been previously produced. Defendants will confirm this or
4 produce additional documents, if there are any, by December21, 2007, depending on receipt of
5 reimbursement for estimated copy costs.
7 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR decision to restrict Plaintiff to his
8 home during working hours from on or about December 7, 2006 to on or about May 1, 2007
9 while he was on administrative leave.
15 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR decision to lift the restriction of
16 Plaintiff to his home during working hours from on or about December 7, 2006 to on or about
17 May 1, 2007 white he was on administrative leave.
20 produced to Plaintiff. Defendants will confirm this or produce additional documents, if there are
21 any, by December 21, 2007, depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs.
23 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR decision not to renew Plaintiff’s
24 employment contract with YOU that was purportedly made on or about May 1, 2007.
26 Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests information protected by the attorney-
27 client privilege. Without waiving that objection, Defendants believe all documents responsive to
28 this request have been previously produced. Defendants will confirm this or produce additional
22

1 documents, if there are any, by December 21, 2007, depending on receipt of reimbursement for
2 estimated copy costs.
4 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any discipline, coaching. reprimand or
5 corrective action taken against Plaintiff by YOU.
11 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Kern Medical Center’s Disruptive Physician
14 Defendants object to this request to the extent it requests documents that contain confidential
15 personnel information, documents protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including
16 HIPAA and the peer-review privilege, and documents protected by the attorney-client privilege.
18 by December 21, 2007, depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs.
19 Defendants will redact confidential peer review and personnel information as appropriate. This
20 request is also vague because Defendants are not aware of any connection between the
21 Disruptive Physician Policy and the Bylaw Committee meeting minutes.
23 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Dr. Rebecca Rivera’s lawsuit against Kern
24 Medical Center filed in Kern County California Superior Court.
26 Plaintiff has narrowed this request to eliminate any documents that have been filed with
27 the Kern County Superior Court. As so limited, this request seeks documents in the County
28 Counsel’s litigation file, many of which are protected by the attorney work-product and attorney-
23

1 client privileges. To the extent this request seeks information that is protected by the attorney-
2 client privilege, Defendants object to it. Defendants also object to this request on the grounds
3 that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants
4 are in the process of reviewing documents that may be responsive to this request and, without
5 waiving these objections, will produce non-privileged documents, if any, by December 21, 2007,
6 depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants may redact
7 privileged information if appropriate.
9 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO services provided to YOU by the Camden
10 Group RELATING TO Kern Medical Center.
12 Defendants believe all documents responsive to this request have been previously produced.
13 Defendants will confirm this or produce additional documents, if there are any, by December21,
14 2007, depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs.
16 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO statistics maintained by YOU RELATING
17 TO patient fatalities at Kern Medical Center from October 24, 2000 to the present.
24

1 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the review of Kern Medical Center’s
15 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO blood bank monthly reports, included but
16 not limited to reports generated by Michelle Burris, from January 2006 to present.
28
25

1 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO product chart copy-related quality assurance
2 reports from October 24, 2000 to the present.
14 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO prostate needle biopsy reports produced by
15 Dr. Elsa Ang for which Plaintiff had requested a lookback study in October 2005.
17 Defendants object to the request on the grounds that it calls for the production of
21 disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA. the peer-review privilege and the personnel
27 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO sign-in sheets for Kern Medical Center’s
28 Cancer Clinic from January 1, 2003 to the present.
26


5 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Workplace Violence or Threat Incident
6 Reports for all Kern Medical Center personnel from October 24, 2000 to the present.
12 discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce all
14 reimbursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants will redact confidential or privileged
17 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Fine Needle Aspiration policies at Kern
18 Medical Center from October 24, 2000 to the present, including but not limited to
19 DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the outside consultant study conducted by Dr. David Lieu in
20 2004.
26 discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce all
27 documents responsive to this request by December21, 2007, depending on receipt of
28
27

1 reimbursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants will redact confidential or privileged
4 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Peter Bryan’s appointment calendar from
5 January 1, 2004 to September 1, 2006.
7 After diligent search, Defendants have determined that the Groupwise calendar
8 information was deleted many months ago as part of the routine 90-day cycling of the Groupwise
9 software. Defendants believe there are no documents responsive to this request.
11 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO meeting minutes for the following Kern
12 Medical Center committees or groups from October 24, 2000 to the present:
14 h) Joint Conference Committee
16 d) Cancer Committee
17 c) Second Level Peer Review Committee
26 reimbursement for estimated copy costs, Defendants will redact confidential peer review
27 and personnel information as appropriate.
28

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

2 Pathology Department from October 24, 2000 to the present.
7 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO case send-out logs for Kern Medical Center’s
8 Pathology Department from January 1, 1999 to the present, including but not limited to
19 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO monthly turn-around-time reports and
20 logs— by pathologist — for pathology reports processed at Kern Medical Center, including but
21 not limited to Pathology Department Semi-annual Reports to the Medical Staff, for the time
22 period from January 1, 1999 to the present.
29

5 reports and logs — for Kern Medical Center’s Pathology Department as a whole — for
6 pathology reports processed at Kern Medical Center including but riot limited to surgical
7 pathology, cytology and bone marrow reports, for the time period from January 1, 1999 to the
8 present.
11 confidential personnel information, documents protected from disclosure by state or federal jaw,
25 reimbursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants will redact all privileged information as
28 Case Numbers 305-4131, 306-4519, 306-5229, 306-73276.
30


2 Plaintiff has amended this request by clarifying that Case NO. 306-73276 relates to Case
3 Nos. S06-495. 506-3511 and 506-4619. Defendants renew their objections to this request on the
4 grounds that it requests documents that contain confidential information under HIPAA.
5 Defendants also object to the extent that it requests documents that contain privileged peer-
6 review information. Without waiving these objections Defendants will produce all documents
7 responsive to this request by December 21, 2007, depending on receipt of reimbursement for
8 estimated copy costs. Defendants will redact confidential and privileged information as
9 appropriate.
12 Center’s Pathology Department during the time period from January 1, 1995 to the present,
13 including but not limited to computer-generated data, monthly peer review records completed by
14 pathologists, and peer review comment sheets that are completed by pathologists upon discovery
15 of a discrepancy.
18 documents that contain confidential personnel information that is Not relevant to any issues in
19 this Case and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
27 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO exceptional event logs for histology and
28 pathology on Kern Medical Center’s Pathology Department from January 1, 2006 to the present.
31


13 Center’s Pathology Department from January 1, 2006 to present.
25 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO tissue disposal records for skull-flaps from
28
32

5 disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA. the peer-review privilege and the personnel
12 Department by outside consultants, including but not limited to Dr. Stacey Garry, from October
13 24, 2000 to the present
17 requests documents that contain privileged peer-review information. Without waiving these
19 2007, depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs. Defendants will redact
20 confidential and privileged information as appropriate.
23 defections from June 14, 2006 to the present, including but not limited to exit interview notes.
25 Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it is vague. Defendants do not know
26 what “personnel defections” means. If Plaintiff intends to request a list of employees who have
27 separated from County employment or transferred out of the pathology laboratory, Defendants
28 can prepare such a list but Defendants believe such a list will need to be redacted to remove
33

1 confidential personnel information. Defendants will produce a list of employees who have
2 separated from County employment or transferred out of the laboratory by December 21, 2007,
3 depending on receipt of reimbursement for estimated copy costs, and will redact the confidential
23 Plaintiff has attempted to narrow this request but the revised request is broader, more
24 burdensome and less calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence than the original
25 request. Defendants object to this request because it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the
26 discovery of admissible evidence and is burdensome. Defendants object to this request on the
27 grounds that it calls for the production of documents that contain confidential personnel
28 information that is not relevant to any issues in this case and is not reasonably calculated to lead
34

1 to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendants also object to this request to the extent it
2 requests information protected from disclosure by state or federal law, including HIPAA, the
3 peer-review privilege and the personnel privilege, and documents that contain information
4 protected by the attorney-client privilege. After review of the documents potentially responsive
5 to this request. Defendants have determined that the burden of redacting privileged information
6 outweighs the marginal relevancy of the remaining information in the documents.
10 After diligent search, Defendants have not been able to locate any documents responsive
11 to this request.
13 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Golden Empire Medical Group.
15 Alter diligent search, Defendants have not been able to locate any documents responsive
16 to this request.
17
18 Dated: December 19, 2007 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER
19
20 By: /s/ Mark A. Wasser
21 Mark A. Wasser
22 Attorney for Defendants, County of Kern, et
23 al.
24
25
26
27
28
35

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 EXHIBIT 4:
27 Defendant’s Privilege Log
28
PRIVILEDGE LOG
Jadwin v. County of Kern, et al.
Documents Produced in Response to Plaintiff’s Request for

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

TYPE WITHOLDING/
REDACTING
0005166 – 0005168 Medical Record Privileged Peer
Suspension List Review; Evid. Code
1040 and 1157
0005169 2002- Intense Analysis Privileged Peer
2003 Action Plan Review, Evid. Code
Completion 1040 and 1157
0005202 - 0005203 Medical Record Privileged Peer
Suspension List Review, Evid. Code
1040 and 1157
0005233 - 0005234 Medical Record Privileged Peer
1040 and 1157
1

TYPE WITHOLDING/
REDACTING
0005394 Medical Record Privileged Peer
1040 and 1157
0007053 - 0007060 11/7/06 Deficient Charts Privileged Peer
by Days Review and
Outstanding Confidential
Personnel
Information, Evid.
Code 1040 and 1157
0007515 - 007521 3/6/06 Deficient Charts Privileged Peer
by Days Review and
Outstanding Confidential
Personnel, Evid.
Code 1040 and 1157
0007747 - 0007749 11/7/07 Proctoring Privileged Peer
Progress Report Review and
Confidential
Personnel, Evid.
Code 1040 and 1157
0007837 - 0007841 8/22/07 Jennifer Abraham Robert Wallace Letter Privileged
Confidential
Personnel, Evid.
Code 1040
0007930 Provider License Privileged
Status Confidential
Personnel, Evid.
Code 1040
2

TYPE WITHOLDING/
REDACTING
0008718 - 0008722 2000- Summary of Privileged Peer
2001 Annual Review and
Competency Confidential
Ratings by Personnel, Evid.
Classification Code 1040 and 1157
0009336 - 0009337 7/2001 – Summary of Privileged Peer
6/2002 Action Plans for Review and
Unsatisfactory Confidential
Annual Personnel, Evid.
Performance Code 1040 and 1157
Reviews
3

TYPE WITHOLDING/
REDACTING
0009336 - 009337 2003 Disciplinary Privileged Peer
Actions and Review and
Involuntary Confidential
Terminations Personnel, Evid.
Code 1040 and 1157
0009341-0009342 2003 Summary of Privileged Peer
Annual Review and
0010925 - 0010926 3/3/03 Peter H. Parra Peter K. Bryan Marvin Kolb Memorandum Privileged
Barbara Patrick Confidential
Personnel, Evid.
Code 1040
0011034 - 0011038 Jose Perez Memorandum Privileged
Confidential
Personnel, Evid.
Code 1040
0011039-0011042 3/19/07 Members, Board of David K. Ron Errea Memorandum Privileged
Supervisors Culberson Bernie Barmann and Handwritten Confidential
Karen Barnes Notes Personnel, Evid.
Code 1040
0011044 1/5/07 Ron Errea David K. Irwin Harris Memorandum Privileged
Fred Plane Culberson Confidential
Personnel, Evid.
Code 1040
4

TYPE WITHOLDING/
REDACTING
0011068 3/16/07 David K. Culberson Irwin Harris Email Privileged
Confidential
Personnel, Evid.
Code 1040
0011101 - 0011125 8/06 Paul Esselman Candidate Privileged
Presentation Confidential
Personnel, Evid.
Code 1040
0011140 Memorandum re Privileged
Salary Confidential
Personnel, Evid.
Code 1040
011078 - 11080 David K. Culberson Memorandum Privileged
Confidential
Personnel, Evid.
Code 1040
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 EXHIBIT 5:
27 Defendant’s Supplemental Privilege Log
28
PRIVILEDGE LOG
Jadwin v. County of Kern, et al.
Documents Produced in Response to Plaintiff’s Request for

Production of Documents (Set One)

TYPE WITHOLDING OR
REDACTING
0012735 – 0012736 Unidentified Redact Patient
Patient Log Names/Confidential
Medical Record
(HIPAA)
0012738 - 0012739 7/21/00 Fangluo Liu Yao Shi Fu Letter Redact Patient
Names/Confidential
Medical Record
(HIPAA)
0012741 7/21/00 Fangluo Liu Yao Shi Fu Letter Redact Patient
Names/Confidential
Medical Record
(HIPAA)
0012744 - 0012864 Letters and Redact Patient
Medical Records Names/Confidential
Medical Record
(HIPAA)
1

TYPE WITHOLDING OR
REDACTING
0012866 11/14/00 Bakersfield Pathology Report Redact Patient
Pathology Names/Confidential
Medical Group Medical Record
(HIPAA)
0012867 - 0012868 Unidentified Redact Patient
Medical Record
(HIPAA)
Medical Record
(HIPAA)
0012894 – 0013048 Letters and Redact Patient
Medical Record
(HIPAA)
0013049 – 0013050 Unidentified Redact Patient
Medical Record
(HIPAA)
Medical Record
(HIPAA)
2

TYPE WITHOLDING OR
REDACTING
Medical Record
(HIPAA)
Medical Record
(HIPAA)
Medical Record
(HIPAA)
Medical Record
(HIPAA)
Medical Record
(HIPAA)
Medical Record
(HIPAA)
0013834 - 0014138 2006/ Surgical Confidential Medical
2007 Specimen Receipt Record (HIPAA)
Log
3

TYPE WITHOLDING OR
REDACTING
0014454 - 0014503 Medical Records Redact Patient
Names/Confidential
Medical Record
(HIPAA)
0014595 - 0014641 11/15/06 Karen Barnes Phil Dutt Peer Review Peer Review.,Evid
Memorandum Code 1157,and
Attorney-Client
privilege
Medical Record
(HIPAA)
0014753 – 0014755 Surgical Redact Patient
Pathology Report Names/Confidential
Medical Record
(HIPAA)
0014765 – 0014769 Surgical Redact Patient
Medical Record
(HIPAA)
0014771 - 0014776 Surgical Redact Patient
Medical Record
(HIPAA)
4

TYPE WITHOLDING OR
REDACTING
0014778– 0014784 Surgical Redact Patient
Medical Record
(HIPAA)
0014786 - 0014792 Surgical Redact Patient
Medical Record
(HIPAA)
0014793 – 0015315 9/06 – Surgical Confidential Medical
12/06 Pathology Records (HIPAA)
Reports
0015453 - 0015536 12/15/06 Kern Medical Timothy Dutra California Confidential
Center Participating Personnel Evid. Code
Physician 1040
Application
0015537 - 0015641 3/7/07 Kern Medical Martin Lipschultz Application for Confidential
Center Patient-Specific Personnel Evid. Code
and Locum 1040
Tenens
Temporary
Privileges
0015642 - 0015683 4/4/06 Kern Medical Vivek Bhargava Application for Confidential
Center Patient-Specific Personnel Evid. Code
and Locum 1040
Tenens
Temporary
Privileges
5

TYPE WITHOLDING OR
REDACTING
0015684 - 0015725 6/14/07 Kern Medical Gian Yakoub California Confidential
Physician 1040
Application
0015726 - 0015869 2/28/06 Kern Medical Fangluo Liu California Confidential
Physician 1040
Application
0015870 - 0015933 2005 – David Culberson Administration Confidential
2007 Memorandums re Personnel Evid. Code
Dr. Perez 1040
0015934 1/6/03 Medical Executive Peter Bryan Pete Parra Memorandum Confidential
Committee Personnel Evid. Code
1040
0015935 6/10/03 Medicine Search Maureen Martin Navin Amin Memorandum Confidential
Committee Marvin Kolb Peter Bryan Personnel Evid. Code
Eugene Kercher 1040
Saman Ratnayaki
Tai Yoo
0015936 1/6/03 Eugene Kercher Navin Amin Memorandum Confidential
Marvin Kolb Peter Bryan Personnel Evid. Code
Maureen Martin 1040
Tai Yoo
0016149 Transfusion Redact Patient
Service – Product Names/Confidential
Chart Copy Medical Record
(HIPAA)
6

TYPE WITHOLDING OR
REDACTING
(HIPAA)
(HIPAA)
0016155 - 0016157 Transfusion Redact Patient
(HIPAA)
(HIPAA)
(HIPAA)
(HIPAA)
7

TYPE WITHOLDING OR
REDACTING
(HIPAA)
0016189 – 0016204 Transfusion Redact Patient
(HIPAA)
(HIPAA)
(HIPAA)
(HIPAA)
(HIPAA)
8

TYPE WITHOLDING OR
REDACTING
(HIPAA)
(HIPAA)
(HIPAA)
(HIPAA)
(HIPAA)
(HIPAA)
9

TYPE WITHOLDING OR
REDACTING
(HIPAA)
(HIPAA)
(HIPAA)
(HIPAA)
(HIPAA)
(HIPAA)
10

TYPE WITHOLDING OR
REDACTING
(HIPAA)
(HIPAA)
(HIPAA)
(HIPAA)
(HIPAA)
(HIPAA)
11

TYPE WITHOLDING OR
REDACTING
(HIPAA)
(HIPAA)
(HIPAA)
(HIPAA)
(HIPAA)
(HIPAA)
12

TYPE WITHOLDING OR
REDACTING
(HIPAA)
(HIPAA)
(HIPAA)
(HIPAA)
Reaction Report Names/Confidential
Medical Record
(HIPAA)
0016401 - 0016450 Cumulative Trend Redact Patient
Report Names/Confidential
Medical Record
(HIPAA)
13

TYPE WITHOLDING OR
REDACTING
(HIPAA)
0016476 Packed RBC’s – Redact Patient
Utilization Names/Confidential
Review Form Medical Record
(HIPAA)
Names/Confidential
Medical Record
(HIPAA)
(HIPAA)
(HIPAA)
(HIPAA)
14

TYPE WITHOLDING OR
REDACTING
(HIPAA)
(HIPAA)
Names/Confidential
Medical Record
(HIPAA)
(HIPAA)
(HIPAA)
(HIPAA)
15

TYPE WITHOLDING OR
REDACTING
(HIPAA)
(HIPAA)
(HIPAA)
(HIPAA)
Names/Confidential
Medical Record
(HIPAA)
Names/Confidential
Medical Record
(HIPAA)
0016667 – 0016669 11/19/07 Phil Dutt Dianne Memorandum Peer Review, Evid
McConnehey Code 1157
16

TYPE WITHOLDING OR
REDACTING
0016670 10/9/07 Philip Dutt Roy Johnson Memorandum Peer Review, Evid
Code 1157
0016671 - 0016682 Performance Peer Review, Evid
Evaluation – Code 1157
Surgery
Department
0016683 - 0016894 11/2002 Performance Peer Review, Evid
Evaluations – Code 1157
Pathology
Department
0016897 - 0016900 7/25/06 David Hill Gilbert Martinez Email relating to Peer Review, Evid
Irwin Harris Change of Code 1157
Philip Dutt Laboratory
Director
0016902 - 0016905 7/20/06 Laboratory Peer Review, Evid
Personnel Report Code 1157
re Gilbert
Martinez
0017371 - 0017373 10/30/06 Jonathan Epstein B.C. Barmann Irwin Harris Letter re KMC Redact Patient
Karen Barnes Philip Dutt Quality Names/Confidential
Assessment Medical Record
Review (HIPAA)
0017378 – 0017522 Surgical Reports Redact Patient
Names/Confidential
Medical Record
(HIPAA)
17

TYPE WITHOLDING OR
REDACTING
0017527 - 0017531 12/22/00 Handwritten Redact Address and
Notes Social Security
Number
0018276 - 0018288 1/05 – Timesheets Redact Social
2/05 Security Numbers
0018291 - 0018298 2/05 - Timesheets Redact Social
0018300 3/3/0/05 Timesheets Redact Social
Security Numbers
0018302 4/05 Timesheets Redact Social
Security Numbers
0018304 - 0018305 4/05 Timesheets Redact Social
Security Numbers
0018335 - 0018337 9/05 Timesheets Redact Social
Security Numbers
0018354 - 018355 11/4/05 Occurrence Redact Patient
Report Names/Confidential
Medical Record
(HIPAA)
18

TYPE WITHOLDING OR
REDACTING
0018392 - 0018429 10/25/05 Gary Zohman David Jadwin Letter with Redact Patient
attached Medical Names/Confidential
Records Medical Record
(HIPAA)
0018430 - 0018439 10/20/05 Maureen Martin David Jadwin Memorandum Redact Patient
with attached Names/Confidential
Medical Records Medical Record
(HIPAA)
0018603 - 0018618 8/2/05 Juan Felix David Jadwin Letter with Redact Patient
(HIPAA)
0018619 - 0018624 5/24/05 Dr. Ratnayake David Jadwin Dr. Johnson Memorandum Redact Patient
(HIPAA)
0018625 - 0018630 5/24/05 Dr. Ratnayake David Jadwin Dr. Johnson Memorandum Redact Patient
(HIPAA)
0018631 - 0018633 5/16/05 David Jadwin Steven Jacobs Letter with Redact Patient
(HIPAA)
19

TYPE WITHOLDING OR
REDACTING
0018654 – 0018655 5/24/05 Dr. Ratnayake David Jadwin Dr. Johnson Memorandums Redact Patient
Names/Confidential
Medical Record
(HIPAA)
0018657 3/17/05 Kern Medical Transfusion Redact Patient
Center Service – Product Names/Confidential
(HIPAA)
0018658 5/13/05 William Roy David Jadwin Leonard Perez Memorandum Redact Patient
Maureen Martin Names/Confidential
Medical Record
(HIPAA)
0018665 - 0018677 4/05 Kern Medical Surgical Redact Patient
Center Pathology Report Names/Confidential
Medical Record
(HIPAA)
0018684 – 0018686 4/20/05 William Roy David Jadwin Leonard Perez Letter Redact Patient
Maureen Martin Names/Confidential
Gene Kercher Medical Record
Peter Bryan (HIPAA)
0018689 – 0018690 4/15/05 David Jadwin William Roy Leonard Perez Letter Redact Patient
Names/Confidential
Medical Record
(HIPAA)
20

TYPE WITHOLDING OR
REDACTING
0018868 - 0018894 12/03 – Report re Patient Redact Patient
3/04 Charges Names/Confidential
Medical Record
(HIPAA)
0019805 – 0019810 7/05 – Timesheets re Redact Social
9/05 Philip Dutt Security Number
0019811 – 0019812 9/12/05 Request for Confidential
Correction of Personnel Evid. Code
Payroll Error for 1040
Philip Dutt
11/07 Philip Dutt Security Number
11/07 Savita Shertukde Security Number
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 EXHIBIT 6:
27 Defendant’s Second Supplemental Responses to RPD1
28
Mar 10 08 04:44p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.1

The Law Offices of Mark A. Wasser
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100
Sacramento, California 95814
Office: 916-444-6400
Fax: 916-444-6405
Fax
To: Eugene Lee From: Amy Remly
Fax: (213) 596-0487 Pages: 8 (including cover page)
Phone: (213) 992-3299 Date: 3/10/08
Re: Jadwin v. County of Kern CC:
D Urgent D For Review D Please Comment D Please Reply D Please Recycle
• Comments:
Please see attached.

I Mark A. Wasser CA SB #60160

3 Phone: (916) 444-6400
Fax: (916) 444-6405
4 E-maiL mwasser@markwasser.com
KERN COUNTY COUNSEL
1115 Truxtun Avenue, Fourth Floor
Phone: (661) 868-3800
8 Fax: (661) 868-3805
9
and William Roy
12
15
16 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O. ~ Case No.: 1:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG
17 Plaintiff, ) DEFENDANTS' SECOND
) SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
18 vs. ) PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR
) PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET
19 COUNTY OF KERN, et al., ) ONE)
20 Defendants. ~ Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007
) Trial Date: August 26, 2008
21 )
)
22 )
)
23 )

25 RESPONDING PARTY; Defendant COUNTY OF KERN
27
28
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES

TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
1 Defendants hereby submit these second supplemental responses 10 Plaintiff David F.

2 Jadwin's Request for Production of Documents, Set One.

5 or lists, including but not limited to names, direct work phone numbers, departments. etc. which
6 were maintained by YOU during Plaintiffs employment with YOU.
7 RESPONSE TO REQl;EST NO. 11
8 Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request on March 11,2008.
9 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIQN NQ. 22
10 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Plaintiff s work schedule and/or removal
11 there from, including but not limited to timesheets, from October 24, 2000 to present.
12 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 22
13 Defendants previously produced all documents responsive to this request. The
14 documents are Bates numbered 0019605 - 0019804.
16 AllY al1d all DOCUMENTS RELATING To the "packets containing information about
17 Dr. Jadwin" which Peter Bryan collected at the end of Kern Medical Cente!"s Joint Conference
18 Committee discussion and vote on removal of Plaintiff from Chair of Pathology on July 10.
19 2006.
20 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REOl/EST NO. 45
21 Defendants previously produced all documents responsive to this request. The
22 documents are bates numbered 001476 - 00155l.
23 REQUEST FOR !'RODUCTION NO. 65
24 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO case send-olit logs for Kern Medical
25 Center's Puthology Department from January 1, 1999 to the present, including but not limited to
28 Defendants 'Will prodm:e all documents responsive to this request on March 11,2008.
2

TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
Mar 10 08 04:45p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 pA
1 REQUEST FQR PRQDUCTION NO. 66

2 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO munthly lum-arOllild-lime reports and logs
3 - by pathologist - for pathology reports processed at Kern Medical Center, including but not
4 limited to Pathology Department Semi-annual Reports to the Medical Staff, for the time period
5 fTom January I, 1999 to the present.
6 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REOCEST :\TO. 66
7 Defendants previously produced documents responsive to this request for years 200 I
8 to 2005. Those documents are bates numbered 0014575 - 0014595, Dcfcndants are continuing
9 to search for documents for years 1999,2000 and 2006 but have not been able to fmd them yet.
12 repOlts and logs - for Kern Medical Center's Pathology Department as a whole - lor pathology
13 reports processed at Kcrn Mcdical Ccntcr including but not limited to surgical pathology,
14 cytology and bone marrow reports, for the time period from January I, 1999 to the present.
15 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQLEST :'110.67
16 Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request on March 11,2008,
18 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO PATHOLOGY REPORTS RELATiNG TO
19 Case Numbers S06-4131, 806·4619, 806-5229, 806-73276.
20 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQCEST :\TQ. 69
21 Defendants previously produced dQcum<:nt~ responsi ve to this request, the documents are
22 bates numhered 0014453 - 0014503 and 0014709 - 0014792.

25 Center's Pathology Department during the time period from January 1, 1995 to the present,
26 including but not limited to computer-generated data. monthly peer review records completed by
27 pathologists, and peer review comment sheets that arc completed by pathologists upon discovery
28 of a discrepancy.
3

TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORlES
Sl:PPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 70

2 Defendants previously produced documents responsive to this request for 2006. The
3 documents are bates numbered 0014504 - 0014569. Defendants are continuing to search for
4 documents for the other years requested but have not found them yet.

6 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATIKG TO exceptional event logs for histology and
7 pathology on Kern Medical Center's Pathology Department from January 1,2006 to the present.


12 Center's Pathology Department fi'om January 1,2006 to present.


17 from June 14,2006 to the present.

19 There are no documents responsive to this request.

23 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TQ REQUEST ~O. 77

25 REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 78

27 from June 14,2006 to the present.
28
4
DEFENDA"lTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES

TO PLAINTIFFS INTERROGATORIES
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 78

3 Dated: March 10, 2008 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER
4
5 By;----J7~/:zA:..~7dZ.~0.~·A~J~~:::=:...----____I
Mark A. Wasser
6 Attomey for Defendants, County of Kem, et al.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5

TO PLAINTIFFS INTERROGATORIES
Mar 10 08 04:4?p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.?

LA W OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER
3 Phone: (916) 444-6400
Fax: (916) 444-6405
Bernard C. Barmann. Sr.
5 KERN COUNTY COUNSEL
Mark Nations, Chief Deputy
6 1115 Truxton Avenue, Fourth Floor
Bakersfield, CA 93301
7 Phone: (661) 868-3800
Fax: (661) 868-3805
8 E-mail: mnations@co.kern.ca.us
9
Attorneys for Defendants COlUlly of Kern,
10 Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher,
Jennifer Abraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smith
11 and William Roy
12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
14
15 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O. l 1

Case No.: :07-cv-00026-0W\V-TAG
16 PROOF OF SERVICE
17 vs.
Plaintiff,
l
)
18 COUNTY OF KERN, et aI., ~

19 Defendants. ~)
20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - )
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
I I, Amy Remly, declare:
2 I am a resident of the State of California and over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to
tbe within action; my business address is 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100, Sacramento, CA 95814. On
3 March 10,2008, I served the within documents: Defendants' Second Supplemental Responses to
Plaintifrs Request for Production of Documents (Set One).
4
by transmitting via facsimile from (916) 444-6405 the above listed document(s)
5 without error to the fax number(s) set forth below on tbis date before 5:00 p.m. A copy
oftbe transmittal/confirmation sheet is attached, and
6
by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully
7 prepaid, in the United States mail at Sacramento, California addressed as set forth
below.
8
9 o by causing personal delivery by of the document(s) listed above to the
person(s) at the address (es) set forth below.
10
o by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed Federal Express Overnight Delivery
11 envelope and affixing a pre-paid air bill, and causing the envelope to be delivered to a
Overnight Delivery Federal Express agent for delivery at the address set forth below.
12
Eugene Lee
13 Law Offices of Eugene Lee
14 Los Angeles, California 90013-1010
Facsimile: (213) 596-0487
15
I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for
16 mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with
postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party
17 served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one
18 day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
19 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true
and correct.
20
Executed on March 10,2008, at Sacramento, califor~~~:-:~-'.-='--'-_=-",-~:-:r-_
21
22 AM:Y REM(hY ~
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2- PROOF OF SERVICE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 EXHIBIT 7:
27 Defendant’s Fourth Supplemental Responses to RPD1
28
May 21 08 05:03p Mark Wasser
916-444-6405 p.1
"file Law Offices o~ Marl\. A.. Wasser

Sacramento, Calilornia 958~4
Office: 9~6-444-6400
Fax: 9~6-444-6405
Fax
To: Eugene Lee From: Mark A. Wasser
Phone: (213) 992-3299 Date: 5121/08
o Crgent o For Review 0 Please Comment 0 Please Reply 0 Please Recycle
• Comments:
Please see attached Defendants' Fourth Supplemental Responses to Plaintiffs Request For
Production of Documents, Set One.
May 21 08 05:03p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.2
Mark A. Wasser CA SB #60160

3 Phone: (916) 444-6400
Fax: (916) 444-6405
5 Bernard C, Barmann, Sr. CA SB #60508
KERK COUNTY COUNSEL
6 Mark Nations, Chief Deputy CA SB #101838
1115 Truxtun Avenue, Fourth Floor
Phone: (661) 868-3800
8 Fax: (661) 868-3805
E-mail: mnations@co.kem.ca.us
9
II Jennifer Abraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smith
and William Roy
12
IS
16 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O. ~ Case No.: I :07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG
17 Plaintiff, ) DEFENDANTS' FOURTH

) SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
18 vs. ) PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR
) PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET
19 COUNTY OF KERN, et aI., ONE)
20
21
Defendants.
!
)
)
Trial Date: December 3, 2008
22 )
)
23 )
25 RESPONDI:"lG PARTY: Defendant COUNTY OF KERl'i
27
28
I
DEFENDAJ\TS' FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S

Defendants hereby submit these supplemental responses to Plaintiff's Request for

2 Production of Documents, Set One in response to the May 9,2008 Order of Magistrate Judge
3 Goldner. The following responses represent those that are due within 10 days of the Order.
4 REQVEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11
5 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Kern Yfedical Center personnel directories
7 were maintained by YOU during Plaintiffs employment with YOU.
9 Defendants have already produced all documents responsive to this request.
10 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIQ~NO. 23
II Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Dr. Phillip Dutt's timesheets, from April 20
13 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NQ. 23
16 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO Dr. Savita Shertukde's timesheets, from
20 REQUEST FQR PRQDUCTION NO. 26
23 materials, and computer files stored on Plaintiff's computer at Kern Medical Center's servers.
24 RESPQNSE TQ REQUEST NO. 26
25 Defendants will produce four additional CDs that contain the remaining contents of the
26 hard drive offthe County computer that was assigned to Plaintiff. The CDs will be available for
27 Inspection and copying at KMC on and after May 22, 2008. Plaintiff may make arrangements
28 with Defendants' counsel to inspect and copy the CDs during normal business hours at KMC.
2
DEFENDANTS' FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S

May 21 08 05:04p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 pA
REQUEST FQR PRODUCTION NO. 45

2 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING To the "packets containing information about
3 Dr. Jadwin" which Peter Bryan collected at the end of Kern Medical Center's Joint Conference
S 2006.
9 Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the review of Kern Medical Center's
20 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIOK NO. 69
22 Case Numbers 806-4131, S06-4619, S06-5229, S06-73276.
23 RESPONSE TO REOUEST NO. 69
25 Dated: May 21, 2008 LAW OFFICES OF MARKA. WASSER
26
27 BY:-J:Z=::r..h.CdA:&,d?~~~~~·£::~::::::::::==--- ------j
Mark A Wasser
28 Attorney for Defendants, County of Kern, et aI.
3
DEFENDANTS' FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S


3 Phone; (916) 444-6400
Fax: (916) 444-6405
4 E-mail: mwasser@markwasseLcom
_ Bernard C. Barmann. Sr. CA SB #60508
) KERN COUNTY COUNSEL
6 Mark Nations, Chief Deputy CA SB #101838
7 Phone: (661) 868-3800
Fax: (661) 868-3805
8 E-mail: mnations@cc.kern.ca.us
9
Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern,
I I and William Roy
12
14
15 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O. ) Case No.: l:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG

)
16
~)
Plaintiff, PROOF OF SERVICE
17 VS.
)
18 COUNTY OF KERN, et ai, )
)
19 )
Defendants. )
20 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - . )
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
1 I, Amy Remly, declare:
2 I am a resident of the State of California and over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to
the within action; my business address is 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100, Sacramento, CA 95814. On
3 May 21, 2008, I served the within documents: Defendants' Fourth Supplemental Responses to
Plaintiff's Request for Production (Set One).
4
5 without error to the fax number(s) set forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m. A copy
of the transmittallconfirmation sheet is attached, and
6
by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully
7 prepaid, in the United States mail at Sacramento, California addressed as set forth
below.
8
9
o by causing personal delivery by of the document(s) listed above to the
10
o by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed Federal Express Overnight Delivery
12
Eugene Lee
13 Law Offices of Eugene Lee
14 Los Angeles, California 90013-1010
Facsimile: (213) 596-0487
15
I am readily familiar with the finn's practice of collection and processing correspondence for
16 mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited ",ith the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with
postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party
17 served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one
and correct.
20
Executed on May 21, 2008, at Sacramento, California. .~
~~~~[b'l'J~l--
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 EXHIBIT 8:
27 Plaintiff’s Requests for Production, Set Three (RPD3)
28
To: 213-596-0487 From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee Pg 1/ 8 07/18/08 4:42 pm

ELEE@LOEL.COM
(213) 992-3299
TELEPHONE
LAW OFFICE OF EMAIL
E U G ENE L E E
(213) 596-0487 555 WEST FIFTH STREET SUITE 3100 WWW.LOEL.COM
FACSIMILE Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9001 3-1 01 0 WEBSITE
FAX
To: From: Law Office of Eugene Lee
Fax Number: 2135960487 Date: 07/18/2008
Pages: 8 (including cover page)
Re: Jadwin/KC: RDP3
Comments:
Mark,
See attached Plaintiff's requests for production, set 3.

I Eugene D. Lee SB# 236812

Los Angeles, California 90013
3 Telephone: (213) 992-3299
Facsimile: (213) 596-0487
4 Email: elee@LOEL.com
5 Joan Herrington, SB# 178988

BAY AREA EMPLOYMENT LAW OFFICE
6 5032 Woodminster Lane
Oakland, CA 94602-2614
7 Telephone: (510) 530-4078
Facsimile: (510) 530-4725
8 Email: jh@baelo.com
Of Counsel to LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE
9
Attorneys for Plaintiff
10 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.
12 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13
14 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., Case No. 1:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG
15 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS ON
16 v. DEFENDANT COUNTY OF KERN (SET
THREE)
17 COUNTY OF KERN; et al.
18 Defendants. Date Set for Trial: December 2, 2008
19
20
PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., F.C.A.P.
21
ANSWERING PARTY: Defendant COUNTY OF KERN
22
SET NO.: Three
23
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 34, Plaintiff David F. Jadwin hereby requests
24
that, within thirty (30) days of service hereof, you (i) respond in writing to the following requests, and
25
(ii) produce and pennit the inspection and copying ofthe documents described below at the Law Office
26
of Eugene Lee, 555 West Fifth St., Suite 3100, Los Angeles, CA 90013.
27
DEFINITIONS
28

DEFENDANT COUNTY OF KERN (SET THREE)
1 A. The tenn "PERSON" as used herein includes, without limitation, any natural person,
2 firm, entity, corporation, partnership, association, cooperative, governmental entity or agency, or any
3 other entity.
4 B. The tenns "YOU" and "YOUR" as used herein include Defendant County of Kern
5 ("Defendant") and include without limitation each predecessor and successor-in-interest, as well as any
6 officer, agent, employee, attorney, representative of Defendant and/or any other PERSONS acting under
7 the control of Defendant or on behalf of Defendant.
8 c. The tenn "DOCUMENT' or "DOCUMENTS" as used herein is broadly defined to
9 include all media on which infonnation is recorded or stored, as well as all non-identical copies thereof
10 including copies which bear any notes, notations or markings not found on the originals and all
11 preliminary, intennediate, final and revised drafts of such document. This includes but is not limited to
12 any writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, video or audio recordings, microfilm, data
13 compilations, and electronically-stored information stored in any medium from which infonnation can
14 be obtained such as e-mails, internet browser bookmarks and history, voicemail messages, websites,
15 electronic messages or bulletin boards. As used herein, the tenn "writings" shall include but is not
16 limited to letters, memoranda, reports, and notes whether handwritten or otherwise recorded, whether
17 internal or external to you. Electronically-stored infonnation should be printed for production.
18 D. The phrase "RELATING TO" as used herein includes referring to, relating to, relates to,
19 responding to, concerning, connected with, commenting on, in respect of, about, regarding, discussing,
20 showing, describing, depicting, mentioning, reflecting, analyzing, comprising, constituting, evidencing,

21 and pertaining to, whether in whole or in part.
22 E. The tenn "PERSONNEL FILE" as used herein is broadly defined to include all
23 DOCUMENTS RELATING TO an process improvement file; employee's credentials; qualifications for

24 employment, promotions, transfers, salary, raises, pension eligibility, discipline, separation or other
25 employment action; as well as the "folder", "jacket" or other container of each such file and any
26 attachments thereto and all files maintained by persons employed by you.
27 F. The tenn "PATHOLOGY REPORT" as used herein is broadly defined to include all
28 DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the description of cells and tissues made by a pathologist based on

DEFENDANT COUNTY OF KERN (SET THREE) 2
1 microscopic evidence and lab testing and used to render a diagnosis of a disease, including but not
2 limited to the DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the following associated items: original requisitions and
3 attached DOCUMENTS, RBO electronic documentation logs, peer reviewer comment sheets and
4 attached DOCUMENTS, pathology specimens listed in the clinical history, subsequent pathology
5 specimens, operative reports for pathology specimens, progress notes made by pathology, outside
6 pathologist reports, correspondence and contracts with outside reviewing pathologists, dictation logs
7 from transcription, laboratory reports, surgical pathology reports, cytology reports, and bone marrow
8 reports.
9 G. The terms "and" and "or" when used herein each mean "and/or".
10 R. All references to the singular include the plural, and all references to the plural include
11 the singular. All references to the masculine gender include the feminine and neuter genders and vice-
12 versa.
13 INSTRUCTIONS
14 A. This request requires that YOU identify and produce the original or an exact copy of the
15 original of all DOCUMENTS responsive to any of the following numbered requests which are in YOUR
16 possession, custody or control. A DOCUMENT is deemed to be in YOUR possession, custody or
17 control if it is in YOUR physical custody, or if it is in the physical custody of any PERSON, and YOU:
18 (l) own such DOCUMENT in whole or in part; (2) have a right by contract, statute or otherwise to use,
19 inspect, examine or copy such DOCUMENT on any terms; (3) have an understanding, express or
20 implied, that YOU may use, inspect, examine or copy such DOCUMENT on any terms; or (4) have, as a
21 practical matter, been able to use, inspect, examine or copy such DOCUMENT when YOU have sought
22 to do so. Specifically, and without limiting the foregoing, this request encompasses all DOCUMENTS
23 in the possession, custody or control of YOU, YOUR attorneys, YOUR employees, YOUR agents,
24 YOUR affiliates, and/or any other PERSON substantially owned or controlled by you.
25 B. YOU are required to engage in a diligent search and make reasonable inquiries in an
26 effort to locate the DOCUMENTS requested.
27 C. If any requested DOCUMENT is not in YOUR possession, custody or control, YOU are
28 required to set forth in YOUR response the location of such DOCUMENT.

1 D. YOU are required to identify with specificity each DOCUMENT which is responsive to
2 this request and to organize and label them to correspond with each of the following numbered requests.
3 If a requested DOCUMENT has already been produced in Defendants' Rule 26 initial disclosures, then
4 YOU are requested to indicate such DOCUMENTS by stating their Bates Numbers rather than
5 producing physical duplicates (so as to conserve natural resources).
6 E. All DOCUMENTS which are responsive in whole or in part to any of the following
7 numbered requests shall be produced in full, without abridgement, abbreviation, redaction or
8 expurgation of any sort. If any such DOCUMENTS cannot be produced in full, YOU are required to
9 produce the DOCUMENT to the extent possible and indicate in YOUR written response what portion of
10 the DOCUMENT is not produced and why it could not be produced.
11 F. If any requested DOCUMENT has been destroyed, lost or stolen, YOU are required to se
12 forth in YOUR response the subject matter of such DOCUMENT; the location of any copies of the
13 DOCUMENT; whether the DOCUMENT was destroyed, lost or stolen; the date of its destruction, loss
14 or theft; and if destroyed, the name of the PERSON who ordered or authorized or was responsible for
15 such destruction.
16 G. Whenever YOU refuse to produce any DOCUMENTS responsive to any of the following
17 numbered requests based upon an objection, YOU are required to (1) identify and describe each such
18 DOCUMENT in sufficient detail to enable Plaintiff to assess the applicability of the objection, (2)
19 produce as much ofthe material requested as to which such objection is not made, and (3) separately,
20 with respect to each remaining part, (a) state the nature of YOUR objection, (b) set forth each and every
21 ground for YOUR objection, and (c) describe the factual basis, if any, upon which YOU rely in making
22 such objections.
23 H. Whenever YOU refuse to produce any DOCUMENTS responsive to any of the following
24 numbered requests based upon a claim of privilege, YOU are required to: (1) state which privilege is
25 claimed, including the identity of any specific attorney(s) with whom YOU claim a privileged
26 relationship, if any; (2) give a precise statement of the facts upon which the claim of privilege is based;
27 (3) identify and describe each DOCUMENT in sufficient detail to enable Plaintiff to assess the
28 applicability of the privilege or protection by stating: (a) its DOCUMENT type, e.g. letter,

1 memorandum, note, diskette, tape, etc.; (b) the date it was prepared; (c) the name, address, telephone
2 number and title of the PERSON who prepared it; and (d) the name, address, telephone number, and title
3 of each PERSON who received it, if any; and (e) its subject matter;.
4 REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION/INSPECTION
5 REOUESTNO.I02.
6 Any and all consultation reports issued by Johns Hopkins Hospital or Johns Hopkins University
7 or their affiliates RELATING TO the following KMC medical record numbers:
8 a. 806-37
9 b. S06-495
10 c. S06-3511
11 d. S06-4619
12 REOUESTNO.I03.
13 Any and all surgical PATHOLOGY REPORTS RELATING TO the patient(s) corresponding to
14 the following KMC medical record numbers:
15 a S06-4131
16 b. S06-5229
17 REQUEST NO. 104.
18 Any and all handwritten notes in this action which were authored by Marvin Kolb during his
19 tenure at KMC RELATING TO complaints, investigations, corrective action, discipline, demotion,
20 termination, anger management, and/or behavior RELATING TO any ofthe following PERSONS:
21 a. Plaintiff
22 b. Royce Johnson
23 c. Edward Taylor
24 d. Joseph Mansour
25 e. Scott Ragland
27 g. Eugene Kercher
28 h. Irwin Harris

1 1. Peter Bryan
2 J Toni Smith
3 REQUEST NO. 105.
4 Any and all handwritten notes which were authored by Peter Bryan during his tenure at KMC
5 RELATING TO complaints, investigations, corrective action, discipline, demotion, termination, anger
6 management, and/or behavior RELATING TO any of the following PERSONS.
7 a. Plaintiff
8 b. Royce Johnson
9 c. Edward Taylor
11 e. Scott Ragland
14 h. Irwin Harris
15 1. Peter Bryan
16 J Toni Smith
17
18 Date: July 18, 2008
19
20
~gene D. Lee
21 ~ w OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE
22 Los Angeles, California 90013
Telephone: (213) 992-3299
23 Facsimile: (213) 596-0487
Email: elee@LOEL.com
25
26
27
28

90013. On the date of execution ofthis DOCUMENT, I served the following:
5
PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS ON DEFENDANT
6 COUNTY OF KERN (SET THREE)
7 on the following parties in this action by and through their attorneys addressed as follows:
8 Mark A. Wasser
9 400 Capitol Mall, Suite II 00
10 Fax: (916) 444-6405

William Roy
13
14 12<;] BY UNITED STATES MAIL: I enclosed the DOCUMENT(s) listed above in a sealed envelope
with postage thereon fully prepaid, addressed to the PERSON(s) listed above, and deposited the sealed
15 envelope with the United States Postal Service at Los Angeles, California. I am aware that on motion of
the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more
16 than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
17 12<;] BY FACSIMILE: I transmitted via facsimile the DOCUMENT(s) listed above to the fax
number(s) set forth above on this date before or around 5:00 p.m. The outgoing facsimile machine
18 telephone number in this office is (213) 596-0487. The facsimile service used in this office creates a
transmission report for each outgoing facsimile transmitted. A copy ofthe transmission report(s) for the
19 service of this DOCUMENT, properly issued by the facsimile service that transmitted this DOCUMEN"T
and showing that such transmission was (transmissions were) completed without error, is attached
20 hereto.
21 12<;] FEDERAL: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America
that the above is true and correct and that I took said actions at the direction of a licensed attorney
22 authorized to practice before this Federal Court.
23 Executed on July 18, 2008, at Los Angeles, California.
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 EXHIBIT 9:
27 Meet and confer correspondence between the parties
28
Eugene D. Lee
From: Eugene D. Lee [elee@LOEL.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 9:57 PM
To: 'mwasser@markwasser.com'
Subject: RPD1 followup
Mark,

I notice there have been no documents produced in response to Plaintiff’s requests for production nos. 65 (Pathology
case send‐out logs) and 66 (pathology turn‐around‐time reports). Please provide these documents for inspection and
copying by no later than August 11, 2008.

If you have questions, please contact me any time.

Sincerely,
Gene Lee

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EMPLOYMENT LAW
555 WEST FIFTH ST., STE. 3100
LOS ANGELES, CA 90013
Tel: (213)992-3299
Fax: (213)596-0487
E - m a i l : elee@LOEL.com
W e b s i t e : www.LOEL.com
B l o g : www.CaLaborLaw.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this
transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.

1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 EXHIBIT 10:
28
Eugene D. Lee
Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2008 3:06 PM
Subject: RPD1/Personnel Files
Attachments: RPD1 followup; Personnel Files
Mark,

Any followup on this?

Sincerely,
Gene Lee

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

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect y our priv acy , Outlook prev ented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
California Labor & Employ ment Law B log

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 EXHIBIT 11:
27 Defendant’s Responses to RPD3
28
Aug 15 08 02:47p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.1
The Law Offices of Mark A. Wasser

Sacramento, California 95814
Office: 916-444-6400
Fax: 916-444·6405
Fax
To: Eugene Lee From: Mark A. Wasser
Phone: (213) 992-3299 Date: 8/15/08
D Urgent D For Review D Please Comment D Please Reply D Please Recycle
• Comments:
Please see attached discovery responses.

Aug 15 08 02:49p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.?
1
Mark A. Wasser CA SB #60160
2 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A WASSER
3 Sacramento, California 95814
Phone: (916) 444-6400
4 Fax: (916) 444-6405
E-mail: mwasser([i)mrn-kwasseLeom
5
Bernard C. Barmarm. Sr. CA SB #60508
6 KER.'l COUNTY COUNSEL
Mark Nations, Chief Deputy CA SB #101838
7 1115 Truxtun Avenue, Fourth Floor
Bakersfield. California 93301
8 Phone: (661) 868-3800
Fax: (661) 868-3805
9 E-mail: mnations@co.kem.ca.us
10
II Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher,
Jennifer Abraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smi1h
12 and William Roy
13
14
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
15
16
DAVID F. .TADWIN, D.O. Case No.: 1 :07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG
17
Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO
18 PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR
vs. PRODUCTION (SET THREE)
19
COUNTY OF KERN, et aI., Date Action Filed: January 6,2007
20 Trial Dale: December 2, 2008
Defendants.
21
22 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., F.CA.P.
--,
)' RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant COU~TY OF KERN
24 SET NUMBER: THREE (3)
25 Defendants hereby submit these responses to Plaintiff David F. Jadwin's Request for
26 Produdion of Dm:umcnts, Sct Three.

27 REOUEST FOR PRODUCTIOK NO. 102
28 Any and all consultation reports issued by Jolm Hopkins Hospital or John Hopkins
-1-
DEFE'\'DANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTlON, SET THREE

1 University of their aftiliates RELATlNU TO the follo",",ng KMC medical record numbers:
2 a. S06-37
3 b. 806-495
4 c. 806-3511
5 d. 806-4619
7 The numbers listed in this request are not KMC medical record numbers. Nevertheless,

10 Any and all PATHOLOGY REPORTS RELATI\IG TO the patient(s) corresponding to
II the following KMC medical record numbers:
12 a. S06-4131
13 b. S06-5229
14 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIOX NO. 103
15 The numbers listed in this request are not K:YIC medical record numbers. Neve11heless,

18 Any and all handwritten notes in this action which were authored by Marvin Kolb during
19 his tenure at KIvlC RELATING TO complaints, inve~tiglltion~, correctiYl;' action, di~cipline,
20 demotion, tennination, anger management and/or behavior RELATING TO any ofthc following
21 PERSONS:
22 a. Plaintiff
b. Royce Johnson
24 c. Edward Taylor
26 e. Scott Ragland
27 f Jennifer Abraham
-2-
DEFENDANTS' RESPO'lSES TO PLATNTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET THREE

1 h. Irwin Harris
2 1. Peter Bryan
3 j. Toni Smith
4 RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 104

6 produced. With regard to the other individuals, Defendants object to this request on the grounds
7 that it calls for the production of intonnation that is protected by the privacy interests of
& individuals who are not "comparators" as that term has been defined in the reported cases and is
10 REQUEST FQRPRODUCTION NO. lOS
11 Any and all handwritten notes in this action which were authored by Peter Bryan during
12 his tenure at KMC RELATING TO complaints, investigations, corrective action, discipline,
13 demotion, tennination, anger management and/or behavior RELATING TO any of the follo\'\'ing
14 PERSONS:
15 a. Plaintiff
16 b. Royce Johnson
17 c. Edward Taylor
19 e. Scott Ragland
22 h. Irwin Harris
23 i. Peter Bryan
24 J. Toni Smith
27 produccd. With rcgard to thc othcr individuals, Defendants object to this request on the grounds
28 that it calls for thc production of infonnation that is protected by the privacy interests of
-3-
DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET THREE
individuals who are not "comparators" as that term has been defined in the reported cases and is
4 Dated: August 1S, 2008 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER
5
6
Mark A. Wasser
7 Attorney for Defendants, County of Kern, et al.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
DEFE'IDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTlFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET THREE

:\1ark A. Wasser CA 58 #060160

'I 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2640
3 Phone: (916) 444-6400
Fax: (916) 444-6405
4 E-mail: mwasser@markwasser.col1l
5 Bernard C. Barmann, Sr. CA S8 #60508
KERN COUNTY COUNSEL
Mark Nations, Chief Deputy CA SB #101838
6 1115 Truxtun Avenue. Fourth Floor
7 Phone: (661) 868-3800
Fax: (661) 868-3805
8 E-mail: mnations@co.kern.ca.us
9
11 and William Roy

14
15 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O. Case No.: 1 :07-cv-00026-0'i'lW-TAG

16 Plaintiff, ROOF OF SERVICE
17 vs.
18 COUNTY OF KERN, et aI.,

19 Defendants.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
Aug 15 08 02:51 p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.12
1 I, Amy Remly, declare:
2 I am a resident ofthc State of California and over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to
the within action; my business address is 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2640, Sacramento. CA 95814. On
3 August 15,2008, I served thc within documents:
4 • Defendants' Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Admission, Set Two

• Defendants' Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Admission, Set Three
5 • Defendants' Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production, Set Three
6
'I\~thouterror to the fax number(s) set forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m. A copy
7 of the transmittal/confirmation sheet is attached. and
8 D by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully
prepaid, in the United States mail at Sacramento, California addressed as set forth
9 below.
10 D by causing personal delivery by of the document(s) listed above to the

11
D by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed Federal Express Overnight Delivery
13
14 Eugene Lee
Law Offices of Eugene Lee
Los Angeles, California 90013-1010
16 Facsimile: (213) 596-0487
17 I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for
mailing. Cnder that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with
18 postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party
served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one
and correct.
21
22 Executed on August 15,2008, at Sacramento, Calilli~\IU\ h~
23
AMYREM~ ~
24
25
26
27
28

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 EXHIBIT 12:
28
Eugene D. Lee
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 10:14 PM
Subject: Discovery Responses
Mark,

Thank you for your fax of August 15, 2008. I am writing to meet and confer regarding Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s
latest discovery requests.

RFA2 consisting of RFA nos. 291 to 294 and RFA3 consisting of RFA nos. 295 to 296 request authentication and business
record determination to documents which were identified in an attached schedule. Defendants have responded as
follows:

“Defendants object to this request on the ground that it calls for a legal conclusion and, in that sense, is a contention
inquiry and not a proper request for admission. Defendants will be prepared to address authentication and business
records determination at the pre‐trial conference.”

Plaintiff’s position is that these are standard authentication and business record RFAs. Plaintiff intends to move to
compel responses and/or to deem them admitted.

RPD3 includes RPD nos. 104 and 105, requesting handwritten notes of Dr. Kolb and Mr. Bryan, respectively, relating to
complaints and corrective action of certain persons. Defendants have responded as follows:

“With regard to Plaintiff, all such notes that Defendants are aware of have been previously produced. With regard to the
other individuals, Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it calls for the production of information that is
protected by the privacy interests of individuals who are not "comparators" as that term has been defined in the
reported cases and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”

Plaintiff’s position is that Defendants’ are not complying with the Stipulation & Order re Privacy (Doc. 137). Unless
Defendants produce these documents immediately (and prior to Plaintiff’s re‐convening of Mr. Bryan’s deposition),
Plaintiff will move to compel not only their production, but also re‐convening of Mr. Bryan’s deposition yet again.
Plaintiff will also consider moving to compel reconvening of Dr. Kolb’s deposition.

Plaintiff also reminds Defendants that they must supplement all prior document production in conformity with the
Stipulation & Order re Privacy. It is apparent that Defendants are laboring under an incorrect conception of the nature
and boundaries of the privacy order which the Court had issued.

Please let me know your response to the foregoing at your earliest convenience as the cutoff date for non‐dispositive
motions fast approaches.

Sincerely,
Gene Lee

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EMPLOYMENT LAW
Tel: (213)992-3299
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 EXHIBIT 13:
28
Eugene D. Lee
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 10:08 AM
Subject: Discovery Meet and Confer
Mark,
We will be sending you a detailed list of the pathology dept-related documents which we still have not received
in response to Plaintiff’s requests for production, set one.
Also, there are additional discovery requests which remain at issue:
REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 102

Any and all consultation reports issued by Jolm Hopkins Hospital or John Hopkins University of their aftiliates
RELATlNU TO the follo",",ng KMC medical record numbers:
S06-37
806-495
806-3511
806-4619

The numbers listed in this request are not KMC medical record numbers. Nevertheless,
Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 103

Any and all PATHOLOGY REPORTS RELATING TO the patient(s) corresponding to the following KMC
medical record numbers:
S06-4131
S06-5229

The numbers listed in this request are not KMC medical record numbers. Nevertheless, Defendants will produce
all documents responsive to this request. produce all documents responsive to this request.
Since the deadline for motions to compel is Sept. 2, we kindly request your prompt response regarding the
above at your earliest convenience.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Gene Lee
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EMPLOYMENT LAW
Tel: (213)992-3299
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 EXHIBIT 14:
28
Eugene D. Lee
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2008 10:20 AM
Cc: 'Karen Barnes'
Subject: FW: Path Doc Requests See my comments and edit before sending to Wasser
Attachments: image002.gif
Mark,
Please see below re pathology-related documents. As we discussed during the depos, Plaintiff will be pre-
emptively filing a motion to compel tomorrow but will withdraw the motion once the below documents requests
are resolved.
FNA REPORTS
We need additional computer records in the HBO system that demonstrate the log of changes by date and time
made to the FNA reports sent to UCLA. The reports that we have don’t contain all of the documentation.
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO case send-out logs for Kern Medical
Center’s Pathology Department from January 1, 1999 to the present, including but not limited to
corresponding Kern Medical Center pathology reports and reports from outside consultants.
This should be about 800 or more cases, probably 5 boxes full. These are located in files in the pathology office,
and some in pathology storage.
These are logs of cases that were sent out to outside facilities, both slides and KMC reports. Most will have a
report from the outside facility when the slides were returned to KMC after review.
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
1
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.
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.
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.
We have not received any semi-annual pathology department notes before or after those written by Jadwin.
The TAT reports should be printed by pathologist for monthly (or

quarterly) periods using the HBO reporting system. Kathy Griffith knows how to generate these reports.
Reports should be generated for:
Freedman, Ang, Lang, Liu, Jadwin, Dutt, Shertudke, and the new pathologist.
Reports can be generated for Surgical Cases (S99- through S08-), Fine Needle Aspiration (F01- through F08-),
Non-Gynecologic Cytology (N01- through N08-) and Bone Marrows (B01- through B08-).
2
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 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,
Same as above, but for all pathologists as a whole.
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.
Explanatory.
3
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO PATHOLOGY REPORTS RELATING TO
Case Numbers S06-4131, S06-4619, S06-5229, S06-73276.
information that is confidential under HIPAA. Defendants also object to the extent that it
requests documents that contain privileged peer-review information.

Without waiving these
objections Defendants will produce all documents responsive to this request by December 7,
2007. Defendants will redact confidential and privileged information as appropriate.
Explanatory.
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO peer review RELATING TO Kern Medical
Center’s Pathology Department during the time period from January 1,

1995 to the present,
including but not limited to computer-generated data, monthly peer review records completed by
pathologists, and peer review comment sheets that are completed by pathologists upon discovery
of a discrepancy.
Defendants object to this request on the ground that it requests privileged peer-review
4
information. Defendants also object on the ground that it requests information that is
confidential under HIPAA and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. Without waiving these objections, Defendants will produce documents responsive to
this request by January 7, 2008 if it is possible to redact the confidential and privileged
information without rendering the resulting document useless.
These includes peer review data contained in the a peer review Access File maintained by the department
secretary (Tracy Lindsey). This should be printed out by year for each and every pathologist in the system
(anyone that worked from 2001 onwards. This report should print out case numbers with an associated original
pathologist, reviewing pathologist and review code (letter-number): A-C and 0 or 1. This data should be
provided in paper and electronic formats.
We also need to have corresponding peer review logs that are filled out each month by each and every
pathologist. These are also maintained in the pathology office.
This would also include all corresponding peer review sheets containing comments related to review that are
filled out by hand by the reviewing pathologist. There should be a review sheet for any consultation (A) and any
case scored (“1”). There are about 20 four inch binders in the pathology department containing these sheets
completed by the reviewer.
Some may be in pathology storage behind the hospital.
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO exceptional event logs for histology and
pathology on Kern Medical Center’s Pathology Department from January 1,

5
requests documents that contain privileged peer review information.
There should be exceptional event sheets filled out by pathologist and the histology section each month from
2001 to present. Typically there are 5 to 10 sheets generated each month. They are maintained in the pathology
office and/or in pathology storage.l
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO paper accession logs at Kern Medical
Center’s Pathology Department from January 1, 2006 to present.

These are specimen accession logs that Vangie or other person in histology record all incoming specimens that
are received each day. It lists the case number, the number of specimens and the labeling of each container
6
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO tissue disposal records for skull-flaps from
January 1, 2006 to the present.

All tissue destruction and/or disposal logs for tissue disposed by the pathology department that included skull
flaps removed during surgery.
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

7
Explanatory. Obtain any documents in the possess of Dr. Garry, who now lives in Idaho. She is a relative of a
laboratory employee.
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO dictation transcription logs for Plaintiff
These are reports generated by the transcription department. They are generated on a daily basis and stored in
the pathology office in binders. If there are missing reports, then transcription can print the reports by day
listing the dictation of each pathologist, the case number, the type of dictation, the length of dictation, etc.
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO dictation transcription logs for Dr.
Philip
Dutt from June 14, 2006 to the present.
8
Same thing.
Any and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO placental evaluations conducted by Plaintiff
Copies of all placental reports during the time period specified completed by the department of pathology,
including those of all pathologists.
Sincerely,
Gene Lee
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEEEMPLOYMENT LAW
555 WEST FIFTH ST., STE. 3100LOS ANGELES, CA 90013Tel: (21
3 ) 9 9 2 - 3 2 9 9 F a x : ( 2 1 3 ) 5 9 6 - 0 4 8 7 E - m a i l : elee@LOEL.com W e b s i t e :
www.LOEL.com B l o g : www.CaLaborLaw.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you
received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any
attachments.
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 EXHIBIT 15:
28
Eugene D. Lee
From: Mark Wasser [mwasser@markwasser.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 6:48 PM
To: elee@LOEL.com
Subject: RE: Continued PMK
Gene,
The IT guy at KMC says he cannot sort the database to print what you want in less than 4 days. I realize Dr. Jadwin
thinks the IT guy is wrong but that is what I am told. So, no, I cannot produce additional documents by Thursday.
Mark
From: Eugene D. Lee [mailto:elee@LOEL.com]

To: mwasser@markwasser.com
Subject: RE: Continued PMK

Are we going to have the Pathology-related documents prior to Dutt’s continued PMK depo, per your proposed
dual-track schedule for Thurs?
Sincerely,
Gene Lee
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EMPLOYMENT LAW
Tel: (213)992-3299
Fax: (213)596-0487

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

From: Mark Wasser [mailto:mwasser@markwasser.com]

To: elee@LOEL.com
Cc: Karen Barnes; Assistant to Mark A. Wasser
Subject: Continued PMK

Gene,
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 EXHIBIT 16:
28
Eugene D. Lee
From: Mark Wasser [mwasser@markwasser.com]
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 7:59 PM
To: elee@LOEL.com
Cc: Karen Barnes; Assistant to Mark A. Wasser
Subject: RE: Path Docs/PMK due process
Attachments: image001.gif
Gene,
With regard to the pathology turn-around reports, we have consulted with James Pusavat, the interim laboratory
manager, and Eric Santerre, the clinical laboratory supervisor. They both state that the STAR software is not
able to print monthly turnaround reports by pathologist. Eric has verified that no such report exists in the SQL
database. To run the reports Dr. Jadwin has requested would require that Eric (or an outside programmer at ~
$200/hour) write a special SQL report and then program the system with the requisite codes. The reports would
then have to be downloaded into a PC and placed into a readable format - such as Excel.
James and Eric estimate it would take between two to five days, depending on competing workload, to write the
SQL report and program STAR. It would take another 4 to 5 days to print and collate the reports. Nothing in
the FRCP requires the County to create documents that do not exist and cannot be readily generated by existing
software.
If Dr. Jadwin wants to discuss paying for it, that is a different issue.
I will get you an estimate of the cost, if you want.
With regard to the “due process” subjects in the PMK (items 15, 16 and 17), there is no witness who can testify
on these topics. The topics are somewhat artificial and, although I understand you do not intend for them to be
“contention” requests, they are. Existing discovery has established what happened pretty clearly. Dr. Jadwin
did not appear before the JCC at the time it considered removing him as chair. He did not request the
opportunity to appear. He did not communicate with anyone at the County after the JCC meeting about the
vote. He maintained the silence and absence that had characterized the previous several months. Dr. Jadwin
was not consulted before he was placed on administrative leave. The only discussions regarding the non-
renewal of his contract were between you and me and arose in the context of an unsuccessful settlement effort
to buy out his contract. I understand what Mr. Watson said at his deposition but you will find that there were no
discussions of that subject other than the ones you and I had. The “decision” to not renew the contract was no
more than a consequence of not being able to settle the dispute. As to whether the County believes Dr. Jadwin
had a protected constitutional interest in the salary he lost, that is a legal issue.
I am willing to draft some undisputed facts about the issue but cannot complete that tonight. However, for
purposes of the PMK, there is no witness.
With regard to the terms of Dr. Jadwin’s employment contract, base compensation and professional fees, if
the witnesses you depose next Tuesday do not satisfactorily respond to those subjects, we will offer
supplemental witnesses after I return from vacation.
1
Mark
________________________________
From: Eugene D. Lee [mailto:elee@LOEL.com]

Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 5:01 PM
To: mwasser@markwasser.com
Subject: Path Docs/PMK due process
Mark,
As we discussed, please let me know what the status is re:
1) Pathology dept-related documents (Plaintiff’s requests for

production, set one, nos. 65-78)
2) PMK reps who will address items 15-17 of Plaintiff’s PMK depo
notice (due process-related items). Just to remind you, Plaintiff is seeking PMKs who can address: a) the terms
of Plaintiff’s employment contract dated 2002 regarding base comp and professional fees, b) KMC’s practice of
renewing or not renewing physician contracts, c) the procedure which Kern gave to Plaintiff in connection with
removal, administrative leave and non-renewal
We will not be able to depose PMK (Dutt) on items 28 or 29 (monthly turnaround times for pathology,
plaintiff’s work performance) on next Tuesday unless we are in receipt of the documents cited in paragraph 1)
above.
Please contact me anytime (including this weekend) if you want to discuss the above.
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 EXHIBIT 17:
27 Declaration of Eugene Lee in Support of Motion
28

3 Phone: (213) 992-3299
Fax: (213) 596-0487
6
10 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE IN
v. SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
11 PRODUCTION
14
16
Plaintiff submits this Declaration of Eugene D. Lee pursuant to Local Rule 37-251(d) in lieu of a
17
joint statement re discovery disagreement.
18
I, Eugene D. Lee, declare as follows:
19
1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before the Federal and State Courts of
20
California and admitted to practice before the U.S.D.C. for the Eastern District of California. I am
21
counsel of record for Plaintiff David F. Jadwin in this matter.
22
2. I am making this declaration in support of plaintiff’s motion to compel production. I have
23
personal knowledge of the matters set forth below and I could and would competently testify thereto if
24
called as a witness in this matter.
25
3. I have spent and anticipate spending substantially in excess of 8.8 hours meeting and
26
conferring with Mr. Wasser by phone, fax, letter and email, researching and drafting these moving
27
papers and attending the motion hearing in Bakersfield, CA. My regular rate for such services is $400
28
DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION
1
1 per hour.
2 Date Task Billed Time (hrs)
3 8/5/08 Email to Mr. Wasser re doc 0.1
requests
requests
5 8/18/08 Review Defendants’ responses 0.7
to RPD3
requests
requests
requests
9 9/2/08 Emails from/to Mr. Wasser re 0.2
doc requests
10 9/5/08 Emails from/to Mr. Wasser re 0.6
doc requests
11 9/1/08 Draft and file Motion to 0.5
Compel
12 9/19/08 Draft Joint Statement to 4.6
Motion to Compel
13
14
4. I live in Los Angeles, CA and anticipate spending an additional 3 hours driving to and
15
from Bakersfield, CA (distance of 97.9 miles per www.maps.google.com), and an additional estimated 1
16
hour preparing for and attending the hearing before this Court.
17
5. My regular rate for legal services is $400 per hour. I have charged, and been paid by,
18
Plaintiff David F. Jadwin $400 per hour in this action.
19 6. Plaintiff seeks sanctions totaling $5,120 in compensation for the 8.8 hours charged
20 ($3,520), and 4 hours anticipated to be charged ($1,600), in connection with this motion and underlying
21 dispute.
22 7. My rate is reasonable and consistent with those charged in the Los Angeles area by
23 attorneys of similar skill and experience. I received my B.A. with honors from Harvard University in
24 1991 and my J.D. with honors from the University of Michigan Law School in 1995. I was admitted to
25 the New York State Bar in 1996 and worked as an associate in the New York office of Shearman &
26 Sterling from 1995 to 1996. I worked as an associate in the New York office of Sullivan & Cromwell
27 from 1996 to 1997. After a brief leave of absence from practicing law from 1997 to 1999, I returned to
28
2
1 active practice as the General Counsel of Tcom America, Inc., a technology venture in Silicon Valley
2 from 1999 to 2002. From 2002 to 2004, I worked as a senior associate for Kim & Chang, a law firm
3 located in Seoul, Korea. In 2005, I was admitted to the California Bar. I have been the principal of Law
4 Office of Eugene Lee since 2005.
5 8. I attempted several times to secure local counsel to prosecute Plaintiff’s suit but was
6 ultimately unsuccessful. On September 18, 2006, I sent an email to over 600 members of the California
7 Employment Lawyers Association seeking co-counsel. No attorneys from Fresno responded. On
8 February 28, 2007, I called Andrew Jones, Esq. in Fresno, CA, requesting his involvement as local
9 counsel in this action. Mr. Jones declined.
10
11 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the United States
12 that the foregoing is true and correct.
13
Executed on: September 23, 2008
14
15
16 /s/ Eugene D. Lee
17 EUGENE D. LEE
Declarant
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
90013. On the date of execution of this DOCUMENT, I served the following:
5
6 JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL
PRODUCTION
7
on the following parties in this action by and through their attorneys addressed as follows:
8
Mark A. Wasser
9 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER
10 Sacramento, CA 95814
Fax: (916) 444-6405
William Roy
13
BY UNITED STATES MAIL: I enclosed the DOCUMENT(s) listed above in a sealed envelope
14 with postage thereon fully prepaid, addressed to the PERSON(s) listed above, and deposited the sealed
envelope with the United States Postal Service at Los Angeles, California. I am aware that on motion of
15 the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more
than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
16
FEDERAL: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America
17 that the above is true and correct and that I took said actions at the direction of a licensed attorney
authorized to practice before this Federal Court.
18
Executed on September 19, 2008, at Los Angeles, California.
19
20
21
22 Eugene D. Lee
23
24
25
26
27
28

227 P MTC Docs Rpd1-3 - P JT STMT

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

227 P MTC Docs Rpd1-3 - P JT STMT

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

1 Eugene D. Lee SB#: 236812

DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE re: INABILITY TO SECURE COOPERATION OF

DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE re: INABILITY TO SECURE COOPERATION OF

DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE re: INABILITY TO SECURE COOPERATION OF

1 Eugene D. Lee SB#: 236812

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION 1

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION 2

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION 3

1 16897 16900 7/25/2006 David Hill Gilbert Email Peer Review,

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION 4

1 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto through their

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION 5

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION 6

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION 7

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION 8

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION 9

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION 10

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION 11

1 their affiliates RELATING TO the following KMC medical record numbers:

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION 12

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION 13

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION 14

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION 15

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION 16

1 Eugene D. Lee SB#: 236812

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 227-2 Filed 09/23/2008 ELEE@LOEL.COM

Transmitted herewith are Plaintiff's Requests for Production of Documents

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 227-2 Filed 09/23/2008 Page 5 of 182

I Eugene D. Lee SB# 236812

5 Joan Herrington, SB# 178988

12 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR

PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 227-2 Filed 09/23/2008 Page 6 of 182

9 the control of Defendant or on behalf of Defendant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 227-2 Filed 09/23/2008 Page 7 of 182

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

28 effort to locate the DOCUMENTS requested.

PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 227-2 Filed 09/23/2008 Page 8 of 182

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

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

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

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

PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 227-2 Filed 09/23/2008 Page 9 of 182

9 Answer to Plaintiff's Second Supplemental Complaint.

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

21 Answer to Plaintiff's Second Supplemental Complaint.

PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 227-2 Filed 09/23/2008 Page 10 of 182

6 REQUEST NO. 10.

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

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