103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement

8/14/2019 103 MTC ROG1 - DFJ Declaration Re Joint Statement

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/103-mtc-rog1-dfj-declaration-re-joint-statement 1/146

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

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

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

Fax: (213) 596-0487email: [email protected]

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.,

Plaintiff,v.

COUNTY OF KERN, et al.,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG

DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE re:INABILITY TO SECURE COOPERATIONOF DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL TOPREPARE AND EXECUTE JOINTSTATEMENT re: MOTION TO COMPELRESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES

Date: April 28, 2008Time: 9:30 a.m.Place: U.S. District Court, Bankruptcy Courtroom

1300 18th St., Bakersfield, CA

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

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

joint statement re discovery disagreement.

I, Eugene D. Lee, declare as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 1 of 16




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

remaining issues.

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

Statement, attached hereto as Attachment A.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement which I had prepared.

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

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

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

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

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

the accidentally included document.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

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

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

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

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

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

would have.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

plaintiff is bringing this motion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

plaintiff’s interrogatories, deem documents business records and authenticated, etc. Assuming the





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

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

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

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

shortly as well.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the United States

that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on: April 23, 2008

/s/ Eugene D. Lee

EUGENE D. LEEDeclarant





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ATTACHMENT A




JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TOINTERROGATORIES 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




Mark A. Wasser CA SB #06160LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100Sacramento, CA 95814Phone: (916) 444-6400Fax: (916) 444-6405Email: [email protected]

Bernard C. Barmann, Sr.KERN COUNTY COUNSELMark Nations, Chief Deputy1115 Truxton Avenue, Fourth FloorBakersfield, CA 93301Phone: (661) 868-3800Fax: (661) 868-3805Email: [email protected]

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




Plaintiff,v.


Defendants.


JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERYDISAGREEMENT re: MOTION TOCOMPEL RESPONSES TOINTERROGATORIES



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







1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

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

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

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

environment existed, it was caused by Plaintiff.

III. THE CONTENTION OF EACH PARTY AS TO EACH CONTESTED ISSUE

A. INTERROGATORY NO. 1

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

DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1

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

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

PLAINTIFF’S POSITION

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

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

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

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

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

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

confer efforts is a violation of discovery rules.

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘pure law’ that would infringe on the attorney-work product doctrine as codified in Rule 26(b)(3).





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

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

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

[citations omitted]).

Defendant refuses to state a single fact. Defendant further asserts privilege objections. These

objections are improper as is defendant’s refusal to respond.

Rule 37 states:

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

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

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

Defendant’s conduct is particularly hypocritical considering defendant showed no hesitance in

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

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

deposition, plaintiff responded fully.

DEFENDANT’S POSITION

[INSERT HERE]

B. INTERROGATORY NO. 2

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


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



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


[INSERT HERE]





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

C. INTERROGATORY NO. 3

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

have been previously produced.


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

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

Id . at 682 [citations omitted][emphasis added].

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

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

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

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

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

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

allegedly caused that.

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

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

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

to hide the ball from plaintiff and surprise plaintiff at trial.





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Defendant initially agreed in meet and confer to supplement its response accordingly. As has

often been the case in this action, defendant changed its mind.

Rule 37 states:


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

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


[INSERT HERE]

D. INTERROGATORY NO. 4

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


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





[INSERT HERE]

E. INTERROGATORY NO. 5

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


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









1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[INSERT HERE]

F. INTERROGATORY NO. 6

State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Eighth Affirmative Defense.DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6

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

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




[INSERT HERE]

G. INTERROGATORY NO. 7

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


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





[INSERT HERE]

H. INTERROGATORY NO. 46

IDENTIFY each DOCUMENT or portion thereof contained in PLAINTIFF's FRCP Rule 26

Initial Disclosures that YOU contend is privileged; state the nature of each privilege asserted; and statein detail the factual bases for each such asserted privilege.


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

privileged about the documents Plaintiff produced?





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Rule 37 states:

a party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an answer, designation,

production, or inspection. This motion may be made if … (iii) a party fails to answer aninterrogatory submitted under Rule 33…. For purposes of this subdivision (a), anevasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a failure todisclose, answer, or respond. [emphasis added].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


[INSERT HERE]

I. INTERROGATORY NO. 47

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

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

detail the factual bases for each such asserted privilege.DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 47

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

privileged about the documents Plaintiff produced?






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



[INSERT HERE]

J. INTERROGATORY NO. 48

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

PLAINTIFF'S position as Chair of Pathology at KMC.


The essential functions of Plaintiffs position are set forth in the KMC Medical Staff Bylaws at

page 46, section 9.7, Department Chairs; section 9.7-1, Qualifications and pages 48- 50, section 9.7-5,

Responsibilities and Duties of Department Chairs and Plaintiffs job description.


As plaintiff repeatedly explained to defendant during meet and confer, an answer to an

interrogatory should be complete in itself and should not refer to the pleadings, or to depositions or other

documents, or to other interrogatories. See Scaife v. Boenne (N.D. Ind. 2000) 191 FRD 590, 594.

Moreover, it is the employer’s burden to state what the essential functions of an employee’s

position are.

Defendant initially agreed in meet and confer to supplement its response accordingly. As has

often been the case in this action, defendant changed its mind, necessitating this motion.

Rule 37 states:


By giving an evasive and incomplete response to this interrogatory which fails to state any facts,defendant has engaged in behavior which this court is required to sanction pursuant to Rule 37.


[INSERT HERE]





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IV. CONCLUSION

The party who prevails on a motion to compel is entitled to his or her expenses, including

reasonable attorney fees, unless the losing party was substantially justified in making or opposing themotion (or other circumstances make such an award unjust). FRCP 37(a)(5); H. K. Porter Co., Inc. v.

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (6th Cir. 1976) 536 F2d 1115, 1124–1125.

Plaintiff has met and conferred several times with defendant by phone and in writing, clearing up

any “confusion” and responding to any concerns. Despite this, defendant has insisted on maintaining

incomplete and evasive responses which violate discovery rules. Plaintiff requests this court compel

defendant to fully and properly respond to the above disputed interrogatories without further delay.

Due to motion practice which has thus far required upwards of 5 months and counting to resolve,

defendant has had the benefit of lengthy delays in providing responses to plaintiff’s discovery responses

With less than 3 months remaining before the discovery cutoff, time is of the essence to ensure plaintiff

is not further prejudiced than he already has been in this action.

Pursuant to Rule 37, plaintiff further seeks attorney fees in the amount of $2,000 in consideration

of 5 of the hours which plaintiff has spent meeting and conferring, preparing this motion and anticipates

spending attending the hearing on this motion. Finally, plaintiff requests whatever other sanctions this

court deems proper and just.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: April __, 2008 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER

By:__________________________________________Mark A. Wasser,Attorney for DefendantsCOUNTY OF KERN, PETER BRYAN, IRWINHARRIS, EUGENE KERCHER, JENNIFERABRAHAM, SCOTT RAGLAND,TONI SMITH,AND WILLIAM ROY





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Dated: April___, 2008 LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE

By:__________________________________________

Eugene D. LeeAttorney for Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.




EXHIBITS TO JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENTre: INTERROGATORIES 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




Mark A. Wasser CA SB #06160LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100Sacramento, CA 95814Phone: (916) 444-6400Fax: (916) 444-6405Email: [email protected]

Bernard C. Barmann, Sr.KERN COUNTY COUNSELMark Nations, Chief Deputy1115 Truxton Avenue, Fourth FloorBakersfield, CA 93301Phone: (661) 868-3800Fax: (661) 868-3805Email: [email protected]

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




Plaintiff,v.


Defendants.


EXHIBITS TO JOINT STATEMENT re:DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT re:INTERROGATORIES




Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 1 of 130




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

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

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

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

EXHIBIT 4: Meet and confer correspondence between the parties

EXHIBIT 5: Declaration of Eugene Lee in Support of Motion





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

EXHIBIT 1:

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




- - rom: aw ce o ugene ee g : pm

(213) 992 -3299

TELEPHONELAW

E U G

OFFICE

ENE L

OF

E E

[email protected]

EMAIL

(213) 596 -0487

FACSIMILE

FAX

5 5 5 WEST F IFTH STREET SUITE 3 1 0 0

Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9001 3-1 01 0

WWW.LOEL.COM

WEBSITE

To:

Fax Number: 2135960487

Pages: 26 (including cover page)

Re: Jadwin/KC: Interrogatories 1

Comments:

Mark:

Please see th e a tta ch ed .

From: Law Office of Eugene Lee

Date: 01/02/2008



(213) 992 -3299

TELEPHONELAW

E U G

OFFICE

ENE L

OF

E E

[email protected]

EMAIL

(213) 596 -0487

FACSIMILE

FAX

5 5 5 WEST FIFTH STREET SUITE 3 1 0 0


WWW.LOEL.COM

WEBSITE

To:



Re: Jadwin/KC: Interrogatories 1

Comments:

Mark:

P le ase see th e a tta ch ed .


Date: 01/02/2008




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1112

13

Eugene D. Lee SB# 236812LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE

555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100

Los Angeles, California 90013Telephone: (213) 992-3299Facsimile: (213) 596-0487Email: [email protected]

Joan Herrington, SB# 178988BAY AREA EMPLOYMENT LAW OFFICE

5032 Woodminster LaneOakland, CA 94602-2614Telephone: (510) 530-4078Facsimile: (510) 530-4725Email: [email protected] to LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE

Attorneys for PlaintiffDAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.


FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG

15

16 v.

Plaintiff, INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT

COUNTY OF KERN (SET ONE).

17 COUNTY OF KERN; et aI.Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007Date Set for Trial: December 3 , 2008

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Defendants.

PROPOUNDING PARTY:

RESPONDING PARTY:

SET NO.:

PlaintiffDAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., F.C.A.P.

Defendant COUNTY OF KERN

One

25

26

27

28

Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure, PlaintiffDavid F. Jadwin requests

that you serve written answers to the following interrogatories under oath within thirty (30) days of

service hereof

III

INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT KERN COUNTY (SET ONE)



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1112

13

Eugene D. Lee SB# 236812LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE


Los Angeles, California 90013Telephone: (213) 992-3299Facsimile: (213) 596-0487Email: [email protected]

Joan Herrington, SB# 178988BAY AREA EMPLOYMENT LAW OFFICE

5032 Woodminster LaneOakland, CA 94602-2614Telephone: (510) 530-4078Facsimile: (510) 530-4725Email: [email protected] to LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE

Attorneys for PlaintiffDAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.


FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG

15

16 v.

Plaintiff, INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT

COUNTY OF KERN (SET ONE).

17 COUNTY OF KERN; et aI.Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007Date Set for Trial: December 3 , 2008

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Defendants.

PROPOUNDING PARTY:

RESPONDING PARTY:

SET NO.:



One

25

26

27

28

Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure, PlaintiffDavid F. Jadwin requests

that you serve written answers to the following interrogatories under oath within thirty (30) days of

service hereof

III

INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT KERN COUNTY (SET ONE)



- - rom: aw ce o ugene ee

DEFINITIONS

g : pm

1

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

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

4 other entity.

5 B. The term "PLAINTIFF" means plaintiffDavid F. Jadwin, D.O., F.C.A.P.

6 C. The term "DEFENDANT"means defendant County ofKern.

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

8 DEFENDANT.

9 E. The terms "YOU" and "YOUR" as used herein include DEFENDANT and include

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

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

12 DEFENDANT or on behalfofDEFENDANT.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

28 DOCUMENTS RELATING TO an process improvement file; employee's credentials; medical staff file,

INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT KERN COUNTY (SET ONE) 2


- - rom: aw ce o ugene ee

DEFINITIONS

g : pm

1

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

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

4 other entity.

5 B. The term "PLAINTIFF" means plaintiffDavid F. Jadwin, D.O., F.C.A.P.

6 C. The term "DEFENDANT"means defendant County ofKern.

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

8 DEFENDANT.

9 E. The terms "YOU" and "YOUR" as used herein include DEFENDANT and include

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

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

12 DEFENDANT or on behalfofDEFENDANT.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

28 DOCUMENTS RELATING TO an process improvement file; employee's credentials; medical staff file,





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1112

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

reports.

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

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

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

PERSON's employment with you. When used in connection with DOCUMENTS, the term

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

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

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

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

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

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

versa.

INSTRUCTIONS

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

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

for YOUR inability to fully answer, and state any information YOU have concerning the unanswered




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1112

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

reports.

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

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

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

PERSON's employment with you. When used in connection with DOCUMENTS, the term

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

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


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

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

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

versa.

INSTRUCTIONS

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

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

for YOUR inability to fully answer, and state any information YOU have concerning the unanswered





1 portion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

14 true, pursuant to Rule 26(e) ofthe Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure.

15 INTERROGATORIES

16 INTERROGATORY NO. 1:17 State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Third Affirmative Defense.

18 INTERROGATORY NO.2:

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


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


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


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


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





1 portion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

14 true, pursuant to Rule 26(e) ofthe Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure.

15 INTERROGATORIES

16 INTERROGATORY NO. 1:17 State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Third Affirmative Defense.


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


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


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


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


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






a) Peter Bryan;

b) Irwin Harris;

c) Eugene Kercher;

d) Jennifer Abraham;

e) Scott Ragland;

f) Toni Smith;

g) William Roy;

h) Philip Dutt.

INTERROGATORY NO.9:

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


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

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

5 state all facts on which you base YOUR contention:

6

7

8

9

10

1112

13

14

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

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

17 2007.

18 INTERROGATORY NO. 10:

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

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

21 September 13, 2007, state the following:

22 a) Whether each PERSON is YOUR current employees or former employees, and ifso, their dates

23 of employment and job titles;

24 b) For each PERSON who is YOUR former employees, the date and reason for their separation

25 from employment.

26 c) For each PERSON who is YOUR former employees, whether the employee resigned, abandoned

27 his job, was fired, was laid off, or was otherwise terminated.





a) Peter Bryan;

b) Irwin Harris;

c) Eugene Kercher;


e) Scott Ragland;

f) Toni Smith;

g) William Roy;

h) Philip Dutt.

INTERROGATORY NO.9:

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


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

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

5 state all facts on which you base YOUR contention:

6

7

8

9

10

1112

13

14

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

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

17 2007.


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

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

21 September 13, 2007, state the following:

22 a) Whether each PERSON is YOUR current employees or former employees, and ifso, their dates

23 of employment and job titles;

24 b) For each PERSON who is YOUR former employees, the date and reason for their separation

25 from employment.

26 c) For each PERSON who is YOUR former employees, whether the employee resigned, abandoned

27 his job, was fired, was laid off, or was otherwise terminated.






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

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

3 dates oftheir membership:

4 a) Medical Executive Committee

5 b) Joint Conference Committee

6 c) Quality Management Committee

7 d) Cancer Committee

8 e) Second Level Peer Review Committee

9 f) Transfusion Committee

109) Executive StaffMeetings


12 State the dates, times and locations of each meeting held by the following committees from

13 October 4, 2001 to the present:







20 g) Executive StaffMeetings


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

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

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

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


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

28 into any aspect of PLAINTIFF's claims against YOU that are alleged in the Second Supplemental




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

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

3 dates oftheir membership:







109) Executive StaffMeetings


12 State the dates, times and locations of each meeting held by the following committees from

13 October 4, 2001 to the present:







20 g) Executive StaffMeetings


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

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

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

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


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

28 into any aspect of PLAINTIFF's claims against YOU that are alleged in the Second Supplemental





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

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

3 contributed to.


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

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

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

8 PATHOLOGY REPORTS each such PERSON peer reviewed.


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

11 PLAINTIFF whom YOU removed or suspended from the position ofChair ofa Department at KMC

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

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

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

15 suspensIOn.


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

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

19 reasons for the end oftheir tenure in said position.


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

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

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

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

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

26 NECESSITY LEAVE.






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

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

3 contributed to.


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

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

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

8 PATHOLOGY REPORTS each such PERSON peer reviewed.



11 PLAINTIFF whom YOU removed or suspended from the position ofChair ofa Department at KMC

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

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

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

15 suspensIOn.


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

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

19 reasons for the end oftheir tenure in said position.


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

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

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

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

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

26 NECESSITY LEAVE.







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

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

3 reinstatement.


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

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

7 PERSONAL NECESSITY LEAVE taken since October 24,2005.



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

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

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

13 of SICK LEAVE.



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

17 October 24, 1995.



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

21 LEAVE since October 24, 1995.



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

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



28 PLAINTIFF who were not reinstated to their same position following a period of leave taken pursuant to




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

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

3 reinstatement.



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

7 PERSONAL NECESSITY LEAVE taken since October 24,2005.



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

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

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

13 of SICK LEAVE.



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

17 October 24, 1995.



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

21 LEAVE since October 24, 1995.



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

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



28 PLAINTIFF who were not reinstated to their same position following a period of leave taken pursuant to





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



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

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

6 1995.



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

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

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

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

13 period ofADMINSTRATIVE LEAVE was paid or unpaid; and state any and all reasons for each such

14 period ofADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE.


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


26 IDENTIFY any and all ofYOUR former or current members ofthe MEDICAL STAFF whose

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

28 period from October 24,2000 to November 16,2006.




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



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

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

6 1995.



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

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

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

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

13 period ofADMINSTRATIVE LEAVE was paid or unpaid; and state any and all reasons for each such

14 period ofADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE.


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


26 IDENTIFY any and all ofYOUR former or current members ofthe MEDICAL STAFF whose

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

28 period from October 24,2000 to November 16,2006.






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

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

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

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




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

10 specific number minutes ofbeing called.


12 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who worked as a staffpathologist at KMC after October 24,

13 2000 other than PLAINTIFF whose job description or employment contract contained a provision

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

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

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

17 17000 et seq., and adult inmates and juvenile detainees in custody in County-owned or operated

18 detention facilities) undercompensated and uninsured patients.


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

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

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

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


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

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

27 the date that decision was made.








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

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




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

10 specific number minutes ofbeing called.


12 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who worked as a staffpathologist at KMC after October 24,

13 2000 other than PLAINTIFF whose job description or employment contract contained a provision

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

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

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

17 17000 et seq., and adult inmates and juvenile detainees in custody in County-owned or operated

18 detention facilities) undercompensated and uninsured patients.


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

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

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

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


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

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

27 the date that decision was made.






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

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

3 decision was made.


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

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

7 was made.


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

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

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


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

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


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

17 of PLAINTIFF's base salary in 2006.


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

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


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

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


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

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

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





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

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

3 decision was made.


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

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

7 was made.


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

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

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


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

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


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

17 of PLAINTIFF's base salary in 2006.


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

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


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

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


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

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

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






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

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

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


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

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


8 IDENTIFY each DOCUMENT or portion thereofcontained in PLAINTIFF's FRCP Rule 26

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

lO i n detail the factual bases for each such asserted privilege.


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

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

14 detail the factual bases for each such asserted privilege.


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

17 PLAINTIFF'S position as Chair of Pathology at KMC.

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Date: January 2, 2008

QgeneD. LeeLAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE

555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100Los Angeles, California 90013

Telephone: (213) 992-3299Facsimile: (213) 596-0487Email: [email protected] for PlaintiffDAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.




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

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

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


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

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


8 IDENTIFY each DOCUMENT or portion thereof contained in PLAINTIFF's FRCP Rule 26

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

lO i n detail the factual bases for each such asserted privilege.


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

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

14 detail the factual bases for each such asserted privilege.




18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Date: January 2, 2008

LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE

555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100Los Angeles, California 90013

Telephone: (213) 992-3299Facsimile: (213) 596-0487Email: [email protected] for Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I,the undersigned, hereby declare:

I am a resident of Los Angeles in the State ofCalifornia. I am over the age of 18 and not a partyto the action described herein. I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, California. My businessaddress is LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE, 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100, Los Angeles, CA90013. On the date of execution ofthis DOCUMENT, I served the following:

INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT COUNTY OF KERN (SET ONE).

on the following parties in this action by and through their attorneys addressed as follows:

Mark A. WasserLAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100Sacramento, CA 95814Fax: (916) 444-6405

Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern, PeterBryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher, JenniferAbraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smith andWilliam Roy

BY UNITED STATES MAIL: I enclosed the DOCUMENT(s) listed above in a sealed envelopewith postage thereon fully prepaid, addressed to the PERSON(s) listed above, and deposited the sealedenvelope with the United States Postal Service at Los Angeles, California. I am aware that on motion ofthe party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is morethan one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.

BY FACSIMILE: I transmitted via facsimile the DOCUMENT(s) listed above to the faxnumber(s) set forth above on this date before 5:00 p.rn. The outgoing facsimile machine telephonenumber in this office is (213) 596-0487. The facsimile service used in this office creates a transmissionreport for each outgoing facsimile transmitted. A copy ofthe transmission report(s) for the service ofthis DOCUMENT, properly issued by the facsimile service that transmitted this DOCUMENT andshowing that such transmission was (transmissions were) completed without error, is attached hereto.

FEDERAL: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe United States ofAmericathat the above is true and correct and that I took said actions at the direction of a licensed attorneyauthorized to practice before this Federal Court.

Executed on January 2, 2008, at Los Angeles, California.

- A V0}':U

\ Eugene D. Lee




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1112

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


I,the undersigned, hereby declare:

I am a resident ofLos Angeles in the State ofCalifornia. I am over the age of 18 and not a partyto the action described herein. I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, California. My businessaddress is LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE, 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100, Los Angeles, CA90013. On the date of execution ofthis DOCUMENT, I served the following:

INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT COUNTY OF KERN (SET ONE).


Mark A. WasserLAW OFFICES OFMARK A. WASSER400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100Sacramento, CA 95814Fax: (916) 444-6405

Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern, PeterBryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher, JenniferAbraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smith andWilliam Roy

[2J BY UNITED STATES MAIL: I enclosed the DOCUMENT(s) listed above in a sealed envelopewith postage thereon fully prepaid, addressed to the PERSON(s) listed above, and deposited the sealedenvelope with the United States Postal Service at Los Angeles, California. I am aware that on motion ofthe party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is morethan one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.

[2J BY FACSIMILE: I transmitted via facsimile the DOCUMENT(s) listed above to the faxnumber(s) set forth above on this date before 5:00 p.m. The outgoing facsimile machine telephonenumber in this office is (213) 596-0487. The facsimile service used in this office creates a transmissionreport for each outgoing facsimile transmitted. A copy of the transmission report(s) for the service ofthis DOCUMENT, properly issued by the facsimile service that transmitted this DOCUMENT andshowing that such transmission was (transmissions were) completed without error, is attached hereto.

[2J FEDERAL: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe United States ofAmericathat the above is true and correct and that I took said actions at the direction of a licensed attorneyauthorized to practice before this Federal Court.

Executed on January 2, 2008, at Los Angeles, California.





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

EXHIBIT 2:

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




1

Eugene D. Lee

From: Mark Wasser [[email protected]]Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 5:28 PMTo: Eugene LeeSubject: Response to Plaintiffs Interrogatories 1.16.08Attachments: Response to Plaintiffs Interrogatories 1.16.08.doc

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




DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

1

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Mark A. Wasser CA SB #60160LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100Sacramento, CA 95814Phone: (916) 444-6400Fax: (916) 444-6405

E-mail: [email protected] Bernard C. Barmann, Sr.KERN COUNTY COUNSELMark Nations, Chief Deputy1115 Truxtun Avenue, Fourth FloorBakersfield, CA 93301Phone: (661) 868-3800Fax: (661) 868-3805E-mail: [email protected]

Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern,Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher,

Jennifer Abraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smithand William Roy



DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.

Plaintiff,

vs.


Defendants.

)))

))))))))))

Case No.: 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO

PLAINTIFF’S INTEROGATORIES (SETONE)

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

)

PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., F.C.A.P.

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant COUNTY OF KERN

SET NUMBER: ONE (1)





2

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

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

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

INTERROGATORY NO. 1

State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Third Affirmative Defense.RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1

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

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

privilege.

INTERROGATORY NO. 2

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

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2

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


privilege.

INTERROGATORY NO. 3

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

INTERROGATORY NO. 4

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





3

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


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


privilege.INTERROGATORY NO. 5

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

Defense.


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

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

privilege.

INTERROGATORY NO. 6

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


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

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

product privilege.

INTERROGATORY NO. 7

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


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


privilege.

INTERROGATORY NO. 8

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

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

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

a) Peter Bryan;





4

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

b) Irwin Harris;

c) Eugene Kercher;


e)

Scott Ragland;f) Toni Smith;

g) William Roy;

h) Philip Dutt.


William Roy was an independent contractor who served under contract from about

September 1, 2005 to about March 30, 2007.

INTERROGATORY NO. 9

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

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

Disclosures, dated August 6, 2007.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rini, Carol Gates and Denise Long.





5

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

INTERROGATORY NO. 10

For each of the PERSONS YOU listed in the “WITNESSES” section (Section 1 and

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

Disclosures”, dated September 13, 2007, state the following: a) Whether each PERSON is YOUR current employees or former employees, and if

so, their dates of employment and job titles;

b) For each PERSON who is YOUR former employees, the date and reason for their

separation from employment;

c) For each PERSON who is YOUR former employees, whether the employee

resigned, abandoned his job, was laid off, or was otherwise terminated.


Defendants object to this Interrogatory, to the extent it requests the dates of employment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(current), Tai Yoo (current), Aaron Baldwin (former), Linda Nipper (former), Bonnie Quinonez





6

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

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

Denise Long (former).

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

confidential personnel information about employees or former employees that is protected underCalifornia Evidence Code section 1040 and case authority. In some cases, it also requests

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

object on that ground, as well.


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

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

and the dates of their membership:

a) Medical Executive Committee;

b) Joint Conference Committee

c) Quality Management Committee

d) Cancer Committee

e) Second Level Peer Review Committee

f) Transfusion Committee

g) Executive Staff Meetings


a) Medical Executive Committee:

October 2001 – June 2002

Jose A. Perez, Jr., MD President

Navin Amin, MD President-Elect, Chair, Department of Family Practice

Royce Johnson, MD Past President, Chair, Department of Medicine

James Sproul, MD Member At Large

Augustine Munoz, MD Member At Large

Soheil Etesham, MD Chair, Department of Anesthesiology

Eugene Kercher, MD Chair, Department of Emergency Medicine





7

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Parameswaran Aiylam, MD Division Chief, Pediatrics

Leonard Perez, MD Chair, Department of OB/GYN

David Jadwin, DO Chair, Department of Pathology

Tai Yoo, MD Chair, Department of PsychiatryJavad Naderi, MD Chair, Department of Radiology

Jack Bloch, MD Chair, Department of Surgery

NON-VOTING MEMBERS

Peter Bryan Chief Executive Officer

Marvin Kolb, MD Chief Medical Officer

Toni Smith, RN Nursing Administrator

Holly Gallagher County Counsel

Vipul Dev, MD President, Resident Staff

A. Scott Ragland, DO Chair, Quality Management Committee

July 2002 – June 2003

Navin Amin, MD President, Chair, Department of Family Practice

Jennifer Abraham, MD President-Elect

Jose A. Perez, Jr., MD Past President

William Meyer, MD Member At Large

Augustine Munoz, MD Member At Large

Royce Johnson, MD Chair, Department of Medicine


Eugene Kercher, MD Chair, Department of Emergency Medicine




Tai Yoo, MD Chair, Department of Psychiatry

Javad Naderi, MD Chair, Department of Radiology

Maureen Martin, MD Chair, Department of Surgery







9

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

John Ngoi Associate Director, Medical Education

Brian Penton, MD President, Resident Staff


July 2004 – June 2006Eugene Kercher, MD President, Chair, Deparmtent of Emergency Medicine

A. Scott Ragland, DO President-Elect

Jennifer Abraham, MD Past President

Navin Amin, MD Chair, Department of Family Practice

David Moore, MD Member At Large

James Sverchek, MD Member At Large









NON-VOTING MEMBERS


Marvin Kolb, MD Chief Medical Officer (until 9/2004)

Irwin Harris, MD Chief Medical Officer (As of 7/2005)


David Hill Director of Ambulatory Care (As of 9/2004)

Karen Barnes County Counsel

Jose A. Perez, Jr., MD Director, Medical Education


Murali Naidu, MD President, Resident Staff





10

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


July 2006 – December 2007

A. Scott Ragland, DO President

Eugene Kercher, MD Past President, Chair, Deparmtent of Emergency MedicineJose A. Perez, Jr., MD President-Elect (until 6/2007)

Jennifer Abraham, MD President-Elect (As of 8/2007)

Navin Amin, MD Chair, Department of Family Practice

Vasanthi Srinivas, MD Member At Large

E. William Taylor, MD Member At Large


Soheil Etesham, MD Chair, Department of Anesthesiology (until 6/2007)

Thomas Schares, MD Chair, Department of Anesthesiology (until 7/2007)


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

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

Philip Dutt, MD Chair, Department of Pathology (As of 8/2006)




NON-VOTING MEMBERS

Peter Bryan Chief Executive Officer (until 9/2006)

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

Paul Hensler Chief Executive Officer (As of 5/2007)

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


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

Karen Barnes County Counsel






11

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Tony Hoang, MD Co-President, Resident Staff

Anthony Maldonado, MD Co-President, Resident Staff


b)

Joint Conference Committee:October 2001-November 2007

Supervisor Barbara Patrick

Supervisor Ken Peterson

Peter Bryan, CEO

Marvin Kolb, MD, CMO

Toni Smith, RN

Jose A. Perez, Jr., MD

Navin Amin, MD

Royce Johnson, MD

Scotte E. Jones, CAO

Alberto Diaz, CFO

January 2002-October 2002

Supervisor Steve Perez


Peter Bryan, CEO


Toni Smith, RN


Navin Amin, MD

Jennifer Abraham, MD

Scott E. Jones, CAO

Alberto Diaz, CFO

January 2003-December 2003

Supervisor Pete Para





12

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Peter Bryan, CEO


Toni Smith, RNJennifer Abraham, MD

Navin Amin, MD

Eugene Kercher, MD

Scott E. Jones, CAO

Albert Diaz, CFO

Michael Ewald, Dir. HR


Supervisor Jon McQuiston

Supervisor Ray Watson

Peter Bryan, CEO


Toni Smith, RN


Navin Amin, MD

Eugene Kercher, MD

A. Scott Ragland, DO

Scott E. Jones, CAO

Alberto Diaz, CFO

Michael Ewald, Dir. Of HR

David Hill, Dir. Of Ambulatory Care


Supervisor Jon McQuiston


Peter Bryan, CEO





13

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Irwin Harris, MD, CMO

Toni Smith, RN


Eugene Kercher, MDA. Scott Ragland, DO

Ron Errea, CAO

Tom Willman, CFO

Sandi Chester, Dir. Of HR





David Culberson, Internim CEO


Toni Smith, RN


Eugene Kercher, MD


Ron Errea, CAO

Kent Johnson, CFO



Supervisor Don Maben


Paul Hensler CEO


Toni Smith, RN






14

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Eugene Kercher, MD


Ron Errea, CAO

Fred Plane, CFOc) Quality Management Committee:

October 2001-November 2001

A. Scott Ragland, DO Chair, Medicine

Antonio Garcia, MD OB/GYN

David Jadwin, DO Pathology

Charles Brown, MD Surgery

Chester Lau, MD Radiology

Dianne McConnehey, RN Quality Management

Elaine Castroverde, MD Pediatrics


J. Paul Miller, MD Family Practice

Sarojini Rajguru, MD Psychiatry

Thomas Purcell, MD Emergency Medicine

Toni Smith, RN Nursing Admintration

Ted Uchio, MD Anesthesiology

January 2002-November 2002


Vasanthi Ramaswami, MD OB/GYN


Jack Bloch, MD Surgery









15

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



Stephen Williams, MD Psychiatry

Thomas Purcell, MD Emergency MedicineToni Smith, RN Nursing Admintration


Richard Busch, MD Surgery











David Lai, MD Psychiatry






Vasanthi Srinivas (Ramaswami, MD)OB/GYN









16

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




David Lai, MD PsychiatryThomas Purcell, MD Emergency Medicine




J. Paul Miller, MD Chair, Family Practice

A. Scott Ragland, DO Medicine

Vasanthi Srinivas, MD OB/GYN




Irwin Harris, MD Chief Medical Officer












Philip Dutt, MD Pathology






17

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Bahram Raofi, MD Radiology



Elaine Castroverde, MD PediatricsMarvin Kolb, MD Chief Medical Officer





David Culberson Chief Executive Officer

David Hill Director, Ambulatory Care

Evelyn Elliott, Director, Pharmacy

Shirley Strickler, RN Manager, Med Surg/Telemetry




















18

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Paul Hensler Chief Executive Officer

Evelyn Elliott, Director, Pharmacy

Shirley Strickler, RN Manager, Med Surg/Telemetry

d)

Cancer Committee:October 2001-December 2001

Ravi Patel, MD Chair, Oncology

David Kanamori, MD Co-Chair, Oncology

Ali Bazmi Oncology Pharmacy


John Byfield, MD Radiation Oncology

Laura Heredia Cancer Registry

Annie Hollingsead, RN Quality Management


Bonnie Klein, MFCC Department of Medicine

Marvin Kolb, MD Chief Medical Director


Joseph Mansour, MD OB/GYN

Linda Marham, MSW Social Services

Albert McBride, MD Physician Liason/Surgery


Linda McMillan Medical Records

Ray Purcell, NP Medicine

Sergio Perticucci, MD Gynecology Oncology

Bonnie Quinonez, CTR Cancer Registrar

Angelina Reyes Medical Records

Toni Smith, RN Nursing Adminstration

Michael Wells, DO Radiology

March 2002-November 2002





19

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




Peter Bryan Chief Executive OfficerJohn Byfield, MD Radiation Oncology







Hope Donovan, RN Quality Management






February 2003-December 2003



Shawn Abrishamy, MD Family Practice












20

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Maureen Martin, MD Surgery


Ray Purcell, NP MedicineSergio Perticucci, MD Gynecology Oncology




Abu Taher, MD Pediatric Oncology

Micheal Wells, MD Radiology

Kathryn VanMeter, NP Medicine






Chris Gambrioloi, MD Family Practice

Sandra Gordon, MD Medicine/Palliative Care

Mary Guerrero, RN Chemo/Oncology














21

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




Toni Smith, RN Nursing AdminstrationAbu Taher, MD Pediatric Oncology

Kara Shaw, RN Chemo Nurse






Chris Gambrioloi, MD Family Practice

Mary Guerrero, RN Chemo/Oncology



Irwin Harris, MD Chief Medical Director











William Roy, MD Gynecology/Oncology






22

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Kevin Taubman, MD Surgery


January 2006-December 2006Ravi Patel, MD Chair, Oncology


Patsy Bradshaw, CTR Cancer Registrar

David Culberson Chief Executive Officer

Ajay Desai, MD Radiation Oncology




Royce Johnson, MD Medicine

Linda Markham, MSW Social Services



Javad Naderi, MD Radiology

Jemi Olak, MD Surgery

Laura Quinonez, CTR Cancer Registrar




Kathryn VanMeter, RN Medicine




Patsy Bradshaw, CTR Cancer Registrar

Socorro Carrillo ACS Program Coordinator





23

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Paul Hensler Chief Executive Officer

Ajay Desai, MD Radiation Oncology

Michelle Langston, RN Quality Management

Philip Dutt, MD PathologyIrwin Harris, MD Chief Medical Officer

Royce Johnson, MD Medicine

Linda Markham, MSW Social Services



Javad Naderi, MD Radiology

Jemi Olak, MD Surgery

Laura Quinonez, CTR Cancer Registrar


Kara Shaw, RN Chemo/Onc



Kathryn VanMeter, RN Medicine

e) Second Level Peer Review Committee:

October 2001 – Present

Thomas Purcell, MD, Chair

Navin Amin, MD

Jack Bloch, MD

Dianne McConnehey, RN, Manager, Quality Management

Marvin Kolb, MD (Until 9/2004)

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

f) Transfusion Committee:

October 2001





24

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Adam Lang, MD Chair, Pathology


Gilbert Martinez Lab Designee

Michelle Burris Lab Manager/Blood Bank AD-HOC COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Rick McPheeters, DO Emergency Medicine



David Kanamori, MD Medicine

Marvin Kolb, MD CMO

Steve Watson Respiratory Therapy Manager

Lon Lancaster Respiratory Therapy

January 2002-August 2002

Adam Lang, MD Chair, Pathology


Gilbert Martinez Lab Designee

Michelle Burris Lab Manager/Blood Bank

Alice Hevle Quality Management

Dianne McConnehey Manager, Quality Management

Steve Watson Respiratory Therapy Manager


February 21, 2003

Dr. Jadwin, Chair

Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor

March 19, 2003

Dr. Jadwin, Chair

Dr. Lang, Pathologist






25

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager

April 23, 2003


Michele Burris, Blood Bank SupervisorGilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager.

Don Bull, Pulmonary Services (provides cell saver data)

Dr. Jadwin, Chair (absent)

May 29, 2003

Dr. Jadwin, Chair




Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC

June 17, 2003

Dr. Jadwin, Chair





Lonnie Lancaster, Pulmonary Services (provides cell saver data)

October 21, 2003

Dr. Jadwin, Chair





Toni Smith, RN





26

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

December 16, 2003

Dr. Jadwin, Chair


Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory ManagerAlice Hevle, Analyst, QRC


February 21, 2003

Dr. Jadwin, Chair


March 19, 2003

Dr. Jadwin, Chair




April 23, 2003



Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager.

Don Bull, Pulmonary Services (provides cell saver data)

Dr. Jadwin, Chair (absent)

May 29, 2003

Dr. Jadwin, Chair





June 17, 2003

Dr. Jadwin, Chair





27

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRCLonnie Lancaster, Pulmonary Services (provides cell saver data)

October 21, 2003

Dr. Jadwin, Chair





Toni Smith, RN

December 16, 2003

Dr. Jadwin, Chair





January 31, 2006

Dr. Dutt, Pathologist



February 21, 2006

Dr. Jadwin, Chair



March 28, 2006






28

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



April 18, 2006

Dr. Dutt, PathologistMichele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor


May 9, 2006





June 20, 2006





September 13, 2006

Dr. Dutt, Chair



September 27, 2006

Dr. Dutt, Chair



October 18, 2006

Dr. Dutt, Chair







29

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

November 1, 2006

Dr. Dutt, Chair


Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory ManagerAlice Hevle, Analyst, QRC

December 12, 2006

Dr. Dutt, Chair



Diane McConnehey, QRC

January 2007-April 2007

February 2, 2007

Dr. Ragland, Chair (absent)

Dr. Dutt, Pathology


Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC (absent)

Diane McConnehey, QRC (absent)

Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager (absent)

March 15, 2007

Dr. Ragland, Chair (absent)

Dr. Dutt, Pathology

Dr. Sorensen, Surgery

Dr. Dong, Emergency Medicine

Diane McConnehey, QRC



Dr. Taher, Pediatrics (absent)

Dr. Lascano, OB-GYN (absent)





30

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC (absent)

g) Executive Staff Meetings:

February 9, 2005

Peter Bryan, CEOToni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive

David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care

Tom Willman, Special Projects Manager

Michael Ewald, Dir., HR

March 2, 2005

Peter Bryan, CEO

Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive




March 9, 2005

Peter Bryan, CEO





March 30, 2005

Peter Bryan, CEO





April 6, 2005

Peter Bryan, CEO





31

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




Michael Ewald, Dir., HRApril 13, 2005

Peter Bryan, CEO





April 20, 2005

Peter Bryan, CEO





April 27, 2005

Peter Bryan, CEO





May 4, 2005

Peter Bryan, CEO


Tom Willman, CFO


May 11, 2005







33

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



Tom Willman, CFO

Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR July 25, 2005

Peter Bryan, CEO




Tom Willman, CFO

Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR

August 3, 2005

Peter Bryan, CEO




Tom Willman, CFO


August 10, 2005

Peter Bryan, CEO




Tom Willman, CFO


August 17, 2005

Peter Bryan, CEO






34

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



Tom Willman, CFO

Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HRAugust 24, 2005

Peter Bryan, CEO




Tom Willman, CFO


September 7, 2005

Peter Bryan, CEO




Tom Willman, CFO


September 14, 2005

Peter Bryan, CEO




Tom Willman, CFO


September 21, 2005

Peter Bryan, CEO






35

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



Tom Willman, CFO

Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HRSeptember 28, 2005

Peter Bryan, CEO



Tom Willman, CFO


October 5, 2005

Peter Bryan, CEO




Tom Willman, CFO


October 19, 2005




Tom Willman, CFO


October 26, 2005




Tom Willman, CFO





36

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


November 2, 2005

Peter Bryan, CEO

Irwin Harris, MD, CMOToni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive


Tom Willman, CFO


November 9, 2005

Peter Bryan, CEO




Tom Willman, CFO


November 16, 2005

Peter Bryan, CEO




Tom Willman, CFO


November 23, 2005

Peter Bryan, CEO




Tom Willman, CFO





37

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


November 30, 2005

Peter Bryan, CEO



Tom Willman, CFO


December 14, 2005

Peter Bryan, CEO




Tom Willman, CFO

Sandra Chester, Dir., HR

December 21, 2005

Peter Bryan, CEO




Tom Willman, CFO

December 29, 2005

Peter Bryan, CEO




January 4, 2006

Peter Bryan, CEO





38

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




Tom Willman, CFOSandra Chester, Dir. HR

January 11, 2006

Peter Bryan, CEO




Tom Willman, CFO

February 1, 2006

Peter Bryan, CEO




Tom Willman, CFO


February 8, 2006

Peter Bryan, CEO



Tom Willman, CFO


February 15, 2006

Peter Bryan, CEO







39

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Tom Willman, CFO


February 22, 2006Peter Bryan, CEO




Tom Willman, CFO

Sandra Chester, Dir,. HR

March 1, 2006

Peter Bryan, CEO




Tom Willman, CFO


March 8, 2006

Peter Bryan, CEO



Tom Willman, CFO


March 15, 2006




Tom Willman, CFO





40

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


March 22, 2006

Peter Bryan, CEO




April 5, 2006

Peter Bryan, CEO





April 6, 2006

Peter Bryan, CEO





April 12, 2006

Peter Bryan, CEO





April 19, 2006

Peter Bryan, CEO






41

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




April 26, 2006Peter Bryan, CEO





May 3, 2006

Peter Bryan, CEO





August 9, 2006

Peter Bryan, CEO


Kent Johnson, CFO





State the dates, times and locations of each meeting held by the following committees

from October 4, 2001 to the present:

a) Medical Executive Committee

b) Joint Conference Committee

c) Quality Management Committee





42

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

d) Cancer Committee

e) Second Level Peer Review Committee

f) Transfusion Committee

g)

Executive Staff MeetingsRESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12

MEDICAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

1ST

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

SECOND LEVEL PEER REVIEW

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

CANCER COMMITTEE

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

QUALITY MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

4th

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

JOINT CONFERENCE COMMITTEE

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

ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF MEETINGS

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

TRANSFUSION COMMITTEE

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

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

In 2005, no record of any meetings

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

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


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

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

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

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





43

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


We do not know the answer to this Interrogatory. The only such documents we know of

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

INTERROGATORY NO. 14IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who conducted any investigations for or on YOUR

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

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

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

authored or otherwise contributed to.


None.


IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS whom YOU contend participated in any “PEER

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

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

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


PEER REVIEW

Masukh Ghadiya, MD

MR#1152531 (S06-4619)

Mohammed Molla, MD

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

Mia Lagunda, MD

MR #1029588 (S06-5394)

William J. Colburn, MD

PATHOLOGY SLIDES/REPORT

Quality Assessment Review by William J. Colburn, MD

Kern Medical Center





44

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case # MR # Name # of Slides

S05-2186 1145729 WHEAT 63

S05-3265 679293 BURTON 93

S05-2176 1146515 MATHIS 73

S05-1066

S05-1680

1029137 THOMPSON 2

14

S05-7551 1146283 VOSS 32

S05381 1138812 UNRICH 6

S06-91 1100262 VILLAREAL 4

S05-812 1142312 KAUR, S. 4

S04-7471 1138692 MASSONI 2

S05-3286

S05-2811

S05-1514

870589 DAWSON 16

12

5

S06-728 800794 PERALES 32

S05-2246 1146465 MARTINEZ 36

S05-923 1128182 RODRIQUEZ 59

S05-592 1141122 KAUR, N. 35

S04-6857 633431 SPILLERS 37

S04-4674

N04-222

1000548 KIRSCH 12

3

S05-7114 1142693 CISNEROS 22

S05-1347 1135192 HOLSCHER 2

S06-981

N06-51

S06-757

1155514 SANCHEZ 38

1

1





45

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

S06-541 0871307 BORQUEZ 38

C04-28 1097368 CARPIO 0 Consult only,

slides sent back

(9)

Jonathan I. Epstein, MD

S06-4131

Parakrama T. Chandrasoma, MD

S06-3933

S05-123

S02-4614


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

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

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

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

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

TO their removal or suspension.


None.


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

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

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


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

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

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





46

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

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

Plaintiff.


IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS other than PLAINTIFF who took or were placed on“PERSONAL NECESSITY LEAVE” (as that term is used in Rule 1202.20 of the Civil Service

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

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

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

PERSONAL NECESSITY LEAVE.


None.



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

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

each such non-reinstatement.


None


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

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

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


None



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

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





47

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

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

dates of each and every such period of SICK LEAVE.


None.INTERROGATORY NO. 22


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

LEAVE since October 24, 1995.


None.



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

period SICK LEAVE since October 24, 1995.


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

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

section 1040 and HIPAA.



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

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

leave.


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

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

section 1040 and HIPAA.





48

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



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

taken pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act or California Family Rights Act sinceOctober 24, 1995.


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

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

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

Defendants are, therefore, not able to respond further.



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

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

Act since October 24, 1995.


None



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

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

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

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

ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE; state whether each such period of ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE

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

LEAVE.


Sheldon Freedman, 2000. 217 hours, paid





49

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


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

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

other than PLAINTIFF who employment contract with YOU was not renewed or extended; statewhether the contract expired or was terminated; and state any and all reasons for non-renewal or

non-extension of each such contract.


Defendants object to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is burdensome and

oppressive and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

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

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

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

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

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

know the reasons in many, if not most cases.


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

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

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


None.


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

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

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


None.





50

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


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

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

employment contract contained a provision requiring him or her to be responsible for providingonsite shift coverage during specifically stated hours, unless otherwise assigned or excused by

the department chairman.


Plaintiff issued rules for the Pathology Department that required this.


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

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

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

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


Plaintiff issued rules for the Pathology Department that required this.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

patients.


None.





51

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


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

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

Kercher, Scott Ragland, Jennifer Abraham and Irwin Harris to PLAINTIFF, dated October 17,2005 [DFJ588]) in or about October 12, 2005; and state the date that such decision was made.


None.


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

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

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


None.


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

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

state the date that decision was made.


Peter Bryan and Plaintiff.


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

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

date that decision was made.


Peter Bryan.


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

each and every provision contained in the DOCUMENT entitled “Amendment No. 1 to





52

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

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

made.


Peter Bryan, David Culberson, Karen Barnes, Eugene Lee, Kern County Board of Supervisors. The decision was made on the date the amendment was approved by the Board of

Supervisors.


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

reduction of PLAINTIFF’S base salary in 2006; and state the date that decision was made.


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

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

Supervisors.


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

reduction of PLAINTIFF’S base salary in 2006.


David Culberson and Peter Bryan


State the manner in which YOU calculated the amount of the reduction of PLAINTIFF’S

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


The new salary was comparable to that of a core pathologist.


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

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

that decision was made.





53

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


David Culberson, Irwin Harris, Phil Dutt and counsel.


IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to lift therestriction on PLAINTIFF’S administrative leave (as that term is used in the letter of April 30,

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

was made.


Mark Nations and Mark Wasser.


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

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

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


It was a settlement offer communicated to Plaintiff’s counsel.


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

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


None.


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

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

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


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

is privileged about the documents Plaintiff produced?





54

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


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

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

and state in detail the factual bases for each such asserted privilege.RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 47

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

you inquiring about our privilege log?


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

PLAINTIFF’S position as Chair of Pathology at KMC.


Medical Staff Bylaws and job description for the position.

Dated: February 1, 2008 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER

By: /s/ Mark A. Wasser

Mark A. Wasser

Attorney for Defendants, County of Kern, et al.





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

EXHIBIT 3:

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




1 Mark A. Wasser CA SB #60160LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER

2 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100Sacramento, CA 95814

3 Phone: (916) 444-6400Fax: (916) 444-6405

4 E-mail: [email protected]

5 Bernard C. Barrnann, Sr.KERN COUNTY COUNSEL

6 Mark Nations, Chief Deputy1115 Truxtun Avenue, Fourth Floor

7 Bakersfield, CA 93301Phone: (661) 868-3800

8 Fax: (661) 868-3805E-mail: [email protected]

9

10 Attorneys for Defendants County ofKern,Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher,

11 Jennifer Abraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smithand William Roy


DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTALRESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S

INTEROGATORIES (SET ONE)



ONE (1) SUPPLEMENTAL



j Case No.: 1:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG

jj)

j

)))

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

12

13

14

15

16 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.

20 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff,

18 vs.

19 COUNTY OF KERN, et aI.,

21

22

23

24 PROPOUNDING PARTY:

25 RESPONDING PARTY:

26 SET NUMBER:

27

28

1

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSESTO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES




3 Phone: (916) 444-6400Fax: (916) 444-6405

4 E-mail: [email protected] Bernard C. Barrnann, Sr.KERN COUNTY COUNSEL

6 Mark Nations, ChiefDeputy1115 Truxtun Avenue, Fourth Floor

7 Bakersfield, CA 93301Phone: (661) 868-3800

8 Fax: (661) 868-3805E-mail: [email protected]

9

10 Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern,Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher,

11 Jennifer Abraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smithand William Roy


DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTALRESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S

INTEROGATORIES (SET ONE)

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


ONE (1) SUPPLEMENTAL



j Case No.: 1:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG

jj)

j

)))

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

12

13

14

15


20 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff,

18 vs.

19 COUNTY OF KERN, et aI.,

21

22

23

24 PROPOUNDING PARTY:

25 RESPONDING PARTY:

26 SET NUMBER:

27

28

1




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

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

Interrogatories, Set One.


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

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

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

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






SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10

NAME JOB TITLE EMPLOYMENT DATE DATE OF EXPLANATIONSTATUS OF HIRE SEPARATION

Leonard Chairman!O Former 8/11/90 1/17108 Terminated

Perez B-GYN

Adam Associatel Former 8129/85 11117/03 Personal

Lang Pathology

ElsaAng Associatel Former 712/79 5/11/02 RetiredPathology

Fangluo Associatel Former 73/95 5120102 No record

Liu Pathology

Ellen Independent Never

Bunyi- Contractor employed

Teopengc

0

Savita Associatel Current 10/5/04

Shertukde Pathology

Gilbert Manager, Current 1/5/81

Martinez Clinical LabServices

Royce Chairman! Current 7115/75

Johnson Medicine

Irwin Medical Former 5/16/05 8/31/07 Resigned

Harris Director

2



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

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

Interrogatories, Set One.


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

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

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

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








Leonard Chairman!O Former 8/11/90 1/17108 Terminated

Perez B-GYN

Adam Associatel Former 8129/85 11117/03 Personal

Lang Pathology

ElsaAng Associatel Former 712/79 5/11/02 RetiredPathology

Fangluo Associatel Former 73/95 5120102 No record

Liu Pathology

Ellen Independent Never

Bunyi- Contractor employed

Teopengc

0

Savita Associatel Current 10/5/04

Shertukde Pathology

Gilbert Manager, Current 1/5/81

Martinez Clinical LabServices

Royce Chairman! Current 7115/75

Johnson Medicine

Irwin Medical Former 5/16/05 8/31/07 Resigned

Harris Director

2




12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Antionette Hospital Current 9/3/96

Smith Nurse

Executive

David Interim N ev er

Culberson Ch i ef employed

Executive

Officer

Jane Supervising Current 8/21195

Thornton Clinical Lab

Scientist

Kathy Supervisor, Current 5/22/79

Griffith Core

Lab/Client

Services

Juan Felix nl a Never

employed

Bernard County Current 112/75

Barmann Counsel

Nitin Associate/ Former 11112/01 9/30/03 Personal

Athavale Radiology

Jennifer Associate/ Current 6/23/87

Abraham Medicine

Eugene Ch i ef Current 12/1/87

Kercher Medical

Officer

Scott Associate/ Current 6/23/89Ragland Medicine

Peter Ch i ef Former 7/15/96 11110/06 Retired

Bryan Executive

Officer

Edward Associate/ Current 6/23/87

Taylor Surgery

Michele Supervising Current 3112/84

Burris Clinical Lab

Scientist

Javad Chairmanl Current 8/31/01

Naderi Radiology

Maureen Chairmanl Current 6/18/02

Martin Surgery

3

DEFENDANTS' SU PPL EM E N T AL RE SPO N SE S

T O PL A IN T IFF' S INTERROGATORIES


1

2

3

4

5

6

78

9

10

1112

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Antionette Hospital Current 9/3/96

Smith Nurse

Executive

David Interim Never

Culberson Chief employed

Executive

Officer

Jane Supervising Current 8/21195

Thornton Clinical Lab

Scientist

Kathy Supervisor, Current 5/22/79

Griffith Core

Lab/Client

Services

Juan Felix nla Never

employed

Bernard County Current 112/75

Barmann Counsel

Nitin Associate/ Former 11112/01 9/30/03 Personal

Athavale Radiology

Jennifer Associate/ Current 6/23/87

Abraham Medicine

Eugene Chief Current 12/1/87

Kercher Medical

Officer

Scott Associate/ Current 6/23/89Ragland Medicine

Peter Chief Former 7/15/96 11110/06 Retired

Bryan Executive

Officer

Edward Associate/ Current 6/23/87

Taylor Surgery

Michele Supervising Current 3112/84

Burris Clinical Lab

Scientist

Javad Chairmanl Current 8/31/01

Naderi RadiologyMaureen Chairmanl Current 6/18/02

Martin Surgery

3

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES

TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES



12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

NAME JOB TlTLE EMPLOYMENT DATE DATE OF EXPLANATlON

STATUS OFHlRE SEPARATlON

Navin Chairman! Current 9/4/79

Amin Family

Practice

Chester Associatel Former 8/31101 9126106 OtherLau Radiology employment

Steve Human Current 7128180

O'Connor Resources

Director

Albert Associatel Current 10113/97

McBride Surgery

Alice Quality Current 4/15/91

Hevle Management

Analvst

Philip Associatel Current 6/25/05

Dutt PathologyKaren Chief Current 10/22/01

Barnes Deputy

County

Counsel

Ronald County Current 8/22/88

Errera Administrative

Officer

Cindy nla Never

Lighthill employed

Erin Resident Former No No record Completed

Baldwin record residency

training

Carol Office Current 1115/90

Gates Services

Specialist

Denise Office Current 11118/02

Long Services

Specialist

INTERROGATORYNO. 15

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

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

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


4




1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

1112

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

NAME JOB TlTLE EMPLOYMENT DATE DATE OF EXPLANATlON

STATUS OFHlRE SEPARATlON

Navin Chairman! Current 9/4/79

Amin Family

Practice

Chester Associatel Former 8/31101 9126106 Other

Lau Radiology employment

Steve Human Current 7128180

O'Connor Resources

Director

Albert Associatel Current 10113/97

McBride Surgery

Alice Quality Current 4/15/91

Hevle Management

Analvst

Philip Associatel Current 6/25/05

Dutt PathologyKaren Chief Current 10/22/01

Barnes Deputy

County

Counsel

Ronald County Current 8/22/88

Errera Administrative

Officer

Cindy nla Never

Lighthill employed

Erin Resident Former No No record Completed

Baldwin record residency

training

Carol Office Current 1115/90

Gates Services

Specialist

Denise Office Current 11118/02

Long Services

Specialist


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

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

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


4





12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1112

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Masukh Ghadiya,MD

Kern Medical Center

Department of Family Practice

1830 Flower Street

Bakersfield, California 93305

MohammedMolla, MD

Kern Medical Center

Department ofPsychiatry

1830 Flower Street


Mia Lagunda, MD

Sagebrush Pediatric Care Center

1111 Columbus Street, Suite 1100


William 1. Colburn, MD

Tarzana Regional Medical Center

Department ofAnatomic Pathology

18321 Clark Street

Tarzana, California 91356

Jonathan 1. Epstein, MD

The Johns Hopkins Hospital

Department of Pathology

401 N Broadway

Weinberg Building,Rm2242Baltimore, Maryland 21231

Parakrama T. Chandrasoma,MD

GNH2900

1200 North State Street

Los Angeles, California 90033





SUUPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 23

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

5




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Masukh Ghadiya, MD

Kern Medical Center

Department of Family Practice

1830 Flower Street


Mohammed Molla, MD

Kern Medical Center

Department of Psychiatry

1830 Flower Street


Mia Lagunda, MD

Sagebrush Pediatric Care Center

1111 Columbus Street, Suite 1100

Bakersfield, California93305

William 1. Colburn, MD

Tarzana Regional Medical Center

Department ofAnatomic Pathology

18321 Clark Street

Tarzana, California 91356

Jonathan 1. Epstein, MD

The Johns Hopkins Hospital

Department of Pathology

401 N Broadway

Weinberg Building, Rm 2242Baltimore, Maryland 21231

Parakrama T. Chandrasoma, MD

GNH2900

1200 North State Street

Los Angeles, California 90033

INTERROGATORYNO. 23




SUUPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 23

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

5





1 INTERROGATORY NO. 24

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

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

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

5 leave.

6 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 24

7 NAME BEGIN LEAVE END LEAVE

8 Acosta, Cynthia 03/23/98 06/14/98

9 Acosta, Cynthia 04/05/01 05/21101

10 Acosta, Cynthia 11104/03 01/02/04

11 Acosta, Manuel 01105198 01117/98

12 Acosta, Manuel 09/22/03 10116103

13 Aguilar, Cynthia 10/31105 11104/05

14 Aguilera, Elizabeth 03/25/03 04/24/03

15 Aguirre, Mary 03/15/00 05/01100

16 Aguirre, Mary 09/16103 12110/03

17 Alaniz, Felipa 03/08/05 03117105

18 Alaniz, Felipa 01122/07 01131107

19 Alcala, Phillis 01129/04 03/08/04

20 Alcala, Phillis 06/24/04 11108104

21 Alfaro, Beverly 09/17/06 10102/06

22 Alfaro, Beverly 01119107 01129/07

23 Alire, Rosalina 01126106 02/14/06

24 Alkhouri, George 01122/07 02/01107

25 Allen, Nonna 01118/07 02/16107

26 Allen, Tracy 08/06103 08121103

27 Allen, Tracy 08/30107 09/26107

28

6




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

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

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

5 leave.


7 NAME BEGIN LEAVE END LEAVE

8 Acosta, Cynthia 03/23/98 06/14/98

9 Acosta, Cynthia 04/05/01 05/21101

10 Acosta, Cynthia 11104/03 01/02/04

11 Acosta, Manuel 01105198 01117/98

12 Acosta, Manuel 09/22/03 10116103

13 Aguilar, Cynthia 10/31105 11104/05

14 Aguilera, Elizabeth 03/25/03 04/24/03

15 Aguirre, Mary 03/15/00 05/01100

16 Aguirre, Mary 09/16103 12110/03

17 Alaniz, Felipa 03/08/05 03117105

18 Alaniz, Felipa 01122/07 01131107

19 Alcala, Phillis 01129/04 03/08/04

20 Alcala, Phillis 06/24/04 11108104

21 Alfaro, Beverly 09/17/06 10102/06

22 Alfaro, Beverly 01119107 01129/07

23 Alire, Rosalina 01126106 02/14/06

24 Alkhouri, George 01122/07 02/01107

25 Allen, Nonna 01118/07 02/16107

26 Allen, Tracy 08/06103 08121103

27 Allen, Tracy 08/30107 09/26107

28

6




1 Allen, Tracy 01/28/08

2 Amaya, Victoria 12/14/01 01/21/02

3 Amaya, Victoria 06/02/04 08/16/04

4 Amaya, Victoria 03/03/06 05/30/06

5 Ancheta, Kathleen 04/13/06 07/13/06

6 Araujo, Yolanda 01/13/04 01/24/04

7 Arguello-Rizo, Maria 12/23/97 02/03/98



10 AUclair, Barbara 10/02/03 12/26/03

11 Bakalar, Debra 03/13/07 03/24/07

12 Baldivia, Patricia 09/06/06 10/19/06




16 Baldoz, Nancy 12/19/05 01/19/06

17 Baldoz, Vilma 06/18/00 07/05/00

18 Bareng, Mafe 01/08/07 02/02/07

19 Bazmi, Ali 03/19/06 03/27/06

20 Bazmi, Ali 04/10/06 04/17/06

21 Bernal, Angelica 02/27/07 04/28/07

22 Bernal, Angelica 01/09/08

23 Bickford, Lisa 10/08/06 01/02/07

24 Black, Shirley OS/25/05 11/11/05

25 Black, Shirley OS/26/06 OS/27/07

26 Blank, Rosearme 12/25/99 12/26/99

27 Blommers, Mercedes 11/03/00 11/25/00

28

7

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSESTO PLAlNTlFF'S lNTERROGATORIES


1 Allen, Tracy 01/28/08

2 Amaya, Victoria 12/14/01 01/21/02

3 Amaya, Victoria 06/02/04 08/16/04

4 Amaya, Victoria 03/03/06 05/30/06

5 Ancheta, Kathleen 04/13/06 07/13/06

6 Araujo, Yolanda 01/13/04 01/24/04




10 AUclair, Barbara 10/02/03 12/26/03

11 Bakalar, Debra 03/13/07 03/24/07





16 Baldoz, Nancy 12/19/05 01/19/06

17 Baldoz, Vilma 06/18/00 07/05/00

18 Bareng, Mafe 01/08/07 02/02/07

19 Bazmi, Ali 03/19/06 03/27/06

20 Bazmi, Ali 04/10/06 04/17/06

21 Bernal, Angelica 02/27/07 04/28/07

22 Bernal, Angelica 01/09/08

23 Bickford, Lisa 10/08/06 01/02/07

24 Black, Shirley OS/25/05 11/11/05

25 Black, Shirley OS/26/06 OS/27/07

26 Blank, Rosearme 12/25/99 12/26/99

27 Blommers, Mercedes 11/03/00 11/25/00

28

7

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSESTO PLAlNTlFF'S lNTERROGATORIES



1 Boschini, Deborah 08/14/04 10/15/04

2 Bouldokian, Anne 09/07/01 11/21/01

3 Boxley, Sandra 03/09/01 03/27/01

4 Boxley, Sandra 08/16/01 09/09/01

5 Boyd, Susan 11/29/97 12/21/97

6 Boyd, Susan 09/17/07 12/21/97

7 Braswell, Debra 02/17/06 04/01/06

8 Braswell, Debra OS/20/06 OS/28/06

9 Braswell, Debra 06/24/06 07/01/06

10 Braswell, Debra 08/04/06 08/11/06

11 Braswell, Debra 08/19/06 08/26/06

12 Braswell, Debra 09/28/06 10/16/06

13 Broom, Serena 07/25/05 09/01/05

14 Brown, Janice 07/16/07 07/28/07

15 Burger, David 04/16/07 06/11/07

16 Burrell, Kellie 05/12/06 06/24/06

17 Burrell, Kellie 04/24/07 07/16/07

18 Camarillo, Veronica 03/19/07 04/27/07

19 Cameron, Alice 12/05/04 01/07/05

20 Cameron, Jennifer 06/15/06 06/22/06

21 Campa, Andree 12/16/05 01/30/06

22 Carbaj aI, Delfina 01/26/06 02/06/06

23 Carey, Todd 01/05/08

24 Carrillo, Eduardo 02/16/05 03/10/05

25 Castro, Marisol 10/25/06 01/02/07

26 Celestino, Virginia 02/25/05 03/15/05

27 Cervantes, Mary 06/01/04 07/10/04

28

8



1 Boschini, Deborah 08/14/04 10/15/04

2 Bouldokian, Anne 09/07/01 11/21/01

3 Boxley, Sandra 03/09/01 03/27/01

4 Boxley, Sandra 08/16/01 09/09/01

5 Boyd, Susan 11/29/97 12/21/97

6 Boyd, Susan 09/17/07 12/21/97

7 Braswell, Debra 02/17/06 04/01/06

8 Braswell, Debra OS/20/06 OS/28/06

9 Braswell, Debra 06/24/06 07/01/06

10 Braswell, Debra 08/04/06 08/11/06

11 Braswell, Debra 08/19/06 08/26/06

12 Braswell, Debra 09/28/06 10/16/06

13 Broom, Serena 07/25/05 09/01/05

14 Brown, Janice 07/16/07 07/28/07

15 Burger, David 04/16/07 06/11/07

16 Burrell, Kellie 05/12/06 06/24/06

17 Burrell, Kellie 04/24/07 07/16/07

18 Camarillo, Veronica 03/19/07 04/27/07

19 Cameron, Alice 12/05/04 01/07/05

20 Cameron, Jennifer 06/15/06 06/22/06

21 Campa, Andree 12/16/05 01/30/06

22 Carbaj aI, Delfina 01/26/06 02/06/06

23 Carey, Todd 01/05/08

24 Carrillo, Eduardo 02/16/05 03/10/05

25 Castro, Marisol 10/25/06 01/02/07

26 Celestino, Virginia 02/25/05 03/15/05

27 Cervantes, Mary 06/01/04 07/10/04

28

8




1 Chacon Jr, Ezequiel 05/01105 05/16/05

2 Chahal, Manjinder 12/22/07

3 Colgan, Nieves 01120/07 03/03/07

4 Collett, Catherine 11/29/07 01107/08

5 Contancio, Teresa 02/11/99 04/13/99

6 Contreras-Hernandez, 07/21/04 09/13/04

Melissa7 Coodey, Monica 07/22/06 10/02/06

8 Coodey, Monica 12/19/06 01119/07

9 Cozby, Maria OS/23/06 06/23/06

10 Crow, James 07/23/07 08/14/07

I I Crow, James 09/06/07 09/28/07

12 Crow, Teresa 09/27/07 11/09/07

13 Cueto, Estella 02/23/04 03/01/04

14 Davin, Jennifer 05/13/06 06/25/06

15 Davin, Jennifer 10/23/06 10/29/06

16 Davis, Nancy 08/30/05 09/26/05

17 Decker, Rita 11/19/05 11/28/05

18 Dhaliwal, Paramjit 03/24/06 03/31106

19 Diaz, Alicia OS/21/07 06/02/07

20 Diaz, Alicia 06/18/07 07/04/07

21 Divinagracia, Mary OS/23/04 06/25/04

22 Dodson, Lorene 12/26/97 03/21/98

23 Domingo, Luz 09/11107 10/08/07

24 Dominguez, Eva-Marie 12/19/07 01/14/08

25 Doss, Justin 06/05/07 06/18/07

26 Doss, Justin 07/11107 07/24/07

27 Douglas, Shayla 10/26/04 10/26/05

28

9



1 Chacon Jr, Ezequiel 05/01105 05/16/05

2 Chahal, Manjinder 12/22/07

3 Colgan, Nieves 01120/07 03/03/07

4 Collett, Catherine 11/29/07 01107/08

5 Contancio, Teresa 02/11/99 04/13/99

6 Contreras-Hernandez, 07/21/04 09/13/04

Melissa7 Coodey, Monica 07/22/06 10/02/06

8 Coodey, Monica 12/19/06 01119/07

9 Cozby, Maria OS/23/06 06/23/06

10 Crow, James 07/23/07 08/14/07

I I Crow, James 09/06/07 09/28/07

12 Crow, Teresa 09/27/07 11/09/07

13 Cueto, Estella 02/23/04 03/01/04

14 Davin, Jennifer 05/13/06 06/25/06

15 Davin, Jennifer 10/23/06 10/29/06

16 Davis, Nancy 08/30/05 09/26/05

17 Decker, Rita 11/19/05 11/28/05

18 Dhaliwal, Paramjit 03/24/06 03/31106

19 Diaz, Alicia OS/21/07 06/02/07

20 Diaz, Alicia 06/18/07 07/04/07

21 Divinagracia, Mary OS/23/04 06/25/04

22 Dodson, Lorene 12/26/97 03/21/98

23 Domingo, Luz 09/11107 10/08/07

24 Dominguez, Eva-Marie 12/19/07 01/14/08

25 Doss, Justin 06/05/07 06/18/07

26 Doss, Justin 07/11107 07/24/07

27 Douglas, Shayla 10/26/04 10/26/05

28

9




1 Doyle, Darlene 05114/04 03/03/05

2 Duarte, Sofia 02128/02 03/04/02

3 Ducato, Diane 02/10/99 03/24/99

4 Dumlao, Shellby 01114/06 02122106

5 Dunn, Debbie 08/18/98 03/26/99

6 Elliott, Evelyn 09/25/06 10113/06

7 Espinoza, Patricia 03115/05 03/22105

8 Esposo, Rosalind 05/26105 06/16105

9 Esqueda, Christina 02115107 02124/07

10 Fadipe, Regina 12115/06 12125/06

11 Ferra, Nicole 07/22106 09/15/06

12 Fischer, Dawn 10104/06 11116106

13 Flaharty, Linda 03/31101 05/21101

14 Flanagan, Eva Marie 06124/06 06124/06

15 Flatt, Carolyn 02101199 02105/99

16 Fox, Pamela 08/08/06 08/11106

17 Fox, Pamela 02112107 03112107

18 Gaeta, Patricia 01114/08

19 Gallegos, Evangeline 06118/07 09111107

20 Gamez, Betty 09111107 10124/07

21 Garcia, Abigail 12127/06 03123107

22 Garcia, Caroline 02115/01 04/01101

23 Garcia, Cheryl 07/29/99 08/15/99

24 Garcia, Esmeralda 10/30107 11105/07

25 Gamette, Theodora 05/20/98 05129198

26 Garnette, Theodora 06/02/01 06/27/01

27 Gamette, Theodora 11117/03 12/18/03

28

10

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTALRESPONSESTO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES


1 Doyle, Darlene 05114/04 03/03/05

2 Duarte, Sofia 02128/02 03/04/02

3 Ducato, Diane 02/10/99 03/24/99

4 Dumlao, Shellby 01114/06 02122106

5 Dunn, Debbie 08/18/98 03/26/99

6 Elliott, Evelyn 09/25/06 10113/06

7 Espinoza, Patricia 03115/05 03/22105

8 Esposo, Rosalind 05/26105 06/16105

9 Esqueda, Christina 02115107 02124/07

10 Fadipe, Regina 12115/06 12125/06

11 Ferra, Nicole 07/22106 09/15/06

12 Fischer, Dawn 10104/06 11116106

13 Flaharty, Linda 03/31101 05/21101

14 Flanagan, Eva Marie 06124/06 06124/06

15 Flatt, Carolyn 02101199 02105/99

16 Fox, Pamela 08/08/06 08/11106

17 Fox, Pamela 02112107 03112107

18 Gaeta, Patricia 01114/08

19 Gallegos, Evangeline 06118/07 09111107

20 Gamez, Betty 09111107 10124/07

21 Garcia, Abigail 12127/06 03123107

22 Garcia, Caroline 02115/01 04/01101

23 Garcia, Cheryl 07/29/99 08/15/99

24 Garcia, Esmeralda 10/30107 11105/07

25 Gamette, Theodora 05/20/98 05129198

26 Garnette, Theodora 06/02/01 06/27/01

27 Gamette, Theodora 11117/03 12/18/03

28

10




1 Gates, Heather 09/21107 11102/07

2 Gelle, Triah 09/26/07 11120107

3 George, Donna 02/02/05 02119105

4 George, Gloria 05/06/05 05120105

5 Gervasi, Debbie 12120104 04/11/05

6 Gill, Prabhjot 01125/06 03/09/06

7 Gill, Prabhjot 04116/06 04/21106

8 Gimena, leana 03/04/05 03/23/05

9 Gomez, Enrique 03/09/06 03120106

10 Gonzalez, Anna 09/19/99 12/08/99

11 Gonzalez, Cynthia 04/30107 05/09/07

12 Goodwin, Barbara 10/26/04 05/26/06

13 Graham, Caryn 08/16/99 09116199

14 Gray, Suzann 06/05/07 06/21107

15 Green, Danielle 05/03/07 05114107

16 Green, Terri 09/05/00 09/11100

17 Greene, Amy 07/16/99 08/25/99

18 Greenfield, Traci 07113/00 08107/00

19 Grewal, Da1j i t 03/24/06 04/01106

20 Guajardo, Sandra 03/01100 04/03/00

21 Haile, Asghedet 07/04/06 09117106

22 Halko1a, Kurt 01113/05 02114/05

23 Ha1ko1a, Kurt 04/16/07 04/30107

24 Ha1ko1a, Kurt 05/05/07 05/27/07

25 Harder, Debra 03/30106 04/11106

26 Harris, Frances 03/21105 03/28/05

27 Hawkins, Karen 11126107 12/17/07

28

11




1 Gates, Heather 09/21107 11102/07

2 Gelle, Triah 09/26/07 11120107

3 George, Donna 02/02/05 02119105

4 George, Gloria05/06/05 05120105

5 Gervasi, Debbie 12120104 04/11/05

6 Gill, Prabhjot 01125/06 03/09/06

7 Gill, Prabhjot 04116/06 04/21106

8 Gimena, leana 03/04/05 03/23/05

9 Gomez, Enrique 03/09/06 03120106

10 Gonzalez, Anna 09/19/99 12/08/99

11 Gonzalez, Cynthia 04/30107 05/09/07

12 Goodwin, Barbara 10/26/04 05/26/06

13 Graham, Caryn 08/16/99 09116199

14 Gray, Suzann 06/05/07 06/21107

15 Green, Danielle 05/03/07 05114107

16 Green, Terri 09/05/00 09/11100

17 Greene, Amy 07/16/99 08/25/99

18 Greenfield, Traci 07113/00 08107/00

19 Grewal, Da1j i t 03/24/06 04/01106

20 Guajardo, Sandra 03/01100 04/03/00

21 Haile, Asghedet 07/04/06 09117106

22 Halko1a, Kurt 01113/05 02114/05

23 Ha1ko1a, Kurt 04/16/07 04/30107

24 Ha1ko1a, Kurt 05/05/07 05/27/07

25 Harder, Debra 03/30106 04/11106

26 Harris, Frances 03/21105 03/28/05

27 Hawkins, Karen 11126107 12/17/07

28

11




I Heer, Jagdipak 02/14/01 03/14/01

2 Heer, Jagdipak 08/08/05 08/21105

3 Hernandez, Cecilia 09/12/03 10106103

4 Hernandez, Eva 09/29/07 11110107

5 Hernandez, Lorraine 09/28/05 10/10105

6 Herron, Wanda 09/10103 10/20103

7 Herron, Wanda 01105104 01110104

8 Hicks, Kimberly 05/20105 06104/05

9 Hodges, Chavon 06108/06 07/08/06

10 Hosseini, Gowhartaj 05/28/03 06/29/03

11 Idolyantes, Edna 03/16104 03/29/04

12 Irias, Cecilia 03/20100 04/24/00

13 Ivey, Sharon 03/09/99 03117199

14 Jimenez, Evangeline 06102/03 06112103

15 Jimenez, Pamela 11104/00 12/06100

16 Johnson, Kerrie 04/03/04 03/20104

17 Juarez, Grace 05/14/97 05/21/97

18 Juarez, Grace 02/19/99 02124199

19 Kalish, David 07/15/07 08/03/07

20 Karunakar, Arsr 06/25/07 07/10107

21 Kennison, Carolyn 09/25/07 01118108

22 Kent, April 08/23/04 08129104

23 Khan, Farah 03/12/07 04/19107

24 Khandaker, Nurun 08115/07 09/24/07

25 King, Carie 08/07/07 09117107

26 Kinsella, Robert 11110199 12101199

27 Larios, Guadalupe 09/05/05 10119105

28

12



I Heer, Jagdipak 02/14/01 03/14/01

2 Heer, Jagdipak 08/08/05 08/21105

3 Hernandez, Cecilia 09/12/03 10106103

4 Hernandez, Eva 09/29/07 11110107

5 Hernandez, Lorraine 09/28/05 10/10105

6 Herron, Wanda 09/10103 10/20103

7 Herron, Wanda 01105104 01110104

8 Hicks, Kimberly 05/20105 06104/05

9 Hodges, Chavon 06108/06 07/08/06

10 Hosseini, Gowhartaj 05/28/03 06/29/03

11 Idolyantes, Edna 03/16104 03/29/04

12 Irias, Cecilia 03/20100 04/24/00

13 Ivey, Sharon 03/09/99 03117199

14 Jimenez, Evangeline 06102/03 06112103

15 Jimenez, Pamela 11104/00 12/06100

16 Johnson, Kerrie 04/03/04 03/20104

17 Juarez, Grace 05/14/97 05/21/97

18 Juarez, Grace 02/19/99 02124199

19 Kalish, David 07/15/07 08/03/07

20 Karunakar, Arsr 06/25/07 07/10107

21 Kennison, Carolyn 09/25/07 01118108

22 Kent, April 08/23/04 08129104

23 Khan, Farah 03/12/07 04/19107

24 Khandaker, Nurun 08115/07 09/24/07

25 King, Carie 08/07/07 09117107

26 Kinsella, Robert 11110199 12101199

27 Larios, Guadalupe 09/05/05 10119105

28

12




1 Ledezma, Gladys 12118/07

2 Lee, Ruth 06/12/04 08/16/04

3 Liu, Hsin 09/08/05 12/01105

4 Lizalde, Kathleen02/25/05 03/21105

5 Lomely, Veronica 09/11107 11102/07

6 Lynch, Laura 10/30103 12/04/03

7 Lynch, Laura 05/23/02 06110102

8 Macias, Cruz 03112/07 04116/07

9 Macias, F 04/07/97 12/30/97

10 Magno, Maria 08110105 08/29/05

11 Malaque, Marygrace 01127/07 03/08/07

12 Marderosian, Susanne 05/24/03 08/24/03

13 Marichalar, Nereyda 06/30/97 07/12/97

14 Martinez, Laura 05/04/05 05111105

15 Martinez, Rosa 10102/06 10116106

16 Martinez, Susan 04117/04 04/20104

17 Mcaliste, Tracie 12/01/98 12116198

18 Mcconnehey, Diane 01124/05 02114/05

19 McNinch, Kathleen 03118/07 03/26/07

20 Medrano, Jdarius 05112107 05/27/07

21 Medrano, Jdarius 11123/07 12109/07

22 Menchaca, Vicki 12/24/06 01128107

23 Merabi, Shila 09/12/05 01106106

24 Miller, Lori 07/07/98 09/02/98

25 Montano, Rovelyn 01120107 01127/07

26 Montano, Rovelyn 02/24/07 03/03/07

27 Montano, Rovelyn 03/17/07 03124107

28

13

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSESTO PLAlNTIFF'S lNTERROGATORIES


1 Ledezma, Gladys 12118/07

2 Lee, Ruth 06/12/04 08/16/04

3 Liu, Hsin 09/08/05 12/01105

4Lizalde, Kathleen 02/25/05 03/21105

5 Lomely, Veronica 09/11107 11102/07

6 Lynch, Laura 10/30103 12/04/03

7 Lynch, Laura 05/23/02 06110102

8 Macias, Cruz 03112/07 04116/07

9 Macias, F 04/07/97 12/30/97

10 Magno, Maria 08110105 08/29/05

11 Malaque, Marygrace 01127/07 03/08/07

12 Marderosian, Susanne 05/24/03 08/24/03

13 Marichalar, Nereyda 06/30/97 07/12/97

14 Martinez, Laura 05/04/05 05111105

15 Martinez, Rosa 10102/06 10116106

16 Martinez, Susan 04117/04 04/20104

17 Mcaliste, Tracie 12/01/98 12116198

18 Mcconnehey, Diane 01124/05 02114/05

19 McNinch, Kathleen 03118/07 03/26/07

20 Medrano, Jdarius 05112107 05/27/07

21 Medrano, Jdarius 11123/07 12109/07

22 Menchaca, Vicki 12/24/06 01128107

23 Merabi, Shila 09/12/05 01106106

24 Miller, Lori 07/07/98 09/02/98

25 Montano, Rovelyn 01120107 01127/07

26 Montano, Rovelyn 02/24/07 03/03/07

27 Montano, Rovelyn 03/17/07 03124107

28

13

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSESTO PLAlNTIFF'S lNTERROGATORIES



1 Montano, Rove1yn 04114/07 04/21/07

2 Montano, Rove1yn OS/27/07 06/03/07

3 Montano, Rove1yn 06/23/07 06/30/07

4 Montemayor, Martha 10/28/01 01/19/02

5 Moon, Nicole 07110/03 09/08/03

6 Morales, Maria 12/04/07 01/14/08

7 Morris, Jeneal 11/19/03 12/09/03

8 Morrow, Antonieta 06118/07 09/30/07

9 Mudryk, Cheri 03/26/99 04/27/99

10 Mullen, Amanda 07/26/03 12/16/03

11 Murr, George 05/04/05 05116/05

12 Negranza, Melita 08111/99 09/03/99

13 Nitro, Gilbert 04/25/04 05/08/04

14 Nunez, Leticia 07/21/06 08/4/06

15 Nunez, Nicole 01/10/07 03/28/07

16 Nunez, Nicole 11/29/07

17 Nunn, Patsy 11115/06 11/30/06

18 Ochoa, Gary 01/09/05 02/21/05

19 Ornelas, Petra 10116/06 10/27/06

20 Ortiz, Mary 09/24/07 10/04/07

21 Ortiz, Rosario 06/19/01 06/25/01

22 Padgett, Shirley 09/14/98 10112/98

23 Patrick, Brian 07/21/06 09/29/06

24 Patterson, Shane 02/21/06 02/27/06

25 Peet, John 10/16/06 10/23/06

26 Pensinger, Stephanie 11120/05 01/03/06

27 Perez, Esperanza 02/14/07 02119/07

28

14



1 Montano, Rove1yn 04114/07 04/21/07

2 Montano, Rove1yn OS/27/07 06/03/07

3 Montano, Rove1yn 06/23/07 06/30/07

4 Montemayor, Martha 10/28/01 01/19/02

5 Moon, Nicole 07110/03 09/08/03

6 Morales, Maria 12/04/07 01/14/08

7 Morris, Jeneal 11/19/03 12/09/03

8 Morrow, Antonieta 06118/07 09/30/07

9 Mudryk, Cheri 03/26/99 04/27/99

10 Mullen, Amanda 07/26/03 12/16/03

11 Murr, George 05/04/05 05116/05

12 Negranza, Melita 08111/99 09/03/99

13 Nitro, Gilbert 04/25/04 05/08/04

14 Nunez, Leticia 07/21/06 08/4/06

15 Nunez, Nicole 01/10/07 03/28/07

16 Nunez, Nicole 11/29/07

17 Nunn, Patsy 11115/06 11/30/06

18 Ochoa, Gary 01/09/05 02/21/05

19 Ornelas, Petra 10116/06 10/27/06

20 Ortiz, Mary 09/24/07 10/04/07

21 Ortiz, Rosario 06/19/01 06/25/01

22 Padgett, Shirley 09/14/98 10112/98

23 Patrick, Brian 07/21/06 09/29/06

24 Patterson, Shane 02/21/06 02/27/06

25 Peet, John 10/16/06 10/23/06

26 Pensinger, Stephanie 11120/05 01/03/06

27 Perez, Esperanza 02/14/07 02119/07

28

14




1 Perez, Jeanette 11103/03 ll/17/03

2 Perez, Maria 02/23/05 04/14/05

3 Perkins, Lois 01108/07 01117/07

4 Peterson, Michelle 09/25/07 11/08/07

5 Peterson, Sandra 03/19/02 03/26/02

6 Pob1ete, Ma OS/22/03 06/13/03

7 Poindexter, Lisa 06/01198 01102/99

8 Powers, Alexandra 11120/07

9 Prince, Lynn 12111106 01115/07

10 Probert-Thomas, G 09/14/99 12115/99

11 Prows, Jodi 06/03/02 06/17/02

12 Quintero, Gloria 11/06/05 ll/09/05

13 Rabe, Thomas 06/01100 08/12/00

14 Radica, Rebecca 02117/99 05/18/99

15 Radica, Rebecca 09/08/00 12/04/00

16 Ramirez, Jesus 07/07/07 08/03/07

17 Ramirez, Jose 03/17/05 03/22/05

18 Ramirez-Padua, Lizie1 OS/29/06 07/12/06

19 Ramos, Esperanza 02/13/01 02118/01

20 Recio, Allison 08/11107 09/25/07

21 Reneau, Olga 11111/98 02/16/99

22 Reyes, Joslyn 07119/02 07/22/02

23 Reyes, Joslyn 03/07/05 05/02/05

24 Reyes, Ruth 04/21103 05/03/03

25 Richardson, Genetra 10/18/99 01120/00

26 Rippy, Anna 10/25/04 11105/04

27 Rivera, Redempta 02/23/05 03/03/05

28

15

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSESTO PLAlNTIFF'S lNTERROGATORlES


1 Perez, Jeanette 11103/03 ll/17/03

2 Perez, Maria 02/23/05 04/14/05

3 Perkins, Lois 01108/07 01117/07

4 Peterson, Michelle 09/25/07 11/08/07

5 Peterson, Sandra 03/19/02 03/26/02

6 Pob1ete, Ma OS/22/03 06/13/03

7 Poindexter, Lisa 06/01198 01102/99

8 Powers, Alexandra 11120/07

9 Prince, Lynn 12111106 01115/07

10 Probert-Thomas, G 09/14/99 12115/99

11 Prows, Jodi 06/03/02 06/17/02

12 Quintero, Gloria 11/06/05 ll/09/05

13 Rabe, Thomas 06/01100 08/12/00

14 Radica, Rebecca 02117/99 05/18/99

15 Radica, Rebecca 09/08/00 12/04/00

16 Ramirez, Jesus 07/07/07 08/03/07

17 Ramirez, Jose 03/17/05 03/22/05

18 Ramirez-Padua, Lizie1 OS/29/06 07/12/06

19 Ramos, Esperanza 02/13/01 02118/01

20 Recio, Allison 08/11107 09/25/07

21 Reneau, Olga 11111/98 02/16/99

22 Reyes, Joslyn 07119/02 07/22/02

23 Reyes, Joslyn 03/07/05 05/02/05

24 Reyes, Ruth 04/21103 05/03/03

25 Richardson, Genetra 10/18/99 01120/00

26 Rippy, Anna 10/25/04 11105/04

27 Rivera, Redempta 02/23/05 03/03/05

28

15

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSESTO PLAlNTIFF'S lNTERROGATORlES



1 Robles-Gonzalez, D 09/29/05 10/05/05

2 Rogers, Nicole 12126/06 12/20/07

3 Roldan, Mario 11101105 10/31106

4 Rubio, Marcella 06/22/07 08/04/07

5 Ruiz, Rosanna 05/11105 OS/25/05

6 Ruiz, Rosanna 06/06/05 06/21105

7 Ruiz, Rosanna 08/17/05 06/21105

8 Ruiz, Rosanna OS/28/06 07/23/06

9 Ruiz, Rosanna 07/24/06 08/02/06

10 Sabo, Krita 09/10/05 10/20/05

11 Sagun, Jocelyn 10/08/05 12/08/05

12 Sagun, Jocelyn 09/20/07 11101107

13 Sagun, Rbodora 02/28/06 04/11106

14 Salazar, Renato 07/18/97 10/18/97

15 Sa1eewong, Pat 03/07/05 04/18/05

16 Sa1eewong, Pat 06/25/07 07/02/07

17 Salinas, Natalia 01117/06 02121106

18 Salinas, Natalia 01119/07 06/08/07

19 Salinas, Nora 05/08/06 09/25/06

20 Salzman, Anne 08/15/98 09/25/98

21 Sanchez, Nancy OS/24/06 09/04/06

22 Sanchez, Nancy 10131106 01113/07

23 Sanchez, Rosanna 06/18/07 07/09/07

24 Sanchotena, Mary 03/15/00 05/01100

25 Sandoval, Nora 08/21104 11114/04

26 Sandoval, Norma 05/04/04 06/01104

27 Santerre, Eric 02/16/99 02/24/99

28

16



1 Robles-Gonzalez, D 09/29/05 10/05/05

2 Rogers, Nicole 12126/06 12/20/07

3 Roldan, Mario 11101105 10/31106

4 Rubio, Marcella 06/22/07 08/04/07

5 Ruiz, Rosanna 05/11105 OS/25/05

6 Ruiz, Rosanna 06/06/05 06/21105

7 Ruiz, Rosanna 08/17/05 06/21105

8 Ruiz, Rosanna OS/28/06 07/23/06

9 Ruiz, Rosanna 07/24/06 08/02/06

10 Sabo, Krita 09/10/05 10/20/05

11 Sagun, Jocelyn 10/08/05 12/08/05

12 Sagun, Jocelyn 09/20/07 11101107

13 Sagun, Rbodora 02/28/06 04/11106

14 Salazar, Renato 07/18/97 10/18/97

15 Sa1eewong, Pat 03/07/05 04/18/05

16 Sa1eewong, Pat 06/25/07 07/02/07

17 Salinas, Natalia 01117/06 02121106

18 Salinas, Natalia 01119/07 06/08/07

19 Salinas, Nora 05/08/06 09/25/06

20 Salzman, Anne 08/15/98 09/25/98

21 Sanchez, Nancy OS/24/06 09/04/06

22 Sanchez, Nancy 10131106 01113/07

23 Sanchez, Rosanna 06/18/07 07/09/07

24 Sanchotena, Mary 03/15/00 05/01100

25 Sandoval, Nora 08/21104 11114/04

26 Sandoval, Norma 05/04/04 06/01104

27 Santerre, Eric 02/16/99 02/24/99

28

16




I Sceales, Patricia 11101106 01125/07

2 Serrano, Lydia 02/10101 04116101

3 Sevillano, Maritza 09114/03 09/29103

4 Shafa, Haleh08/03/99 08/22/99

5 Sharma, Ira 10/23/07 10/31107

6 Shaw, Judith 08111101 08118/01

7 Shaw, Judith 06108/04 06/24/04

8 Shaw, Judith 05117106 10102/06

9 Shergill, Ramanjit 07/13/06 09101106

10 Shiao, Tu 04/11198 05/28/98

11 Singh, Manjit 10/30104 12/20104

12 Singh, Manjit 01109108

13 Siritaratiwat, Pat 06116103 06/27/03

14 Smith, April 10117106 11117/06

15 Smith, Daian 05/24/04 10/21104

16 Smith, Sara 03/31/07 04/21107

17 Smith, Sara 06/23/07 07114107

18 Smith-White, Regina 04/05/00 04/26100

19 Snook, Karan 08/04/04 08/30104

20 Solanki, Sangita 06105/04 07/20104

21 Solorio, Irene 02/28/06 05/24/06

22 Soto, Mary 02114105 02/23/05

23 Standlee, Angela 09113104 11118/04

24 Standridge, Donna 06120102 07/25/02

25 Steward, Kathy 03/20100 03/27/00

26 Struzyna, Karen 11127/99 01103/00

27 Tabano, Gil 05128/07 06107/07

28

17



I Sceales, Patricia 11101106 01125/07

2 Serrano, Lydia 02/10101 04116101

3 Sevillano, Maritza 09114/03 09/29103

4 Shafa, Haleh08/03/99 08/22/99

5 Sharma, Ira 10/23/07 10/31107

6 Shaw, Judith 08111101 08118/01

7 Shaw, Judith 06108/04 06/24/04

8 Shaw, Judith 05117106 10102/06

9 Shergill, Ramanjit 07/13/06 09101106

10 Shiao, Tu 04/11198 05/28/98

11 Singh, Manjit 10/30104 12/20104

12 Singh, Manjit 01109108

13 Siritaratiwat, Pat 06116103 06/27/03

14 Smith, April 10117106 11117/06

15 Smith, Daian 05/24/04 10/21104

16 Smith, Sara 03/31/07 04/21107

17 Smith, Sara 06/23/07 07114107

18 Smith-White, Regina 04/05/00 04/26100

19 Snook, Karan 08/04/04 08/30104

20 Solanki, Sangita 06105/04 07/20104

21 Solorio, Irene 02/28/06 05/24/06

22 Soto, Mary 02114105 02/23/05

23 Standlee, Angela 09113104 11118/04

24 Standridge, Donna 06120102 07/25/02

25 Steward, Kathy 03/20100 03/27/00

26 Struzyna, Karen 11127/99 01103/00

27 Tabano, Gil 05128/07 06107/07

28

17




I Tagumpay, Shiela 12/14/06 01/24/07

2 Tagumpay, Shiela 08/04/07 08/18/07

3 Tagumpay, Shiela 09/26/07 10118/07

4 Tajran, Deena 10101/97 11117/97

5 Tak, Vandana 07/24/01 09/01/01

6 Tak, Vandana 11116/03 12112/03

7 Thiara, Kiranbir 02/07/07 03/14/07

8 Thomas, Julie 08117105 09112/05

9 Thomas, Julie 08/09/07 09/20107

10 Torres, Ramon 04113106 01118/07

11 Valadez, Angelina 07/16/97 09/22/97

12 Valencia, Luz 09/23/00 10/16/00

13 Vazquez, Lorraine 02113105 03128/05

14 Vela, Isabel 01106107 03/30107

15 Vela, Isabel 04/19/07 06/03/07

16 Velasquez, Vincent 04113103 05101103

17 Velasquez, Vincent 09/16/05 10/11105

18 Vickery, Laura 05/18/97 06/09/97

19 Villarreal, Nicole 01127198 02/22/98

20 Villarreal, Nicole 10123199 01114/00

21 Villarreal, Nicole 11122/05 02/14/06

22 Walker, Dawnelle 03112/07 03126/07

23 Walker, Misty 09/15/05 10/27/05

24 Weese, Charlene 06/12/98 06113199

25 Weese, Charlene 06121101 07/02/01

26 Wells, Deborah 08110106 09/28/06

27 Wenceslao, Norma 10109/06 11110106

28

18




I Tagumpay, Shiela 12/14/06 01/24/07

2 Tagumpay, Shiela 08/04/07 08/18/07

3 Tagumpay, Shiela 09/26/07 10118/07

4 Tajran, Deena10101/97 11117/97

5 Tak, Vandana 07/24/01 09/01/01

6 Tak, Vandana 11116/03 12112/03

7 Thiara, Kiranbir 02/07/07 03/14/07

8 Thomas, Julie 08117105 09112/05

9 Thomas, Julie 08/09/07 09/20107

10 Torres, Ramon 04113106 01118/07

11 Valadez, Angelina 07/16/97 09/22/97

12 Valencia, Luz 09/23/00 10/16/00

13 Vazquez, Lorraine 02113105 03128/05

14 Vela, Isabel 01106107 03/30107

15 Vela, Isabel 04/19/07 06/03/07

16 Velasquez, Vincent 04113103 05101103

17 Velasquez, Vincent 09/16/05 10/11105

18 Vickery, Laura 05/18/97 06/09/97

19 Villarreal, Nicole 01127198 02/22/98

20 Villarreal, Nicole 10123199 01114/00

21 Villarreal, Nicole 11122/05 02/14/06

22 Walker, Dawnelle 03112/07 03126/07

23 Walker, Misty 09/15/05 10/27/05

24 Weese, Charlene 06/12/98 06113199

25 Weese, Charlene 06121101 07/02/01

26 Wells, Deborah 08110106 09/28/06

27 Wenceslao, Norma 10109/06 11110106

28

18




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Wesson, Earnest 10108/05 11110105

Wetlesen, Dorothy 09113/97 09128/97

White, Caitlyn 10103/05 11112105

Whittier, Nancy 11101106 10101107

Williams, Herman 03/08/07 03/19/07

Wilson, Brenda 08112103 02/28/04

Wilson, Brenda 03/01/04 02/28/05

Wilson, Brenda 03/01105 02/28/06

Wilson, Frances 08127107 09/22/07

Wood, Deborah 06/20/98 8114/958

Yee, Angelina 10131/05 01/24/06

Young, Ma Rhodora 04110107 05/30107

Yzaguirre, S 10/28/99 11109109

Zarate, Lucila 12/29/01 01103102

Zuniga, Maricela 11117/07 02/08/08


17 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked atKMC other

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

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

20 October 24,1995.


22 None.

23 INTERROGATORYNO. 27

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

25 than PLAINTIFF who took or were placed on "ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE" (as that term is

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

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

28 1995; for each such PERSON state the dates of each and every such period of

19




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Wesson, Earnest 10108/05 11110105

Wetlesen, Dorothy 09113/97 09128/97

White, Caitlyn 10103/05 11112105

Whittier, Nancy 11101106 10101107

Williams, Herman 03/08/07 03/19/07

Wilson, Brenda 08112103 02/28/04

Wilson, Brenda 03/01/04 02/28/05

Wilson, Brenda 03/01105 02/28/06

Wilson, Frances 08127107 09/22/07

Wood, Deborah 06/20/98 8114/958

Yee, Angelina 10131/05 01/24/06

Young, Ma Rhodora 04110107 05/30107

Yzaguirre, S 10/28/99 11109109

Zarate, Lucila 12/29/01 01103102

Zuniga, Maricela 11117/07 02/08/08


17 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked atKMC other

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

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

20 October 24,1995.


22 None.


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

25 than PLAINTIFF who took or were placed on "ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE" (as that term is

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

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

28 1995; for each such PERSON state the dates of each and every such period of

19





I ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE; state whether each such period ofADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE

2 was paid or unpaid; and state any and all reasons for each such period ofADMINISTRATIVE

3 LEAVE.

4SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 27

5 Dr. Sheldon Freedman was on paid administrative leave from April 13, 2000 to June 30,

6 2000. His persounel file was discarded in 2003 pursuant to the County's records retention policy

7 and we have no record of the reason for his leave of absence.


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

10 members of the "MEDICAL STAFF" at KMC (as the term is defined in the Bylaws ofKMC)

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

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

13 non-extension of each such contract.


15 Leonard Perez - involuntary termination

16 Cary Freeman - involuntary termination

17 Irwin Harris - resigned

18 Mark Root - resigned

19 Miguel Lascano - resigned

20 Deng Fong - resigned

21 John Digges - contract not renewed

22 Peter Meade - resigned

23 Jose Perez - resigned

24 Albert Ma - resigned

25 Jaafar Zada - resigned

26 HA Pershadsingh - retired

27 Lisa Burgess - resigned

28 Richard Prather - resigned

20



I ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE; state whether each such period ofADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE

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

3 LEAVE.

4SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 27

5 Dr. Sheldon Freedman was on paid administrative leave from April 13, 2000 to June 30,

6 2000. His persounel file was discarded in 2003 pursuant to the County's records retention policy

7 and we have no record of the reason for his leave of absence.


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

10 members of the "MEDICAL STAFF" at KMC (as the term is defined in the Bylaws ofKMC)

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

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

13 non-extension of each such contract.

14 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORYNO. 28

15 Leonard Perez - involuntary termination

16 Cary Freeman - involuntary termination

17 Irwin Harris - resigned

18 MarkRoot - resigned

19 Miguel Lascano - resigned

20 Deng Fong - resigned

21 John Digges - contract not renewed

22 Peter Meade - resigned

23 Jose Perez - resigned

24 Albert Ma - resigned

25 Jaafar Zada - resigned

26 HA Pershadsingh - retired

27 Lisa Burgess - resigned

28 Richard Prather - resigned

20




1 Arash Heideri - resigned then returned and is currently employed

2 Tha Cha - resigned

3 Shehla Baqi - resigned

4 Chester Lau - resigned

5 Nitin Athavale - resigned

6 Daniel D'Amico - retired

7 Stephen Docherty - resigned

8 Stephen Williams - resigned

9 Victor Ettinger - resigned


11 See response to Interrogatory No. 30.


13 1. Saman Ratnayake, M.D. - Dr. Ratnayake was hired as a non-core, contrac

14 employee on September 1, 1998. His contract was supposed to terminate on August 31, 2001

15 but he entered into an interim core agreement with the County effective June 26, 2001. Tha

16 agreement was to remain in effect through November 30, 2006. It expired on November 30,

17 2006 but, on June 19,2007 it was extended to June 22, 2007, retroactive to November 30,2006.

18 Dr. Ratnayake entered into a new core agreement on June 23, 2007 for a term of five years.

19 2. Irene Spinello, M.D. - Dr. Spinello entered into an interim core agreement with

20 the County on March 12, 2002. The agreement was to remain in effect through November 30,

21 2006 but Dr. Spinello entered into a new core agreement on December 27, 2003 for a term 0

22 five years.

23 3. Khosrow Mostofi, M.D. - Dr. Mostofi was hired as a non-core, contract employee

24 in 1993. The last non-core contract between Dr. Mostofi and the County had an effective date 0

25 January 1, 1999 and was for a term of two years. Dr. Mostofi entered into an interim core

26 agreement with the County on January 1, 2002. Dr. Mostofi entered into a new core agreemen

27 on December 1, 2006, for a term of five years.

28

21



1 Arash Heideri - resigned then returned and is currently employed

2 Tha Cha - resigned

3 Shehla Baqi - resigned

4 Chester Lau - resigned5 Nitin Athavale - resigned

6 Daniel D'Amico - retired

7 Stephen Docherty - resigned

8 Stephen Williams - resigned

9 Victor Ettinger - resigned


11 See response to Interrogatory No. 30.


13 1. Saman Ratnayake, M.D. - Dr. Ratnayake was hired as a non-core, contrac

14 employee on September 1, 1998. His contract was supposed to terminate on August 31, 2001

15 but he entered into an interim core agreement with the County effective June 26, 2001. Tha

16 agreement was to remain in effect through November 30, 2006. It expired on November 30,

17 2006 but, on June 19,2007 it was extended to June 22, 2007, retroactive to November 30,2006.

18 Dr. Ratnayake entered into a new core agreement on June 23, 2007 for a term of five years.

19 2. Irene Spinello, M.D. - Dr. Spinello entered into an interim core agreement with

20 the County on March 12, 2002. The agreement was to remain in effect through November 30,

21 2006 but Dr. Spinello entered into a new core agreement on December 27, 2003 for a term 0

22 five years.

23 3. Khosrow Mostofi, M.D. - Dr. Mostofi was hired as a non-core, contract employee

24 in 1993. The last non-core contract between Dr. Mostofi and the County had an effective date 0

25 January 1, 1999 and was for a term of two years. Dr. Mostofi entered into an interim core

26 agreement with the County on January 1, 2002. Dr. Mostofi entered into a new core agreemen

27 on December 1, 2006, for a term of five years.

28

21




6 November 1, 2003 for a term of five years.

5 interim core agreement with the County. Dr. Wrobel entered into a new core agreement 0

Juan Lopez, M.D. - Dr. Lopez entered into an interim core agreement with th

Charles Wrobel, M.D. - Dr. Wrobel began providing services to the County as

5.

4.

7

2 independent contractor in 1991. He was hired as a non-core, contract employee in 1997. Th

3 last non-core contract between Dr. Wrobel and the County had an effective date of January 1

4 2000 and was for a term of two years. On November 12, 2001, Dr. Wrobel entered into

8 County on July 1, 2004 for a term of five years. Dr. Lopez entered into a core agreement 0

9 January 8, 2005 for a term of five years.

10 6. Mansukh Ghadiya, M.D. - Dr. Ghadiya entered into an interim core agreemen

11 with the County on July 1,2002. He entered into a new core agreement on March 20, 2004, for

12 term of five years.

13 7. Paul Miller, M.D. - Dr. Miller was hired as a non-core employee on July 6, 1999.

14 His contract was for a term of two years. On July 2, 2001, Dr. Miller entered into an interi

15 core agreement. The agreement was to remain in effect through November 30, 2006. Dr. Mille

16 entered into a core agreement on March 20, 2004, for a term of five years.

17 8. Jose Perez, M.D. - Dr. Perez entered into an interim core agreement with th

18 County on July 1, 2001. The agreement was to remain in effect through November 30, 2006.

19 Dr. Perez entered into a new core agreement on September 6, 2003, for a term of five years. Dr.

20 Perez left County employment before the contract expired.

21 9. Richard Frelinger, D.O. - Dr. Frelinger was hired as a non-core, contrac

22 employee in 1995. The last non-core contract between Dr. Frelinger and the County had a

23 effective date of July 1, 1999 and was for a term of two years. Dr. Frelinger entered into a

24 interim core agreement with the County on July 1, 2001. The agreement was to remain in effec

25 through November 30, 2006 but Dr. Fre1inger entered into a new core agreement on March 20

26 2004 for a term of five years.

27 10. Fidel Huerta, M.D. - Dr. Huerta was hired as a non-core employee in 1998. Th

28 only non-core contract employee agreement between Dr. Huerta and the County had an effectiv

22



1 4. Charles Wrobel, M.D. - Dr. Wrobel began providing services to the County as

Juan Lopez, M.D. Dr. Lopez entered into an interim core agreement with th.

8 County on July 1, 2004 for a term of five years. Dr. Lopez entered into a core agreement a

9 January 8, 2005 for a term of five years.

2 independent contractor in 1991. He was hired as a non-core, contract employee in 1997. Th

3 last non-core contract between Dr. Wrobel and the County had an effective date of January 1

4 2000 and was for a term of two years. On November 12, 2001, Dr. Wrobel entered into

5 interim core agreement with the County. Dr. Wrobel entered into a new core agreement a

6 November 1, 2003 for a term of five years.

10 6. Mansukh Ghadiya, M.D. - Dr. Ghadiya entered into an interim core agreemen

11 with the County on July 1,2002. He entered into a new core agreement on March 20, 2004, for


13 7. Paul Miller, M.D. Dr. Miller was hired as a non-core employee on July 6, 1999.

14 His contract was for a term of two years. On July 2, 2001, Dr. Miller entered into an interi

15 core agreement. The agreement was to remain in effect through November 30, 2006. Dr. Mille

16 entered into a core agreement on March 20, 2004, for a term of five years.

17 8. Jose Perez, M.D. - Dr. Perez entered into an interim core agreement with th

18 County on July 1, 2001. The agreement was to remain in effect through November 30, 2006.

19 Dr. Perez entered into a new core agreement on September 6, 2003, for a term of five years. Dr.

20 Perez left County employment before the contract expired.

21 9. Richard Fre1inger, D.O. - Dr. Frelinger was hired as a non-core, contrac

22 employee in 1995. The last non-core contract between Dr. Frelinger and the County had a

23 effective date of July 1, 1999 and was for a term of two years. Dr. Frelinger entered into a

24 interim core agreement with the County on July 1,2001. The agreement was to remain in effec

25 through November 30, 2006 but Dr. Frelinger entered into a new core agreement on March 20

26 2004 for a term of five years.

27 10. Fidel Huerta, M.D. - Dr. Huerta was hired as a non-core employee in 1998. Th

28 only non-core contract employee agreement between Dr. Huerta and the County had an effectiv

22




6 the County on June 26, 2004 for a term of five years. On July 1,2005, Dr. Zohman entered int

9 the County on June 18, 2002 for a term of five years. On November 15, 2003, Dr. Marti

7 a core agreement for a term of five years.

Gary Zohman, M.D. - Dr. Zohman entered into an interim core agreement wi

Donald Jagger, M.D. - Dr. Jagger was hired as a non-core contract employee i

Maureen Martin, M.D. - Dr. Martin entered into an interim core agreement wit

Vahdatyar Amirpour, M.D. - Dr. Amirpour began providing services to

II.

13.

12.

14.

8

5

2 entered into an interim core agreement. The agreement was to remain in effect throug

3 November 30, 2006. On March 20, 2004, Dr. Huerta entered into a new core agreement for

4 termof

five years.

II

I date ofNovember 16, 1998 and was for a term of two years. On November 10,2000, Dr. Huert

10 entered into a core agreement for a term of five years.

15 county as an independent contractor in 1994. He was hired as a non-core contract employee i

12 1996. His last non-core contract was effective on October I, 2003 and was for a term of tw

13 years. On July 24, 2004, Dr. Jagger entered into a core agreement for a term of five years.

14

16 1997. His last non-core contract had an effective date ofOctober I, 1999. On July 24, 2004, Dr.

17 Amirpour entered into a core agreement for a term of five years.

19 in 1997. His last non-core contract had an effective date of October I, 1999 and was for a ter

Daniel D'Amico, M.D. - Dr. D'Amico was hired as a non-core contract employe5.8

20 of two years. On September 17, 200 I, Dr. D'Amico entered into an interim core agreement wi

21 the County for a term through November 30, 2006. Dr. D'Amico entered into a core agreemen

22 on July 24, 2004 for a term of five years. He retired in 2006

23 16. Nurun Khandaker, M.D. - Dr. Khandaker was hired as a non-core contrac

24 employee in 1997. Her last non-core contract had an effective date of July 11,1999 and was fo

25 a term of two years. On June 12, 2001, Dr. Khandaker entered into an interim core agreemen

26 with the County that was to remain in effect through November 30, 2006. On August 20, 2002

27 Dr. Khandaker entered into an interim core for a term of five years. On March 20, 2004, Dr.

28 Khandaker entered into a core agreement for a term of five years.

23



10 entered into a core agreement for a term of five years.

1 date ofNovember 16, 1998 and was for a term of two years. On November 10,2000, Dr. Huert

9 the County on June 18, 2002 for a term of five years. On November 15, 2003, Dr. Marti

Donald Jagger, M.D. - Dr. Jagger was hired as a non-core contract employee i

Gary Zohman, M.D. - Dr. Zohman entered into an interim core agreement wi

Maureen Martin, M.D. Dr. Martin entered into an interim core agreement wit

Vahdatyar Amirpour, M.D. - Dr. Amirpour began providing services to

11.

14.

13.

12.

5

2 entered into an interim core agreement. The agreement was to remain in effect throug

3 November 30, 2006. On March 20, 2004, Dr. Huerta entered into a new core agreement for

4 term offive years.

15 county as an independent contractor in 1994. He was hired as a non-core contract employee i

6 the County on June 26,2004 for a term of five years. On July 1,2005, Dr. Zohman entered int

7 a core agreement for a term of five years.

11

12 1996. His last non-core contract was effective on October 1, 2003 and was for a term of tw

13 years. On July 24, 2004, Dr. Jagger entered into a core agreement for a term of five years.

14

16 1997. His last non-core contract had an effective date ofOctober 1, 1999. On July 24, 2004, Dr.

17 Amirpour entered into a core agreement for a term offive years.

Daniel D'Amico, M.D. - Dr. D'Amico was hired as a non-core contract employe5.8

19 in 1997. His last non-core contract had an effective date of October 1, 1999 and was for a ter

20 of two years. On September 17,2001, Dr. D'Amico entered into an interim core agreement wi

21 the County for a term through November 30, 2006. Dr. D'Amico entered into a core agreemen

22 on July 24, 2004 for a term of five years. He retired in 2006

23 16. Nurun Khandaker, M.D. - Dr. Khandaker was hired as a non-core contrac

24 employee in 1997. Her last non-core contract had an effective date of July 11, 1999 and was fo

25 a term of two years. On June 12, 2001, Dr. Khandaker entered into an interim core agreemen

26 with the County that was to remain in effect through November 30, 2006. On August 20, 2002

27 Dr. Khandaker entered into an interim core for a term of five years. On March 20, 2004, Dr.

28 Khandaker entered into a core agreement for a term of five years.

23




1 17. Rick McPheeters, D.O. - Dr. McPheeters entered into an interim core agreemen

2 with the County on July 25, 2000 for a term through November 30, 2006. On August 24, 2002,

3 Dr. McPheeters entered into a core agreement for a term of five years. On August 21, 2007, th

4 agreement was amended to extend the term through October 12, 2007. On October 8, 2007, th5 agreement was amended to extend the term through December 7, 2007. On December 4,2007

6 the agreement was amended to extend the term through December 6, 2008.

15 into a core agreement for a term of five years.

William Meyer, M.D. - Dr. Meyer was hired as a non-core contract employee 0

Stephan Sway, M.D. - Dr. Sway was hired as a non-core contract employee 0

Chester Lau, M.D. - Dr. Lau entered into an interim core agreement effectiv

18.

20.

19.

7

8 September 1, 1998 for a term of two years. On August 29, 2000, Dr. Sway entered into

9 interim core agreement that expired on November 30, 2006. On December 19, 2006, Dr. Swa

10 entered into a core agreement that was retroactive to December 1, 2006. The agreement is for


12

13 June 15, 1999 for a term of two years. On June 12,2001, Dr. Meyer entered into an interim cor

14 agreement for a term through November 30, 2006. On November 1, 2003, Dr. Meyer entere

16

17 September 25, 2001 that was to remain in effect through November 30, 2006. On December 2,

18 2003, Dr. Lau entered into an interim core agreement, effective January 5, 2004, for a term 0

19 five years. Dr. Lau resigned his position before the agreement expired.

20 21. Javad Naderi, M.D. - Dr. Naderi entered into an interim core agreement 0

21 September 25,2001 that was to remain in effect through November 30, 2006. On December 2

22 2003, Dr. Naderi entered into an interim core agreement effective January 5, 2004, for a term 0

23 five years.

24 22. Tai Yoo, M.D. - Dr. Yoo entered into an interim core agreement effective May 1,

28 January 19,1999, for a term of two years. On January 17,2001, Dr. Ettinger entered into a

24

25 2001 for a term through November 30,2006. On September 23,2003, Dr. Yoo entered into

26 core agreement with an effective date ofAugust 9, 2003 for a term of five years.

27 23. Victor Ettinger, M.D. - Dr. Ettinger was hired as a non-core contract employee 0



1 17. Rick McPheeters, D.O. - Dr. McPheeters entered into an interim core agreemen

2 with the County on July 25, 2000 for a term through November 30, 2006. On August 24, 2002,

3 Dr. McPheeters entered into a core agreement for a term of five years. On August 21, 2007, th

4 agreement was amended to extend the term through October 12, 2007. On October 8, 2007, th

5 agreement was amended to extend the term through December 7, 2007. On December 4, 2007

6 the agreement was amended to extend the term through December 6,2008.

William Meyer, M.D. - Dr. Meyer was hired as a non-core contract employee 0

Stephan Sway, M.D. - Dr. Sway was hired as a non-core contract employee 0

Chester Lau, M.D. - Dr. Lau entered into an interim core agreement effectiv

18.

20.

19.

7

8 September 1, 1998 for a term of two years. On August 29, 2000, Dr. Sway entered into

9 interim core agreement that expired on November 30, 2006. On December 19, 2006, Dr. Swa

10 entered into a core agreement that was retroactive to December 1, 2006. The agreement is for


12

13 June 15, 1999 for a term of two years. On June 12,2001, Dr. Meyer entered into an interim cor

14 agreement for a term through November 30, 2006. On November 1, 2003, Dr. Meyer entere

15 into a core agreement for a term of five years.

16

17 September 25, 2001 that was to remain in effect through November 30, 2006. On December 2,

18 2003, Dr. Lau entered into an interim core agreement, effective January 5, 2004, for a term 0

19 five years. Dr. Lau resigned his position before the agreement expired.

20 21. Javad Naderi, M.D. - Dr. Naderi entered into an interim core agreement 0

21 September 25, 2001 that was to remain in effect through November 30, 2006. On December 2

22 2003, Dr. Naderi entered into an interim core agreement effective January 5, 2004, for a term 0

23 five years.

24 22. Tai Yoo, M.D. - Dr. Yoo entered into an interim core agreement effective May 1,

Victor Ettinger, M.D. - Dr. Ettinger was hired as a non-core contract employee 03.

28 January 19,1999, for a term of two years. On January 17,2001, Dr. Ettinger entered into a

24

27

25 2001 for a term through November 30, 2006. On September 23, 2003, Dr. Yoo entered into

26 core agreement with an effective date of August 9, 2003 for a term of five years.






Albert McBride, M.D. - Dr. McBride was hired as a non-core contract employe8.

2 in 1997. The last non-core contract between Dr. McBride and the County had an effective dat

3 of October 13, 1999 and was for a term of two years. On May 29, 2001, Dr. McBride entere

7 through February 7, 2009.

Vasanthi (nee Ramaswami) Srinivas, M.D. - Dr. Srinivas was hired as a non-cor9.

4 into an interim core agreement effective May 29, 2001. The agreement was to remain in effec

5 through November 30, 2006. On February 8, 2003, Dr. McBride entered into a core agreemen

6 for a term of five years. On February 26, 2008, the agreement was amended to extend the te

9 contract employee on September 1, 1998 for a term of three years. On August 30,2001, Dr.

10 Srinivas entered into an interim core agreement that was to remain in effect through Novembe

11 30, 2006. On January 8, 2005, Dr. Srinivas entered into a core agreement for a term of fiv

12 years.

Joseph Mansour, M.D. - Dr. Mansour was hired as a non-core contract employe0.3

14 on September 15, 1999 for a term extending through November 30, 2002. On November 26,

15 2002, Dr. Mansour entered into an interim core agreement effective November 30, 2002 for

16 term of five years. On January 8, 2005, Dr. Mansour entered into a core agreement with a ter

17 of five years.

18 31. Siu-Keung (Ray) Chung, M.D. - Dr. Chung was hired as a non-core contrac

19 employee on July 1, 1999 for a term of two years. On June 26,2001, Dr. Chung entered into

20 interim core agreement that was to remain in effect through November 30, 2006. On October 5,

21 2002, Dr. Chung entered into a core agreement for a term of five years. On October 2, 2007, th




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

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

27 state the date that decision was made.

28

26



Albert McBride, M.D. - Dr. McBride was hired as a n o n ~ c o r e contract employe

Vasanthi (nee Ramaswami) Srinivas, M.D. - Dr. Srinivas was hired as a non-cor9.

28.

8

1

2 in 1997. The last non-core contract between Dr. McBride and the County had an effective dat

3 of October 13, 1999 and was for a term of two years. On May 29, 2001, Dr. McBride entere

4 into an interim core agreement effective May 29, 2001. The agreement was to remain in effec

5 through November 30, 2006. On February 8, 2003, Dr. McBride entered into a core agreemen

6 for a term of five years. On February 26, 2008, the agreement was amended to extend the te

7 through February 7, 2009.

9 contract employee on September 1, 1998 for a term of three years. On August 30,2001, Dr.

10 Srinivas entered into an interim core agreement that was to remain in effect through Novembe

11 30, 2006. On January 8, 2005, Dr. Srinivas entered into a core agreement for a term of fiv

12 years.

Joseph Mansour, M.D. - Dr. Mansour was hired as a non-core contract employe

Siu-Keung (Ray) Chung, M.D. - Dr. Chung was hired as a non-core contrac

30.

31.

13

19 employee on July 1,1999 for a term of two years. On June 26,2001, Dr. Chung entered into

20 interim core agreement that was to remain in effect through November 30,2006. On October 5,

21 2002, Dr. Chung entered into a core agreement for a term of five years. On October 2,2007, th



14 on September 15, 1999 for a term extending through November 30, 2002. On November 26,

15 2002, Dr. Mansour entered into an interim core agreement effective November 30, 2002 for

16 term of five years. On January 8, 2005, Dr. Mansour entered into a core agreement with a ter

17 of five years.

18


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

26 PLAINTIFF'S reduced work schedule leave to full-time leave on or about Apri128, 2006; and

27 state the date that decision was made.

28

26





2 Peter Bryan, Steve O'Connor, Karen Barnes and Plaintiff participated in the decision to

3 convert Plaintiffs leave to full-time leave. The decision to do so was made at their meeting on

4 April28,

2006.5 INTERROGATORY NO. 37

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

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

8 date that decision was made.


10 Peter Bryan made the decision to recommend that Plaintiffbe removed from his

11 chairmanship and the decision to make that recommendation was made on July 10, 2006.


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

14 each and every provision contained in the DOCUMENT entitled "Amendment No.1 to

15 Agreement for Professional Services" [DFJl416]; and state the date that each such decision was

16 made.


18 Peter Bryan, David Culberson, Karen Barnes, Plaintiff, Eugene Lee, and the Kern County

19 Board of Supervisors participated in the decisions regarding Amendment No.1 to Plaintiffs

20 contract. The decision was made on the October 3, 2006, which is the date the amendment was

21 approved by the Board of Supervisors.


23 IDENTIFY each and every PERSONwho participated in the decision to recommend

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



27 Board of Supervisors participated in the decision to reduce Plaintiffs base salary. The decision

28

27




2 Peter Bryan, Steve O'Connor, Karen Barnes and Plaintiff participated in the decision to

3 convert Plaintiffs leave to full-time leave. The decision to do so was made at their meeting on

4 April 28, 2006.


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

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

8 date that decision was made.


10 Peter Bryan made the decision to recommend that Plaintiffbe removed from his

11 chairmanship and the decision to make that recommendation was made on July 10, 2006.


13 IDENTIFY each and every PERSONwho participated in the decisions RELATING TO

14 each and every provision contained in the DOCUMENT entitled "AmendmentNo.1 to

15 Agreement for Professional Services" [DFJl416]; and state the date that each such decision was

16 made.



19 Board of Supervisors participated in the decisions regarding AmendmentNo.1 to Plaintiffs

20 contract. The decision was made on the October 3, 2006, which is the date the amendment was

21 approved by the Board of Supervisors.


23 IDENTIFY each and every PERSONwho participated in the decision to recommend

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



27 Board of Supervisors participated in the decision to reduce Plaintiffs base salary. The decision

28

27




I was made on the October 3, 2006, which is the date the amendment was approved by the Board

2 of Supervisors.


4 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to place5 PLAINTIFF on administrative leave with pay on or about December 7, 2006; and state the date

6 that decision was made.

7 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 428 David Culberson, Irwin Harris, Phil Dutt, Margo Raison and Karen Barnes. The decision

9 was made on December 6, 2006.


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

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

13 2007 from MarkWasser, DEFENDANT'S counsel [DFJ7101]); and state the date that decision

14 was made.

15 SUPPLEMETAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORYNO. 43

16 Mark Nations and Mark Wasser. The decision was made on April 27, 2007.


18 IDENTIFY each and every PERSONwho participated in the decision to propose to

19 PLAINTIFF a "BUYOUT" (as that term is used in the email ofMay I, 2007 from MarkWasser,

20 DEFENDANT'S counsel [DFJOI482]); and state the date that decision was made.


22 MarkNations and Mark Wasser. The decision was made on April 27, 2007.





27 The essential functions of Plaintiffs position are set forth in the KMC Medical Staff

28 Bylaws at page 46, section 9.7, Department Chairs; section 9.7-1, Qualifications and pages 48-

28



I was made on the October 3, 2006, which is the date the amendment was approved by the Board

2 of Supervisors.


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

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

6 that decision was made.

7 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 428 David Culberson, Irwin Harris, Phil Dutt, Margo Raison and Karen Barnes. The decision

9 was made on December 6, 2006.


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

12 restriction on PLAINTIFF'S administrative leave (as that term is used in the letter ofApril 30,

13 2007 from MarkWasser, DEFENDANT'S counsel [DFJ7101]); and state the date that decision

14 was made.

15 SUPPLEMETAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORYNO. 43

16 MarkNations and Mark Wasser. The decision was made on April 27, 2007.


18 IDENTIFY each and every PERSONwho participated in the decision to propose to

19 PLAINTIFF a "BUYOUT" (as that term is used in the email ofMay I, 2007 from MarkWasser,

20 DEFENDANT'S counsel [DFJOI482]); and state the date that decision was made.


22 Mark Nations and Mark Wasser. The decision was made on April 27, 2007.





27 The essential functions of Plaintiffs position are set forth in the KMC Medical Staff

28 Bylaws at page 46, section 9.7, Department Chairs; section 9.7-1, Qualifications and pages 48-

28




I 50, section 9.7-5, Responsibi lit ies and Duties ofDepartment Chairs and Plaintiffs job

2 description.

3

4 SIGNATURE OF PARTY UNDER OATH

5 I, Paul J. Hensler, have read Plaintiffs first set of interrogatories to Defendants and the

6 foregoing supplemental answers thereto and certify under penalty of perjury that the

7 supplemental answers are t rue and correct.

SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY AS TO OBJECTIONS

Dated: March S ,2008 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER

8 Dated: March_, 2008

9

10

11

12

13

14

IS

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

By: _

Paul J. Hensler

ChiefExecutive Officer, Kern Medical Center

Mark A. Wasser

Attorney for Defendants, County ofKern, et al.

29



1 50, section 9.7-5, Responsibil it ies and Duties o f Department Chairs and Plaintiffs jo b

2 description.

3

4 SIGNATURE OF PARTY UNDEROATH

5 I, Paul 1. Hensler, have read Plaintiffs first set of interrogatories to Defendants and the

6 foregoing supplemental answers thereto and certify under penalty o f perjury that the

7 supplemental answers are true and correct.

SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY AS TO OBJECTIONS

Dated: March S ,2008 LA W OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER

8 Dated: March _, 2008

9

10

11

12

13

1415

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

By: _

Paul 1. Hensler

ChiefExecutive Officer, Kern Medical Center

B y : _ - # = = . I , . . l o o = : : ; ! . . . . . . . : : = : . . . . : ! . . . - - : : . . = . = = = - - - ~ _ _ l

Mark A. Wasser

Attorney for Defendants, County o fKern, et al.

29






3 Phone: (916) 444-6400Fax: (916) 444-6405


5 Bernard C. Barmann, Sr.KERN COUNTY COUNSELMark Nations, Chief Deputy

6 1115 Truxtun Avenue, Fourth FloorBakersfield, CA 93301

7 Phone: (661) 868-3800Fax: (661) 868-3805


9Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern,

10 Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher,Jennifer Abraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smith

11 and William Roy

18 COUNTY OF KERN, et a\.,

PROOF OF SERVICE



Plaintiff,

vs.

Case No.: 1:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG

))

-------------.)

16

17

12

13

14


19 Defendants.

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PROOF OF SERVICE




3 Phone: (916) 444-6400Fax: (916) 444-6405


5 Bernard C. Barmann, Sr.KERN COUNTY COUNSELMarkNations, ChiefDeputy

6 1115 Truxtun Avenue, Fourth FloorBakersfield, CA 93301

7 Phone: (661) 868-3800Fax: (661) 868-3805


9Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern,

10 Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher,Jennifer Abraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smith

11 and William Roy

18 COUNTY OF KERN, et a\.,

PROOF OF SERVICE



Plaintiff,

vs.

Case No.: 1:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG

))

-------------.)

16

17

12

13

14


19 Defendants.

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PROOF OF SERVICE



1 I, Amy Remly, declare:

2 I am a resident of the State ofCalifornia and over the age of eighteen years, and not a party tothe within action; my business address is 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100, Sacramento, CA 95814. On

3 March 5, 2008, I served the within documents: Defendants' Supplemental Responses to PlaintifrsInterrogatories (Set One).

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

o

o

o

by transmitting via facsimile from (916) 444-6405 the above listed document(s)without error to the fax number(s) set forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m. A copyof the transmittal/confirmation sheet is attached, and

by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fullyprepaid, in the United States mail at Sacramento, California addressed as set forthbelow.

by causing personal delivery by of the document(s) listed above to theperson(s) at the address (es) set forth below.

by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed Federal Express Overnight Delivery

envelope and affixing a pre-paid air bill, and causing the envelope to be delivered to aOvernight Delivery Federal Express agent for delivery at the address set forth below.

Eugene LeeLaw Offices ofEugene Lee555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100Los Angeles, California 90013-1010

18

15 I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence formailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with

16 postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course ofbusiness. I am aware that on motion of the party17 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.

I declare under penalty ofperjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true

19 and correct.

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Executed on March 5, 2008, at Sacramento, California.O v ~ 1 ! , ~ V \

-2 - PROOF OF SERVICE


1 I, Amy Remly, declare:

2 I am a resident of the State ofCalifornia and over the age of eighteen years, and not a party tothe within action; my business address is 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100, Sacramento, CA 95814. On

3 March 5, 2008, I served the within documents: Defendants' Supplemental Responses to PlaintifrsInterrogatories (Set One).

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

1213

14

o

o

o

by transmitting via facsimile from (916) 444-6405 the above listed document(s)without error to the fax number(s) set forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m. A copyof the transmittal/confirmation sheet is attached, and

by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fullyprepaid, in the United States mail at Sacramento, California addressed as set forthbelow.

by causing personal delivery by of the document(s) listed above to theperson(s) at the address (es) set forth below.

by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed Federal Express Overnight Delivery

envelope and affixing a pre-paid air bill, and causing the envelope to be delivered to aOvernight Delivery Federal Express agent for delivery at the address set forth below.

Eugene Lee

Law Offices ofEugene Lee

555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100Los Angeles, California 90013-1010

18

15 I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for

mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with16 postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party17 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.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true

19 and correct.

20

2122

23

24

25

26

27

28

Executed on March 5, 2008, at Sacramento, California.O v ~ 1 ! , ~ V \

-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

27

28

EXHIBIT 4:

Meet and confer correspondence between the parties




1

Eugene D. Lee

From: Mark Wasser [[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 8:48 AMTo: [email protected]: RE: Jadwin/KC: Interrogatories

Gene,

Sorry. That was my oversight. I will get you a verification.

Mark

From: Eugene D. Lee [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 8:59 PMTo: [email protected]: Jadwin/KC: Interrogatories

Mark,

We still haven’t received any verification by Defendants’ of Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories, setone. As you know, the responses were due on February 1. Please send us the verification immediately.

Sincerely,

Gene Lee

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

L A W O F F I C E O F E U G E N E L E E

E M P L O Y M E N T L A W

5 5 5 W E S T F I F T H S T . , S T E . 3 1 0 0L O S A N G E L E S , C A 9 0 0 1 3

T e l : ( 2 1 3 ) 9 9 2 - 3 2 9 9F a x : ( 2 1 3 ) 5 9 6 - 0 4 8 7E - m a i l : [email protected]

W e b s i t e : www.LOEL.com B l o g : www.CaLaborLaw.com

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


Califocnia Laboc & Emplo,ment Law 0109

Plaintiff Gets $30,300, His Lawyers Get $1,1 mil,Febn>o. . . . . , , ... " ..." ,y "'oo,,"..



1

Eugene D. Lee

From: Assistant [[email protected]]Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 10:22 AMTo: 'Eugene Lee'Cc: [email protected]: FW: JadwinAttachments: Jadwin.Signature of Party Under Oath.021408.pdf

Transmitted herewith is the verification to Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories.

Amy Remly, Assistant to Mark A. Wasser






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

J Initial Disclosures that YOU contend is privileged; slale the nature oreach privilege asserted;

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

5 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 47

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

7 you inquiring about our privilege log?



J0 PLAINTIFF'S position as Chair of Pathology at KMC.

II RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 48

12 Medical Stafr Bylaws and job description for the position.

13

14 SIGNATURE OF PARTY UNDER OATI·I

15 I, Paul J. Hensler, have read Plaintilrs first set ofinterrogalorics to Defendants and the

16 foregoing answers thereto and certi fy under penalty of perjury that the answers are true and

17 correct.

18 Dated: February /..J. 2008

19

20

21

22

B Y : : - - - ! - Y - - ~ )! c . : : . . . b= ' = = ~ _uul1. Hensler

Chief Executive Officer, Kern Medical Center

SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY AS TO OIl.IECTIONS

24

26

27

28

Dated: February 1,2008 LA W OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER

By: /s/ Mark A. Wasser

Mark A. Wasser

Attorney for Defendants, COUllty of Kern, et <II.

54

DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES



1

Eugene D. Lee

From: Eugene D. Lee [[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 3:57 PMTo: '[email protected]'Subject: RE: Jadwin/KC: Interrogatories

Mark,

I’ll call you.

Sincerely,

Gene Lee

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







From: Mark Wasser [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 3:30 PMTo: [email protected]: RE: Jadwin/KC: Interrogatories

Gene,

3:00 p.m. tomorrow is fine. Will you call me?

Mark

From: Eugene D. Lee [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 3:22 PMTo: [email protected]: RE: Jadwin/KC: Interrogatories

Mark,

3 p.m. tomorrow works for me. Let me know.


Califocnia Laboc & Emplo,ment Law Bl09

Plaintiff Gets $30,300, His Lawyers Get $1,1 mil,

Febn>Arf' , ,. . . "."" ,y "'''"'"''



2

Sincerely,

Gene Lee

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



5 5 5 W E S T F I F T H S T . , S T E . 3 1 0 0L O S A N G E L E S , C A 9 0 0 1 3T e l : ( 2 1 3 ) 9 9 2 - 3 2 9 9F a x : ( 2 1 3 ) 5 9 6 - 0 4 8 7E - m a i l : [email protected]



From: Mark Wasser [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 2:55 PMTo: [email protected]: RE: Jadwin/KC: Interrogatories

Gene,

I am back in the office and will be here the rest of the week. We can talk tomorrow, if you want. What time is good for

you?

Mark

From: Eugene D. Lee [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 10:46 AMTo: [email protected]: Jadwin/KC: Interrogatories

Mark,

Let’s discuss Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories, set one. When are you available to talk this week?

Sincerely,

Gene Lee

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






Plaintiff Gets $30,300, His Lawyers Get $1,1 mil,Febn>o..,', , ... " ..." ,y "'oo,,"..



3






Plaintiff Gets $30,300, His Lawyers Get $1,1 mil,

Febn>o..,', , ... " ..." ,y "'oo,,"..




(213) 992 -3299

TELEPHONELAW

E U G

OFFICE

ENE L

OF

E E

[email protected]

EMAIL

(213) 596 -0487

FACSIMILE

FAX

5 5 5 WEST F IFTH STREET SUITE 3 1 0 0


WWW.LOEL.COM

WEBSITE

To:



Re: Jadwin/KC: Rog1

Comments:

Mark,

Please see a t tached .


Date: 02/20/2008



(213) 992 -3299

TELEPHONELAW

E U G

OFFICE

ENE L

OF

E E

[email protected]

EMAIL

(213) 596 -0487

FACSIMILE

FAX

5 5 5 WEST FIFTH STREET SUITE 3 1 0 0


WWW.LOEL.COM

WEBSITE

To:



Re: Jadwin/KC: Rog1

Comments:

Mark,

P le ase see a t tached .


Date: 02/20/2008




[email protected]

E-MAILOF

LEELAW OFFICE

EUGENE

( 2 13 ) 992-3299

TELEPHONE

(Z 1 3 ) 596-0487

FACS IM ILE

555 WES T F IF TH S TR EE T, SU I TE 3100

L O S A N G E LE S , C A LIF O R NIA 90013-1010

WWW.LOEL .COM

WEBS I TE

E U G E N E D. LEE, ESQ

PRINCIPAL

JOAN E. H E R R IN G T O N , E S Q

O F C O UN S EL

February 20, 2008

VIA U.S. MAIL FIRST CLASS & FACSIMILE

Mark Wasser

Law Offices ofMark Wasser

400 Capitol Mall Ste 1100

Sacramento, CA 95814

100011.001

Re: Defendants Responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories, Set One

Jadwin / County ofKern, et al. (USDC EDCANO.1 :07-cv-00026-0WW/TAG)

Dear Mark:

It was a pleasure speaking with you today regarding Defendant Kern County's deficient

responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories, Set One. We are writing this letter in follow-up to our

discussion.

As discussed, Defendant has agreed to fully supplement its responses as described below by no

later than March 5, 2008. Ifthe following issues are not fully resolved at that time, Plaintiffwill

have no choice but to immediately file a motion to compel.

Response Issue

toRog

No.

1,2,4,5, Defendant refuses to state any facts. Plaintiff's position is that Defendant is required

6, 7 to state the facts upon which it contends supports its affirmative defenses.

Contention interrogatories are not objectionable on the ground that they encroach on

attorney work product. See Security Ins. Co. ofHartford v. Trustmark Ins. CO. (D

CT 2003) 218 FRD 29, 34; United States v. Boyce, 148 F. Supp. 2d 1069, 1086 (D.

Cal. 2001)(" Under Rule 33(c), a party can serve an interrogatory the answer to

which involves "an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application oflaw

to fact." Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(c); O'Connor v. Boeing NorthAm., Inc., 185 F.R.D. 272,

280-81 (C.D. Cal. 1999). The Government's contention interrogatories are notdirected to issues of "pure law" that would infringe on the attorney-work product

doctrine as codified in Rule 26(b)(3). Rather, they seek the facts upon which the

Boyces' relied for their defense to the Forms 4340. As such, the contention

interrogatories were permissible and the Boyces were required to respond to them."

You stated Defendant disagrees. Plaintiffintends to move to compel.

3 Defendant's response is vague and non-specific. It fails to specify (i) what efforts

were made by whom to "counsel Plaintiff', (ii) what physical confrontations



[email protected]

E-MAILOF

LEELAW OFFICE

EUGENE

( 2 13 ) 992-3299

TELEPHONE

(Z 1 3 ) 596-0487

FACS IM ILE

555 W ES T F IF TH S TR EE T, SU I TE 3100

L O S A N G E LE S , C A LIF O R NIA 90013-1010

WWW.LOEL .COM

WEBS I TE

E U G E N E D. LEE, ESQ

PRINCIPAL

JOAN E. HERRINGTON, ES Q

OF C O U N S E L

February 20, 2008

VIA U.S. MAIL FIRST CLASS & FACSIMILE

Mark Wasser

Law Offices ofMark Wasser

400 Capitol Mall Ste 1100

Sacramento, CA 95814

100011.001

Re: Defendants Responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories, Set One

Jadwin / County ofKern, et al. (USDC EDCANO.1 :07-cv-00026-0WW/TAG)

Dear Mark:

It was a pleasure speaking with you today regarding Defendant Kern County's deficient

responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories, Set One. We are writing this letter in follow-up to our

discussion.

As discussed, Defendant has agreed to fully supplement its responses as described below by no

later than March 5, 2008. Ifthe following issues are not fully resolved at that time, Plaintiffwill

have no choice but to immediately file a motion to compel.

Response Issue

toRog

No.

1,2,4,5, Defendant refuses to state any facts. Plaintiff's position is that Defendant is required

6, 7 to state the facts upon which it contends supports its affirmative defenses.

Contention interrogatories are not objectionable on the ground that they encroach on

attorney work product. See Security Ins. Co. ofHartford v. Trustmark Ins. CO. (D

CT 2003) 218 FRD 29, 34; United States v. Boyce, 148 F. Supp. 2d 1069, 1086 (D.

Cal. 2001)(" Under Rule 33(c), a party can serve an interrogatory the answer to

which involves "an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application oflaw

to fact." Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(c); O'Connor v. Boeing NorthAm., Inc., 185 F.R.D. 272,

280-81 (C.D. Cal. 1999). The Government's contention interrogatories are notdirected to issues of "pure law" that would infringe on the attorney-work product

doctrine as codified in Rule 26(b)(3). Rather, they seek the facts upon which the

Boyces' relied for their defense to the Forms 4340. As such, the contention

interrogatories were permissible and the Boyces were required to respond to them."

You stated Defendant disagrees. Plaintiffintends to move to compel.

3 Defendant's response is vague and non-specific. It fails to specify (i) what efforts

were made by whom to "counsel Plaintiff', (ii) what physical confrontations




Plaintiff allegedly had with other persons and with whom, etc.

You stated Defendant would supplement its response by March 5.

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

the name, address, phone number, the current or most recent position held with YOUif the PERSON is or was employed with YOU as of the date these interrogatories are

answered, and the last day ofthe PERSON's employment with YOu. Defendant has

not fully responded to the interrogatory.

You stated Defendant will supplement its response by giving the last date of

employment and current or most recent position for each person listed.

10 Plaintiff's position is that it is entitled to know the dates of employment, job titles,

dates, circumstances and reasons for departure ofCounty employees named as

potential witnesses by Defendant. Moreover, all grounds for objection to an

interrogatory must be stated "with specificity." FRCP 33(b)(4); see Nagele v.

Electronic Data Systems Corp. (WD NY 2000) 193 FRD 94,109 (objection thatinterrogatories were "burdensome" overruled because objecting party failed to

"particularize" basis for objection). Regarding Ev. C. 1040, it is a generally-worded

statute regarding "official information". Defendants have the burden under Ev. C.

1040 to establish the specific "official information" privilege.

Defendant disagrees. Plaintiff intends to move to compel.

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

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

if the PERSON is or was employed with YOU as of the date these interrogatories are

answered, and the last day ofthe PERSON's employment with you. Defendant has

not fully responded to the interrogatory. When used in connection withDOCUMENTS, the term "IDENTIFY" includes the name(s) ofthe author(s),

name(s) of recipient(s), date of creation, date ofmodification, date of delivery, date

of execution, effective date, subject matter, bates numbers, page numbers, paragraph

numbers, line numbers and/or section numbers. Defendant has not fully responded to

the interrogatory. Also, Defendant has failed to state the "role" each person listed

played in the PEER REVIEW.

You stated Defendant will supplement its response.

23 All grounds for objection to an interrogatory must be stated "with specificity." FRCP

33(b)(4); see Nagele v. Electronic Data Systems Corp. (WD NY 2000) 193 FRD 94,

109 (objection that interrogatories were "burdensome" overruled because objectingparty failed to "particularize" basis for objection). Regarding Ev. C. 1040, it is a

generally-worded statute regarding "official information". Defendants have the

burden under Ev. C. 1040 to establish the specific "official information" privilege.

Moreover, no HIPAA protected information has been requested.



2



Plaintiff allegedly had with other persons and with whom, etc.

You stated Defendant would supplement its response by March 5.


the name, address, phone number, the current or most recent position held with YOUif the PERSON is or was employed with YOU as of the date these interrogatories are

answered, and the last day ofthe PERSON's employment with YOu. Defendant has

not fully responded to the interrogatory.

You stated Defendant will supplement its response by giving the last date of

employment and current or most recent position for each person listed.

10 Plaintiff's position is that it is entitled to know the dates of employment, job titles,

dates, circumstances and reasons for departure ofCounty employees named as

potential witnesses by Defendant. Moreover, all grounds for objection to an

interrogatory must be stated "with specificity." FRCP 33(b)(4); see Nagele v.

Electronic Data Systems Corp. (WD NY 2000) 193 FRD 94,109 (objection thatinterrogatories were "burdensome" overruled because objecting party failed to

"particularize" basis for objection). Regarding Ev. C. 1040, it is a generally-worded

statute regarding "official information". Defendants have the burden under Ev. C.


Defendant disagrees. Plaintiff intends to move to compel.

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




not fully responded to the interrogatory. When used in connection withDOCUMENTS, the term "IDENTIFY" includes the name(s) ofthe author(s),

name(s) of recipient(s), date of creation, date ofmodification, date of delivery, date

of execution, effective date, subject matter, bates numbers, page numbers, paragraph

numbers, line numbers and/or section numbers. Defendant has not fully responded to

the interrogatory. Also, Defendant has failed to state the "role" each person listed

played in the PEER REVIEW.




109 (objection that interrogatories were "burdensome" overruled because objectingparty failed to "particularize" basis for objection). Regarding Ev. C. 1040, it is a


burden under Ev. C. 1040 to establish the specific "official information" privilege.




2





109 (objection that interrogatories were "burdensome" overruled because objecting

party failed to "particularize" basis for objection). Regarding Ev. C. 1040, it is a


burden under Ev.C.




25 Plaintiff's position is that Defendant's objection only goes to the phrase "other than

PLAINTIFF". When objection is made to part of an interrogatory, the remainder of

the interrogatory must be answered (unless an extension is obtained). FRCP

33(b)(l).


27 The term "IDENTIFY" when used in connection with natural PERSONS includesthe name, address, phone number, the current or most recent position held with YOU


answered, and the last day ofthe PERSON's employment with you. Defendant hasnot fully responded to the interrogatory..

Moreover, Defendant has failed to state the dates of administrative leave, and any

and all reasons for such leave.

You stated Defendant will supplement its response and understands that it has

waived objections by failing to raise them in its Response. Absent extension or good

cause, failure to timely respond to interrogatories generally constitutes a waiver of

any objections thereto. FRCP 33(b)(4); Davis v. Fendler (9th Cir. 1981) 650 F2d

1154, 1160; Starlight Int'l, Inc. v. Herlihy (D KS 1998) 181 FRD 494, 497.

28 At Defendant's request, Plaintiffhas agreed to narrow this interrogatory from

"MEDICAL STAFF" to "CORE PHYSICIANS". Based on this narrowing, you

agreed that Defendant would supplement its response.

29/30 Defendant's responses to these interrogatories are contradictory and illogical.

Plaintiff further explained that the term "renew" includes the "replacement of an old

contract with a new contract". See Black's LegalDictionary.

You agreed and stated Defendant will supplement its response.

31/32 Defendant 's response is completely non-responsive.


36/37 Defendant failed to state the date the decision was made.


39 Defendant failed to state the date the decision was made TO RECOMMEND

REDUCTION of Plaintiff's base salary in 2006 (NOT approve it).

3




109 (objection that interrogatories were "burdensome" overruled because objecting

party failed to "particularize" basis for objection). Regarding Ev. C. 1040, it is a


burden under Ev.C.




25 Plaintiff's position is that Defendant's objection only goes to the phrase "other than

PLAINTIFF". When objection is made to part of an interrogatory, the remainder of

the interrogatory must be answered (unless an extension is obtained). FRCP

33(b)(l).


27 The term "IDENTIFY" when used in connection with natural PERSONS includesthe name, address, phone number, the current or most recent position held with YOU


answered, and the last day ofthe PERSON's employment with you. Defendant hasnot fully responded to the interrogatory..

Moreover, Defendant has failed to state the dates of administrative leave, and any

and all reasons for such leave.

You stated Defendant will supplement its response and understands that it has

waived objections by failing to raise them in its Response. Absent extension or good

cause, failure to timely respond to interrogatories generally constitutes a waiver of

any objections thereto. FRCP 33(b)(4); Davis v. Fendler (9th Cir. 1981) 650 F2d

1154, 1160; Starlight Int'l, Inc. v. Herlihy (D KS 1998) 181 FRD 494, 497.

28 At Defendant's request, Plaintiffhas agreed to narrow this interrogatory from

"MEDICAL STAFF" to "CORE PHYSICIANS". Based on this narrowing, you

agreed that Defendant would supplement its response.

29/30 Defendant's responses to these interrogatories are contradictory and illogical.

Plaintiff further explained that the term "renew" includes the "replacement of an old

contract with a new contract". See Black's LegalDictionary.

You agreed and stated Defendant will supplement its response.

31/32 Defendant 's response is completely non-responsive.


36/37 Defendant failed to state the date the decision was made.


39 Defendant failed to state the date the decision was made TO RECOMMEND

REDUCTION of Plaintiff's base salary in 2006 (NOT approve it).

3




You stated Defendaut will supplement its response.

41 The amount of reduction of Plaintiff's base salary was a precise number.

Defendant's response fails to state the manner of calculation and all factual bases

relied on.




ifthe PERSON is or was employed with YOU as ofthe date these interrogatories are


not fully responded to the interrogatory. and failed to IDENTIFY "counsel".

Moreover, Defendants fail to state the date the decision was made.


43 Defendants fail to state the date the decision was made.


44 Defendant's response is utterly non-responsive.


46/47 Plaintif fexplained that the questions are intended to determine which documents in

the Rule 26 Initial Disclosures will be subject to privilege-based admissibility

challenges by Defendant.

You stated Defendant will supplement its response. You also acknowledged the

meaning ofthe term "IDENTIFY" as used in this Interrogatory includes the name(s)ofthe author(s), name(s) ofrecipient(s), date of creation, date ofmodification, date

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


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

pleadings, or to depositions or other documents, or to other interrogatories. Scaife v.

Boenne (ND IN 2000) 191 FRD 590, 594.

Moreover, Defendant has the burden of stating what the essential functions of

Plaintiff's position were.

You stated Defendant will supplement its response by stating the "essentialfunctions" of Plaintiff's position.

4



You stated Defendaut will supplement its response.

41 The amount of reduction of Plaintiff's base salary was a precise number.

Defendant's response fails to state the manner of calculation and all factual bases

relied on.




ifthe PERSON is or was employed with YOU as ofthe date these interrogatories are


not fully responded to the interrogatory. and failed to IDENTIFY "counsel".

Moreover, Defendants fail to state the date the decision was made.


43 Defendants fail to state the date the decision was made.


44 Defendant's response is utterly non-responsive.


46/47 Plaintif fexplained that the questions are intended to determine which documents in

the Rule 26 Initial Disclosures will be subject to privilege-based admissibility

challenges by Defendant.

You stated Defendant will supplement its response. You also acknowledged the

meaning ofthe term "IDENTIFY" as used in this Interrogatory includes the name(s)ofthe author(s), name(s) ofrecipient(s), date of creation, date ofmodification, date

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


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

pleadings, or to depositions or other documents, or to other interrogatories. Scaife v.

Boenne (ND IN 2000) 191 FRD 590, 594.

Moreover, Defendant has the burden of stating what the essential functions of

Plaintiff's position were.

You stated Defendant will supplement its response by stating the "essentialfunctions" of Plaintiff's position.

4




We look forward to our next meet and confer conference call with you at 9:30 a.ill. tomorrow

(February 21, 2008).

cc:

EtDavid F. Jadwin, D.O., F.C.A.P. \J

5



We look forward to our next meet and confer conference call with you at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow

(February 21, 2008).

cc:

Et

David F. Jadwin, D.O., F.C.A.P. Iv)

5



1

Eugene D. Lee

From: Eugene D. Lee [[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 12:13 PMTo: '[email protected]'Subject: RPD1/ROG1

Mark,

It was a pleasure speaking with you this morning.

We had discussed the following:

- You said that you had just received 2 boxes of additional documents from KMC and that you would behanding me those documents at the beginning of Dr. Jadwin’s deposition on March 11. We also agreed that we would have a call at 5 p.m. on Sunday, March 9, to discuss Plaintiff’s requests 65, 66, 67, 69, 70, 72, 76,77 and 78.

- You said that, today, you would be serving supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories 10, 15, 23,24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 36, 37, 38, 39, 42, 43, 44, 48, as well as a letter explaining Defendant’s refusal to

supplement responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories 1-7, 9, 31-32, 41, 46, 47- I further clarified interrogatories 46 and 47 (for a second time), explaining that Plaintiff seeks to know which

documents produced in the Initial Disclosures by ANY party are subject to Defendants’ claim of privilegeand challenge to admissibility. You confirmed that you had no further confusions or need for furtherclarification of interrogatories 46 and 47 and that you fully understood them.

- I explained that Plaintiff intends to immediately file a motion to compel regarding any unresolved requestsfor production and/or interrogatories.

Also, regarding Dr. Jadwin’s deposition, you stated it was Defendants’ intention to complete Dr. Jadwin’sdeposition by March 12. If that does not occur, Plaintiff will not agree to a third deposition session in the absenceof a stipulation or court order.

I look forward to discussing the requests for production with you on March 9. Please contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Gene Lee

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



5 5 5 W E S T F I F T H S T . , S T E . 3 1 0 0

L O S A N G E L E S , C A 9 0 0 1 3T e l : ( 2 1 3 ) 9 9 2 - 3 2 9 9F a x : ( 2 1 3 ) 5 9 6 - 0 4 8 7E - m a i l : [email protected]






ar 05 08 03:35p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.1

The Law Offices of Mark A. Wasser400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100Sacramento, California 95814

Office: 916444-6400Fax: 916-444-6405

FaxTo: Eugene Lee

Fax: (213) 596-0487

Phone: (213) 992-3299

From: AmyRemly


Date: 3/5/08

Re: Jadwin v. County ofKern CC:

D Urgent D ForReview D Please Comment D Please Reply D Please Recycle

• Comments:

Please see attached letter.


ar 05 08 03:35p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.1

The Law Offices of Mark A. Wasser400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100Sacramento, California 95814Office: 916444-6400Fax: 916-444-6405

FaxTo: Eugene Lee

Fax: (213) 596-0487

Phone: (213) 992-3299

From: AmyRemly


Date: 3/5/08

Re: Jadwin v. County ofKern CC:

D Urgent D ForReview D Please Comment D Please Reply D Please Recycle

• Comments:

Please see attached letter.



ar 05 08 03:35p Mark Wasser

Law Offices of

MARK A. WASSER400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100

Sacl'am.entQ, California 95814

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

mwasser@markwasser,com

916-444-6405 p.2

March 5, 2008

VIA FACSIMILE AND FIRST CLASS MAIL

Eugene Lee

Law Offices of Eugene Lee


Los Angeles, California 90013-1010

Re: Jadwin v. County ofKern, et al.

Dear Gene:

This is in response to our telephone conferences O n February 20 and today

regarding the Defendants' supplemental responses to Plaintiff's first set of

interrogatories.

Interrogatory Numbers 1. 2. 4. 5.6 an d 7.

Although we objected to this interrogatory on grounds of attorney work product

and attorney-client privilege, the facts that support the third affinnative defense are set

forth in the Second Supplemental Complaint and in the text of the defense itself. The

third affirmative defense states that the Defendants' actions, as alleged in the Second

Supplemental Complaint, were in furtherance ofmedical peer review, maintenance of

quality of care standards, discharge of official duties and performed in the course of

official proceedings authorized by law and that, as such, they are privileged under the

referenced statutes. In drafting the third affirmative defense, the Defendants bad in mind

only the facts alleged in the Second Supplemental Complaint. The legal analysis and

reasoning why the Defendants believe their actions are privileged is protected under

attorney-work product and attorney-client privilege doctrines but the facts have been

disclosed.

The same is true of the fourth, sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth affirmativedefenses. They each reference the factual allegations set forth in the Second

Supplemental Complaint. In interposing those defenses the defendants had no facts in

mind other than those set forth in the Second Supplemental Complaint.

Admitted to Pracrice in California and Nevada


ar 05 08 03:35p Mark Wasser

Law Offices of

MARK A. WASSER400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100

Sacl'am.entQ, California 95814

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

mwasser@markwasser,com

916-444-6405 p.2

March 5, 2008

VIA FACSIMILE AND FIRST CLASS MAIL

Eugene Lee

Law Offices of Eugene Lee


Los Angeles, California 90013-1010

Re: Jadwin v. County ofKern, et al.

Dear Gene:

This is in response to our telephone conferences O n February 20 and today

regarding the Defendants' supplemental responses to Plaintiff's first set of

interrogatories.

Interrogatory Numbers 1. 2. 4. 5.6 an d 7.

Although we objected to this interrogatory on grounds of attorney work product

and attorney-client privilege, the facts that support the third affinnative defense are set

forth in the Second Supplemental Complaint and in the text of the defense itself. The

third affirmative defense states that the Defendants' actions, as alleged in the Second

Supplemental Complaint, were in furtherance ofmedical peer review, maintenance of

quality of care standards, discharge of official duties and performed in the course of

official proceedings authorized by law and that, as such, they are privileged under the

referenced statutes. In drafting the third affirmative defense, the Defendants bad in mind

only the facts alleged in the Second Supplemental Complaint. The legal analysis and

reasoning why the Defendants believe their actions are privileged is protected under

attorney-work product and attorney-client privilege doctrines but the facts have been

disclosed.

The same is true of the fourth, sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth affirmativedefenses. They each reference the factual allegations set forth in the Second

Supplemental Complaint. In interposing those defenses the defendants had no facts in

mind other than those set forth in the Second Supplemental Complaint.

Admitted to Pracrice in California and Nevada



ar 05 08 03:35p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.3

Eugene Lee

March 5, 2008

Page 2

Thus, there are no additional facts to disclose.

Interrogatory Number 3.

The text of the fifth affirmative defense and our response to interrogatory number

three fully disclosed the factual basis for that defense. In addition, the defendants have

produced several tens of thousands of documents and Plaintiffhas taken the depositions

of several current and former members of the Kern Medical Center staff. TheDefendants

are under no obligation to summarize, in their response to Interrogatory Number Three,

the discovery that has occurred in this case to date. For example, although you assert that

the Defendants have not disclosed "what physical confrontations plaintiffallegedly had

with other persons" the Defendants have produced the transcript of the investigation that

was conducted after your client pulled a fellow physician out of a room by his necktie.

We have disclosed letters admonishing your client for his behavior and you have listened

to the deposition testimony of several employees describing your client's behavior. The

Defendants' response to Interrogatory Number Three is more than adequate.

Interrogatory Numbers 9 and 10.

You continue to characterize the individuals we identified in our Initial

Disclosures as "witnesses" and these two Interrogatories seek additional information

about those individuals on the assumption they are witnesses. As I have told you on

multiple occasions, the Defendants have not yet identified any ",itnesses. The list of

persons included in the Defendants' initial disclosures was compiled in compliance with

Rule 26(a)(I )(A) which requires the name and address "of each individual likely to havediscoverable infoffilation". It is not a witness list and Defendants have made no decision

regarding who may be a witness in this action. There are no "witnesses" identified in the

initial disclosures. I

Plaintiff's attempt to bootstrap the persons identified in Defendants' initial

disclosures into a list of trial witnesses and then demand employment history information

on all of them is burdensome and oppressive and Defendants will not respond further to

tillS interrogatory for that reason.

At your request, Defendants will produce all those individuals for deposition and

you are free to inquire as to their employment history. As soon as Defendants identifyany trial witnesses, we will share that list with you.


It is a small point but the Defendants did not request that Plaintiffnarrow this

interrogatory from "medical staff' to "core physicians". The Defendants objected to the


ar 05 08 03:35p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.3

Eugene Lee

March 5, 2008

Page 2

Thus, there are no additional facts to disclose.


The text of the fifth affirmative defense and our response to interrogatory number

three fully disclosed the factual basis for that defense. In addition, the defendants have

produced several tens of thousands of documents and Plaintiffhas taken the depositions

of several current and former members of the Kern Medical Center staff. TheDefendants

are under no obligation to summarize, in their response to Interrogatory Number Three,

the discovery that has occurred in this case to date. For example, although you assert that

the Defendants have not disclosed "what physical confrontations plaintiffallegedly had

with other persons" the Defendants have produced the transcript of the investigation that

was conducted after your client pulled a fellow physician out of a room by his necktie.

We have disclosed letters admonishing your client for his behavior and you have listened

to the deposition testimony of several employees describing your client's behavior. The

Defendants' response to Interrogatory Number Three is more than adequate.


You continue to characterize the individuals we identified in our Initial

Disclosures as "witnesses" and these two Interrogatories seek additional information

about those individuals on the assumption they are witnesses. As I have told you on

multiple occasions, the Defendants have not yet identified any v.itnesses. The list of

persons included in the Defendants' initial disclosures was compiled in compliance with

Rule 26(a)(I )(A) which requires the name and address "of each individual likely to havediscoverable infoffilation". It is not a witness list and Defendants have made no decision

regarding who may be a witness in this action. There are no "witnesses" identified in the

initial disclosures. I

Plaintiff's attempt to bootstrap the persons identified in Defendants' initial

disclosures into a list of trial witnesses and then demand employment history information

on all of them is burdensome and oppressive and Defendants will not respond further to

tillS interrogatory for that reason.

At your request, Defendants will produce all those individuals for deposition and

you are free to inquire as to their employment history. As soon as Defendants identifyany trial witnesses, we will share that list with you.


It is a small point but the Defendants did not request that Plaintiffnarrow this

interrogatory from "medical staff' to "core physicians". The Defendants objected to the



ar 05 08 03:36p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 pA

Eugene Lee

March 5, 2008

Page 3

interrogatory and refused to respond further. You agreed to limit the interrogatory to

only core physicians and I agreed, based upon that narrowing, to reconsider our response.


The Defendants' responses to these interrogatories are neither contradictory nor

illogical and, contrary to what you write in your letter, we have not agreed that they are.

The history of physician agreements at KMC does not lend itselfto categorization basedon the length of the contract. It is more complicated. Nevertheless, and despite the fact

that answering this Interrogatory will yield nothing of any use in this case, Defendants

will supplement their answer.

InterrogatoryNumbers 31 and 32.

The Defendants' responses to these interrogatories are responsive. As I explained

to you during our telephone conference, the job descriptions and employment agreements

for medical staff employed at Kern Medical Center include a provision requiring them to

comply with all hospital policies and procedures. Your client issued rules for the

Pathology Department that required staffpathologists to provide onsite shift coverage

during specifically stated hours and carry pagers when on call. Thus, those requirements

became part of the job description and employment agreement for each and every staff

pathologist employed after October 24, 2000. The Defendants have previously provided

lists of staffpathologists employed since 2000 and there is no reason to do so again.


The Defendants recognize that the amount of the reduction in Plaintiffs base

salary was a precise number. Our response to Interrogatory Number Forty-One

accurately and completely responds to the interrogatory. Plaintiff's new salary was

selected because it was comparable to that of a core pathologist. There is no further

explanation required and defendants will not respond further to this interrogatory.


Defendants prepared a privilege log that accompanied their initial disclosures.

Documents the Defendants believe are privileged are identified in the privilege log. Youhave asked us to review Plaintiff's Initial Disclosures and let you know if we think any

documents Plaintiff disclosed are privileged. As you note, we have discussed it twice.

You describe this request as a "housekeeping" issue and that you simply want to know if

Defendants intend to object to the admissibility of any documents contained in your

Initial Disclosures on the basis ofprivilege. This still strikes me as a strange request but I

will review your Initial Disclosures and let you know ifwe believe any of the documents

you disclosed are privileged.


ar 05 08 03:36p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 pA

Eugene Lee

March 5, 2008

Page 3

interrogatory and refused to respond further. You agreed to limit the interrogatory to

only core physicians and I agreed, based upon that narrowing, to reconsider our response.


The Defendants' responses to these interrogatories are neither contradictory nor

illogical and, contrary to what you write in your letter, we have not agreed that they are.

The history of physician agreements at KMC does not lend itselfto categorization basedon the length of the contract. It is more complicated. Nevertheless, and despite the fact

that answering this Interrogatory will yield nothing of any use in this case, Defendants

will supplement their answer.

InterrogatoryNumbers 31 and 32.

The Defendants' responses to these interrogatories are responsive. As I explained

to you during our telephone conference, the job descriptions and employment agreements

for medical staff employed at Kern Medical Center include a provision requiring them to

comply with all hospital policies and procedures. Your client issued rules for the

Pathology Department that required staffpathologists to provide onsite shift coverage

during specifically stated hours and carry pagers when on call. Thus, those requirements

became part of the job description and employment agreement for each and every staff

pathologist employed after October 24, 2000. The Defendants have previously provided

lists of staffpathologists employed since 2000 and there is no reason to do so again.


The Defendants recognize that the amount of the reduction in Plaintiffs base

salary was a precise number. Our response to Interrogatory Number Forty-One

accurately and completely responds to the interrogatory. Plaintiff's new salary was

selected because it was comparable to that of a core pathologist. There is no further

explanation required and defendants will not respond further to this interrogatory.


Defendants prepared a privilege log that accompanied their initial disclosures.

Documents the Defendants believe are privileged are identified in the privilege log. Youhave asked us to review Plaintiff's Initial Disclosures and let you know ifwe think any

documents Plaintiff disclosed are privileged. As you note, we have discussed it twice.

You describe this request as a "housekeeping" issue and that you simply want to know if

Defendants intend to object to the admissibility of any documents contained in your

Initial Disclosures on the basis ofprivilege. This still strikes me as a strange request but I

will review your Initial Disclosures and let you know ifwe believe any of the documents

you disclosed are privileged.



ar 05 08 03:36p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.5

Eugene Lee

March 5, 2008

Page 4

With regard to the other interrogatories referenc·ed in your February 20 letter, to

the extent Defendants have additional information, we will serve a set of supplemental

responses today.

Very Truly Yours,

Mark A. Wasser

cc; Karen Baines (via facsimile)


ar 05 08 03:36p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.5

Eugene Lee

March 5, 2008

Page 4

With regard to the other interrogatories referenc·ed in your February 20 letter, to

the extent Defendants have additional information, we will serve a set of supplemental

responses today.

Very Truly Yours,

Mark A. Wasser

cc; Karen Baines (via facsimile)



1

Eugene D. Lee

From: Mark Wasser [[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 3:39 PMTo: Eugene LeeSubject: Verification to Supplemental ResponsesAttachments: Jadwin.Signature.Supplemental Interrogatories.030508.pdf; Karen Barnes.vcf

Gene,

Here is the verification to the supplemental responses to the interrogatories.

Mark





50, section 9.7-5, Responsibilities and Duties ofDcparlment Chairs and Plaintiffsjob

2 description.

3

4SIGNATURE OF PARTY UNDER OATH

5 I, Paul 1. Hensler, have read Plainlifrs first sel of interrogatories to Defendants and {he

6 foregoing supplemental answers thereto and certify under penalty of perjury that the

7 supplemental answers are tme and correct.

8

9

10

I I12

Dated: March s-, 2008

B y . : ~y j } J ~ _L=---_Paul J. Hensler

Chief Executive Orficer, Kern Medical Center

13SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY AS TO OBJECTIONS

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

247 '-,

26

27

28

Dated: M,uch __ ' 2008 LA W OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER

By:_-,-.,---,------:.,,-- _

Mark A. WasserAttorney for Defendants, County ofKem, et al.

29

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSESTO PLAfNTIFF'S fNTERROGATORJES




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

EXHIBIT 5:

Declaration of Eugene Lee in Support of Motion




DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TOINTERROGATORIES 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28







Plaintiff,v.


Defendants.


DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE IN

SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPELRESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES




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

joint statement re discovery disagreement.

I, Eugene D. Lee, declare as follows:

7. I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before the Federal and State Courts of

California and admitted to practice before the U.S.D.C. for the Eastern District of California. I am

counsel of record for Plaintiff David F. Jadwin in this matter.

8. I am making this declaration in support of plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to

interrogatories. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth below and I could and would

competently testify thereto if called as a witness in this matter.

9. I have spent and anticipate spending substantially in excess of 5 hours meeting and

conferring with Mr. Wasser by phone, fax, letter and email, researching and drafting these moving

papers and attending the motion hearing in Bakersfield, CA. My regular rate for such services is $400




DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TOINTERROGATORIES 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

per hour.

10. My rate is consistent with those charged in the Los Angeles area by attorneys of similar

skill and experience. I received my B.A. with honors from Harvard University in 1991 and my J.D. with

honors from the University of Michigan Law School in 1995. I was admitted to the New York State Bar

in 1996 and worked as an associate in the New York office of Shearman & Sterling from 1995 to 1996. I

worked as an associate in the New York office of Sullivan & Cromwell from 1996 to 1997. After a brief

leave of absence from practicing law from 1997 to 1999, I returned to active practice as the General

Counsel of Tcom America, Inc., a technology venture in Silicon Valley from 1999 to 2002. From 2002

to 2004, I worked as a senior associate for Kim & Chang, a law firm located in Seoul, Korea. In 2005, I

was admitted to the California Bar. I have been the principal of Law Office of Eugene Lee since 2005.

11. I attempted several times to secure local counsel to prosecute Plaintiff’s suit but was

ultimately unsuccessful.

12. On September 18, 2006, I sent an email to over 600 members of the California

Employment Lawyers Association seeking co-counsel. No attorneys from Fresno responded.

13. On February 28, 2007, I called Andrew Jones, Esq. in Fresno, CA, requesting his

involvement as local counsel in this action. Mr. Jones declined.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the United States

that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on: April 23, 2008

/s/ Eugene D. Lee

EUGENE D. LEEDeclarant




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16


I, the undersigned, hereby declare:

I am a resident of Los Angeles in the State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party

to the action described herein. I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, California. My businessaddress is LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE, 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100, Los Angeles, CA90013. On the date of execution of this DOCUMENT, I served the following:

JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPELRESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES


Mark A. WasserLAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100Sacramento, CA 95814Fax: (916) 444-6405Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern, PeterBryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher, JenniferAbraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smith andWilliam Roy

BY UNITED STATES MAIL: I enclosed the DOCUMENT(s) listed above in a sealed envelopewith postage thereon fully prepaid, addressed to the PERSON(s) listed above, and deposited the sealedenvelope 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 morethan one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.


Date post:	30-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	eugene-d-lee
View:	223 times
Download:	0 times