Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 146

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

1 Eugene D. Lee SB#: 236812


LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE
2 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100
Los Angeles, CA 90013
3 Phone: (213) 992-3299
Fax: (213) 596-0487
4 email: elee@LOEL.com
5 Attorneys for Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.
6
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG
10 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE re:
v. INABILITY TO SECURE COOPERATION
11 OF DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL TO
COUNTY OF KERN, et al., PREPARE AND EXECUTE JOINT
12 STATEMENT re: MOTION TO COMPEL
Defendants. RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES
13
Date: April 28, 2008
14 Time: 9:30 a.m.
Place: U.S. District Court, Bankruptcy Courtroom
15 1300 18th St., Bakersfield, CA
16 Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007
Date Set for Trial: December 3, 2008
17
18 Plaintiff submits this Declaration of Eugene D. Lee pursuant to Local Rule 37-251(d) in lieu of a
19 joint statement re discovery disagreement.
20 I, Eugene D. Lee, declare as follows:
21 1. I am counsel of record for Plaintiff. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth
22 below and I could and would competently testify thereto if called as a witness in this matter.
23 2. On January 2, 2008, plaintiff served Interrogatories, Set One on defendant County of
24 Kern. Defendant served responses on February 1 which were deficient in numerous respects. The parties
25 met and conferred several times by phone and in writing on the interrogatories which are at issue in this
26 motion. Defendant initially agreed to supplement its responses to the interrogatories accordingly.
27 Defendant later changed its mind. Plaintiff was left no choice but to bring a motion to compel on the
28
DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE re: INABILITY TO SECURE COOPERATION OF
DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL TO PREPARE AND EXECUTE JOINT STATEMENT re: MOTION TO
COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 1
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 2 of 16

1 remaining issues.
2 3. Briefing regarding Plaintiff’s above-referenced contentions is contained in the draft Joint
3 Statement, attached hereto as Attachment A.
4 4. Pursuant to Local Rule 37-251, I attempted to secure the cooperation of Defendants’
5 counsel, Mark Wasser, to prepare and execute a joint statement re discovery disagreement. On
6 Thursday, April 17, 2008, I both mailed (via certified mail with return receipt requested) and faxed Mr.
7 Wasser a draft version of the Joint Statement re: Discovery Disagreement (with all exhibits attached),
8 requesting his input. I explained in the cover letter that the draft was a work in progress and remained
9 subject to change. Attached hereto as Attachment A is a true and correct copy of the draft Joint
10 Statement which I had prepared.
11 5. In my rush, I unintentionally included the draft Declaration of Inability to Secure
12 Cooperation of Defendants’ Counsel which I had prepared ahead of time and was future-dated to April
13 23 (today’s date) in the fax to defense counsel. By accusing me of making representations about defense
14 counsel’s refusal to cooperate that were “both misleading and false”, defense counsel makes much ado
15 over nothing. (Doc. 101, 2:5-14). A simple email exchange would have cleared up this confusion over
16 the accidentally included document.
17 6. I sent the draft joint statement to Mr. Wasser by both mail and fax a full week prior to
18 today in the expectation that he would review it and provide comments to me via email. Most of
19 counsels’ communications have taken the form of writing rather than phone calls, and this meet and
20 confer over the joint statement was no exception. To date, I did not receive any response from Mr.
21 Wasser regarding the draft Joint Statement I had sent him a week ago, other than to receive electronic
22 notification that he had filed the Declaration of Mark A. Wasser re Inability to Prepare Joint Statement
23 on Discovery Dispute (Doc. 101), accusing me of failing to “attempt to discuss his proposed joint
24 statement with me”. (Doc. 101, 2:21-22).
25 7. Despite Mr. Wasser’s accusations to the contrary (Doc. 101, 2:15-20), I did not know that
26 defense counsel was unavailable to accept service of filings and documents on April 17 and 18 and
27 never received a Notice of Unavailability to that effect. Defense counsel had told me in emails that for
28
DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE re: INABILITY TO SECURE COOPERATION OF
DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL TO PREPARE AND EXECUTE JOINT STATEMENT re: MOTION TO
COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 2
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 3 of 16

1 deposition scheduling purposes only he would not be able to attend full days on April 17 and 18. He
2 never once notified me that his office, which includes his assistant Ms. Amy Remly, was not receiving
3 faxes, emails and mail during those days. I also had no knowledge of Mr. Wasser’s speech and, frankly,
4 fail to see its relevance. Presumably, Mr. Wasser was aware that the deadline to file the joint statement
5 for the instant motion to compel was today and planned his time accordingly as any responsible attorney
6 would have.
7 8. Mr. Wasser accuses me of not referencing his letter of March 5 in my moving papers.
8 (Doc. 101, 2:26-28). I had attached Mr. Wasser’s March 5 letter as Exhibit 4 in the draft I sent to Mr.
9 Wasser a week ago. In any case, despite what Mr. Wasser insinuates, the March 5 Letter can not and
10 does not constitute binding responses by defendant to plaintiff’s interrogatories; it is not evidence upon
11 which plaintiff can rely. It is nothing more than part of the extensive meet and confer effort between
12 counsel leading up to the motion. As plaintiff has repeatedly told defendants, what plaintiff wants are
13 defendants’ responses to his interrogatories on the record, nothing more.
14 9. It is hard to believe that defendants are “bewildered” by this latest motion to compel.
15 (Doc. 101, 3:6-7). Plaintiff repeatedly told defendants verbally and in written meet and confer that
16 plaintiff would be filing a motion to compel. In my email to Mr. Wasser of March 5, 2008, I wrote: “I
17 explained [to you] that Plaintiff intends to immediately file a motion to compel regarding any
18 unresolved requests for production and/or interrogatories.” (See Exhibit 4 attached hereto). To date,
19 defendants have failed to fully respond to plaintiff’s interrogatories. Hence, more than a month later,
20 plaintiff is bringing this motion.
21 10. Mr. Wasser claims plaintiff has served 91 interrogatories on defendants. (Doc. 101, 3:9-
22 13). As I have explained at great length to Mr. Wasser already, subparts do NOT count as separate
23 interrogatories under Rule 33 unless they are so logically discrete from the main inquiry as to constitute
24 a separate interrogatory. Still Mr. Wasser, true to form, continues to count the subparts to plaintiff’s
25 interrogatories so as to insinuate plaintiff has been abusive with its “91 interrogatories”.
26 11. Plaintiff agrees that the parties are presently negotiating a stipulation and order to limit
27 plaintiff’s interrogatories, deem documents business records and authenticated, etc. Assuming the
28
DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE re: INABILITY TO SECURE COOPERATION OF
DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL TO PREPARE AND EXECUTE JOINT STATEMENT re: MOTION TO
COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 3
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 4 of 16

1 negotiations are successful and the parties reach an agreement, the parties will be filing the stipulation
2 and order with the Court shortly. Defendants have also agreed to stipulate to leave for plaintiff to file a
3 supplemented complaint. Assuming defendants remain true to their word, the parties will be filing this
4 shortly as well.
5
6 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the United States
7 that the foregoing is true and correct.
8
9
Executed on: April 23, 2008
10
11
12 /s/ Eugene D. Lee
13 EUGENE D. LEE
Declarant
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE re: INABILITY TO SECURE COOPERATION OF
DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL TO PREPARE AND EXECUTE JOINT STATEMENT re: MOTION TO
COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 4
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 5 of 16

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 ATTACHMENT A
28
DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE re: INABILITY TO SECURE COOPERATION OF
DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL TO PREPARE AND EXECUTE JOINT STATEMENT re: MOTION TO
COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 5
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 6 of 16

1 Eugene D. Lee SB#: 236812


LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE
2 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100
Los Angeles, CA 90013
3 Phone: (213) 992-3299
Fax: (213) 596-0487
4 email: elee@LOEL.com
5 Attorneys for Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.
6 Mark A. Wasser CA SB #06160
LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER
7 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100
Sacramento, CA 95814
8 Phone: (916) 444-6400
Fax: (916) 444-6405
9 Email: mwasser@markwasser.com
10 Bernard C. Barmann, Sr.
KERN COUNTY COUNSEL
11 Mark Nations, Chief Deputy
1115 Truxton Avenue, Fourth Floor
12 Bakersfield, CA 93301
Phone: (661) 868-3800
13 Fax: (661) 868-3805
Email: mnations@co.kern.ca.us
14
Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern, Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher, Jennifer
15 Abraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smith, and William Roy.
16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
17 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
18 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG
19 Plaintiff, JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY
v. DISAGREEMENT re: MOTION TO
20 COMPEL RESPONSES TO
COUNTY OF KERN, et al., INTERROGATORIES
21
Defendants. Date: April 28, 2008
22 Time: 9:30 a.m.
Place: U.S. District Court, Bankruptcy Courtroom
23 1300 18th St., Bakersfield, CA
24 Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007
Date Set for Trial: December 3, 2008
25
26
27
28
JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO
INTERROGATORIES 1
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 7 of 16

1 This joint statement re: discovery disagreement is submitted pursuant to Local Rule 37-251(a) in
2 advance of the April 28, 2008 hearing on Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to interrogatories and
3 for sanctions.
4
I. DETAILS OF THE PARTIES’ DISCOVERY CONFERENCES
5
6 On January 2, 2008, plaintiff served Interrogatories, Set One (“Interrogatories”) on defendant
7 County of Kern. Defendant served responses on February 1 which were deficient in numerous respects.
8 The parties met and conferred several times by phone and in writing on the interrogatories which are at
9 issue in this motion. Defendant initially agreed to supplement its responses to the interrogatories
10 accordingly. Defendant later changed its mind. Plaintiff was left no choice but to bring a motion to
11 compel.
12
II. A STATEMENT OF THE NATURE OF THE CASE AND FACTUAL DISPUTES
13
14 Plaintiff David F. Jadwin, D.O., F.C.A.P., former Chair of Pathology at Kern Medical Center
15 (“KMC”) and senior pathologist from October 24, 2000 to October 4, 2007, filed a Complaint with this
16 Court on January 6, 2007. Plaintiff contends that various defendants retaliated against and defamed him
17 for reporting his concerns about patient care quality issues and regulatory violations at KMC. As a
18 result, Plaintiff was forced to take medical and recuperative leave for disabling chronic clinical
19 depression in early 2006. While Plaintiff was on leave, Defendants demoted him in June 2006 to a staff
20 pathologist for “unavailability” and refused to reinstate him upon his return to work on October 4, 2006.
21 On December 7, 2006, he was placed on involuntary administrative leave and restricted to his home
22 during working hours until May 1, 2007. Around May 1, 2007, Defendant informed Plaintiff of its
23 decision to either “buy out” the remaining term of his contract (due to expire on October 4, 2007) or
24 simply let the contract “run out”. On October 4, 2007, Defendants did not renew Plaintiff’s employment
25 contract.
26 Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges whistleblower retaliation, disability discrimination, medical leave
27 interference and retaliation, defamation and deprivation of compensation and professional fees without
28 procedural due process.
JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO
INTERROGATORIES 2
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 8 of 16

1 Defendants contend that the dispute arose out of Plaintiff’s tenure as a pathologist at Kern
2 Medical Center. Plaintiff’s relationship with other members of the medical staff deteriorated to the point
3 of intimidation, hostility and antagonism. Defendants contend, to the extent that any hostile work
4 environment existed, it was caused by Plaintiff.
5
III. THE CONTENTION OF EACH PARTY AS TO EACH CONTESTED ISSUE
6
7 A. INTERROGATORY NO. 1
8 State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Third Affirmative Defense.
9 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1
10 The Third Affirmative Defense is a legal defense. Defendants object to it to the extent it seeks
11 information protected under the attorney/client privilege and attorney work product privilege.
12 PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
13 The U.S. Supreme Court has stated in United States v. Procter, 356 U.S. 677 (U.S. 1958):
14 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
15 blindman's buff and more a fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to
the fullest practicable extent. Only strong public policies weigh against disclosure.
16 Id. at 682 [citations omitted][emphasis added].
17 Discovery in this action has been ongoing for eight months. Defendant has already completed its
18 (four-day long) deposition of plaintiff. Tens of thousands of documents have been produced.
19 Presumably defendant has had ample time to develop facts supporting its affirmative defenses.
20 Defendant’s refusal to state a single fact responsive to this interrogatory despite numerous meet and
21 confer efforts is a violation of discovery rules.
22 Moreover, as plaintiff has already communicated to defendant several times, contention
23 interrogatories are not objectionable on the ground that they encroach on attorney work product. See
24 Security Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Trustmark Ins. Co. (D CT 2003) 218 FRD 29, 34; United States v.
25 Boyce, 148 F. Supp. 2d 1069, 1086 (S.D. Cal. 2001) (“Under Rule 33(c), a party can serve an
26 interrogatory the answer to which involves ‘an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the
27 application of law to fact.’. The Government's contention interrogatories are not directed to issues of
28 ‘pure law’ that would infringe on the attorney-work product doctrine as codified in Rule 26(b)(3).
JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO
INTERROGATORIES 3
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 9 of 16

1 Rather, they seek the facts upon which the Boyces' relied for their defense to the Forms 4340. As such,
2 the contention interrogatories were permissible and the Boyces were required to respond to them.”
3 [citations omitted]).
4 Defendant refuses to state a single fact. Defendant further asserts privilege objections. These
5 objections are improper as is defendant’s refusal to respond.
6 Rule 37 states:
7 a party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an answer, designation,
production, or inspection. This motion may be made if … (iii) a party fails to answer an
8 interrogatory submitted under Rule 33…. For purposes of this subdivision (a), an
evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a failure to
9 disclose, answer, or respond. [emphasis added].
10 By failing to state a single fact in response to this interrogatory, defendant has engaged in
11 behavior which this court is required to sanction pursuant to Rule 37.
12 Defendant’s conduct is particularly hypocritical considering defendant showed no hesitance in
13 asking plaintiff countless contention interrogatories at defendant’s 4-day long deposition of plaintiff.
14 Despite the fact plaintiff has no legal training and was being placed on the spot in a videotaped
15 deposition, plaintiff responded fully.
16 DEFENDANT’S POSITION
17 [INSERT HERE]
18
B. INTERROGATORY NO. 2
19
State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Fourth Affirmative Defense.
20
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2
21
The Fourth Affirmative Defense is a legal defense. Defendants object to it to the extent it seeks
22
information protected under the attorney/client privilege and attorney work product privilege.
23
PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
24
See “Plaintiff’s Position” regarding Interrogatory No. 1 above.
25
DEFENDANT’S POSITION
26
[INSERT HERE]
27
28
JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO
INTERROGATORIES 4
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 10 of 16

1 C. INTERROGATORY NO. 3
2 State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Fifth Affirmative Defense.
3 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3
4 Defendants will rely on the testimony of persons who worked with Plaintiff regarding the nature
5 of his interpersonal communications and relationships with co-workers; his overbearing and dismissive
6 attitude towards other members of the hospital staff; his intimidating style; his disrespectful and
7 disagreeable interpersonal dealings, and his physical confrontations with other persons in the hospital.
8 The Defendants will offer testimony about the efforts members of the medical staff and management
9 made to counsel Plaintiff and his angry and dismissive responses to those efforts. Defendants will show
10 how Plaintiff’s working relationships in the hospital steadily eroded and unraveled as a result of
11 Plaintiff’s behavior. The testimony will be supported by letters, e-mails and other writings, all of which
12 have been previously produced.
13 PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
14 The U.S. Supreme Court has stated in United States v. Procter, 356 U.S. 677 (U.S. 1958):
15 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
16 blindman's buff and more a fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to
the fullest practicable extent. Only strong public policies weigh against disclosure.
17 Id. at 682 [citations omitted][emphasis added].
18 Defendant’s response is incomplete and evasive. It is devoid of any facts and consists only of
19 general themes. It fails to specify, among other things (i) what efforts were made to “counsel Plaintiff”,
20 by whom, at whose direction, etc., (ii) what physical confrontations Plaintiff allegedly had with other
21 persons and with whom, (iv) to whom plaintiff was “overbearing and dismissive”, (v) which of
22 plaintiff’s “interpersonal dealings” were “disrespectful and disagreeable”, (vi) which of plaintiff’s
23 “working relationships” “steadily eroded and unraveled”, with whom, and what behavior by plaintiff
24 allegedly caused that.
25 Discovery in this action has been ongoing for eight months. Defendant has already completed a
26 (4-day long) deposition of plaintiff. Presumably defendant has had ample time to develop facts
27 supporting its affirmative defenses. Defendant’s one paragraph response, devoid of any facts, is an effort
28 to hide the ball from plaintiff and surprise plaintiff at trial.
JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO
INTERROGATORIES 5
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 11 of 16

1 Defendant initially agreed in meet and confer to supplement its response accordingly. As has
2 often been the case in this action, defendant changed its mind.
3 Rule 37 states:
4 a party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an answer, designation,
production, or inspection. This motion may be made if … (iii) a party fails to answer an
5 interrogatory submitted under Rule 33…. For purposes of this subdivision (a), an
evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a failure to
6 disclose, answer, or respond. [emphasis added].
7 By giving an evasive and incomplete response to this interrogatory which fails to state any facts,
8 defendant has engaged in behavior which this court is required to sanction pursuant to Rule 37.
9 DEFENDANT’S POSITION
10 [INSERT HERE]
11
D. INTERROGATORY NO. 4
12
State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Sixth Affirmative Defense.
13
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4
14
The Sixth Affirmative Defense is a legal defense. Defendants object to it to the extent it seeks
15
information protected under the attorney/client privilege and attorney work product privilege.
16
PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
17
See “Plaintiff’s Position” regarding Interrogatory No. 1 above.
18
DEFENDANT’S POSITION
19
[INSERT HERE]
20
21 E. INTERROGATORY NO. 5
22 State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Seventh Affirmative Defense.
23 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5
24 The Seventh Affirmative Defense is a legal defense. Defendants object to it to the extent it seeks
25 information protected under the attorney/client privilege and attorney work product privilege.
26 PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
27 See “Plaintiff’s Position” regarding Interrogatory No. 1 above.
28 DEFENDANT’S POSITION
JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO
INTERROGATORIES 6
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 12 of 16

1 [INSERT HERE]
2
F. INTERROGATORY NO. 6
3
State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Eighth Affirmative Defense.
4
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6
5
The Eighth Third Affirmative Defense is a legal defense. Defendants object to it to the extent it
6
seeks information protected under the attorney/client privilege and attorney work product privilege.
7
PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
8
See “Plaintiff’s Position” regarding Interrogatory No. 1 above.
9
DEFENDANT’S POSITION
10
[INSERT HERE]
11
12 G. INTERROGATORY NO. 7
13 State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Ninth Affirmative Defense.
14 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7
15 The Ninth Affirmative Defense is a legal defense. Defendants object to it to the extent it seeks
16 information protected under the attorney/client privilege and attorney work product privilege.
17 PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
18 See “Plaintiff’s Position” regarding Interrogatory No. 1 above.
19 DEFENDANT’S POSITION
20 [INSERT HERE]
21
H. INTERROGATORY NO. 46
22
IDENTIFY each DOCUMENT or portion thereof contained in PLAINTIFF's FRCP Rule 26
23
Initial Disclosures that YOU contend is privileged; state the nature of each privilege asserted; and state
24
in detail the factual bases for each such asserted privilege.
25
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 46
26
We do not understand this Interrogatory and are, consequently, unable to answer it. What is
27
privileged about the documents Plaintiff produced?
28
JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO
INTERROGATORIES 7
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 13 of 16

1 PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
2 Rule 37 states:
3 a party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an answer, designation,
production, or inspection. This motion may be made if … (iii) a party fails to answer an
4 interrogatory submitted under Rule 33…. For purposes of this subdivision (a), an
evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a failure to
5 disclose, answer, or respond. [emphasis added].
6 After meet and confers which addressed defendant’s “confusion”, defendant still has not
7 supplemented this evasive and incomplete response which fails to state even any objection. Plaintiff had
8 explained to defendant several times during meet and confers that this interrogatory is intended to
9 determine which documents in the Rule 26 Initial Disclosures will be subject to privilege-based
10 admissibility challenges by defendant. Defendant had subsequently agreed to supplement its response.
11 Defendant had further acknowledged at the time that the meaning of the term “IDENTIFY” as used in
12 plaintiff’s interrogatory includes the name(s) of the author(s), name(s) of recipient(s), date of creation,
13 date of modification, date of delivery, date of execution, effective date, subject matter, bates numbers,
14 page numbers, paragraph numbers, line numbers and/or section numbers.
15 To date, defendants have not carried through on their promises. This has been characteristic
16 throughout this action. By effectively failing to respond to the interrogatory, defendant has engaged in
17 behavior which this court is required to sanction pursuant to Rule 37.
18 DEFENDANT’S POSITION
19 [INSERT HERE]
20
I. INTERROGATORY NO. 47
21
IDENTIFY each DOCUMENT or portion thereof contained in YOUR FRCP Rule 26 Initial
22
Disclosures that YOU contend is privileged; state the nature of each privilege asserted; and state in
23
detail the factual bases for each such asserted privilege.
24
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 47
25
We do not understand this Interrogatory and are, consequently, unable to answer it. What is
26
privileged about the documents Plaintiff produced?
27
PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
28
JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO
INTERROGATORIES 8
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 14 of 16

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


2 DEFENDANT’S POSITION
3 [INSERT HERE]
4
J. INTERROGATORY NO. 48
5
State each and every job function which YOU contend were the essential functions of
6
PLAINTIFF'S position as Chair of Pathology at KMC.
7
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 48
8
The essential functions of Plaintiffs position are set forth in the KMC Medical Staff Bylaws at
9
page 46, section 9.7, Department Chairs; section 9.7-1, Qualifications and pages 48- 50, section 9.7-5,
10
Responsibilities and Duties of Department Chairs and Plaintiffs job description.
11
PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
12
As plaintiff repeatedly explained to defendant during meet and confer, an answer to an
13
interrogatory should be complete in itself and should not refer to the pleadings, or to depositions or other
14
documents, or to other interrogatories. See Scaife v. Boenne (N.D. Ind. 2000) 191 FRD 590, 594.
15
Moreover, it is the employer’s burden to state what the essential functions of an employee’s
16
position are.
17
Defendant initially agreed in meet and confer to supplement its response accordingly. As has
18
often been the case in this action, defendant changed its mind, necessitating this motion.
19
Rule 37 states:
20
a party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an answer, designation,
21 production, or inspection. This motion may be made if … (iii) a party fails to answer an
interrogatory submitted under Rule 33…. For purposes of this subdivision (a), an
22 evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a failure to
disclose, answer, or respond. [emphasis added].
23
By giving an evasive and incomplete response to this interrogatory which fails to state any facts,
24
defendant has engaged in behavior which this court is required to sanction pursuant to Rule 37.
25
DEFENDANT’S POSITION
26
[INSERT HERE]
27
28
JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO
INTERROGATORIES 9
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 15 of 16

1 IV. CONCLUSION
2
The party who prevails on a motion to compel is entitled to his or her expenses, including
3
reasonable attorney fees, unless the losing party was substantially justified in making or opposing the
4
motion (or other circumstances make such an award unjust). FRCP 37(a)(5); H. K. Porter Co., Inc. v.
5
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (6th Cir. 1976) 536 F2d 1115, 1124–1125.
6
Plaintiff has met and conferred several times with defendant by phone and in writing, clearing up
7
any “confusion” and responding to any concerns. Despite this, defendant has insisted on maintaining
8
incomplete and evasive responses which violate discovery rules. Plaintiff requests this court compel
9
defendant to fully and properly respond to the above disputed interrogatories without further delay.
10
Due to motion practice which has thus far required upwards of 5 months and counting to resolve,
11
defendant has had the benefit of lengthy delays in providing responses to plaintiff’s discovery responses.
12
With less than 3 months remaining before the discovery cutoff, time is of the essence to ensure plaintiff
13
is not further prejudiced than he already has been in this action.
14
Pursuant to Rule 37, plaintiff further seeks attorney fees in the amount of $2,000 in consideration
15
of 5 of the hours which plaintiff has spent meeting and conferring, preparing this motion and anticipates
16
spending attending the hearing on this motion. Finally, plaintiff requests whatever other sanctions this
17
court deems proper and just.
18
19
Respectfully submitted,
20
21
22 Dated: April __, 2008 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER
23
24 By:__________________________________________
Mark A. Wasser,
25 Attorney for Defendants
COUNTY OF KERN, PETER BRYAN, IRWIN
26 HARRIS, EUGENE KERCHER, JENNIFER
ABRAHAM, SCOTT RAGLAND,TONI SMITH,
27 AND WILLIAM ROY
28
JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO
INTERROGATORIES 10
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 16 of 16

1 Dated: April___, 2008 LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE


2
3 By:__________________________________________
Eugene D. Lee
4 Attorney for Plaintiff
DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO
INTERROGATORIES 11
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 1 of 130

1 Eugene D. Lee SB#: 236812


LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE
2 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100
Los Angeles, CA 90013
3 Phone: (213) 992-3299
Fax: (213) 596-0487
4 email: elee@LOEL.com
5 Attorneys for Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.
6 Mark A. Wasser CA SB #06160
LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER
7 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100
Sacramento, CA 95814
8 Phone: (916) 444-6400
Fax: (916) 444-6405
9 Email: mwasser@markwasser.com
10 Bernard C. Barmann, Sr.
KERN COUNTY COUNSEL
11 Mark Nations, Chief Deputy
1115 Truxton Avenue, Fourth Floor
12 Bakersfield, CA 93301
Phone: (661) 868-3800
13 Fax: (661) 868-3805
Email: mnations@co.kern.ca.us
14
Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern, Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher, Jennifer
15 Abraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smith, and William Roy.
16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
17 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
18 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG
19 Plaintiff, EXHIBITS TO JOINT STATEMENT re:
v. DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT re:
20 INTERROGATORIES
COUNTY OF KERN, et al.,
21 Date: April 28, 2008
Defendants. Time: 9:30 a.m.
22 Place: U.S. District Court, Bankruptcy Courtroom
1300 18th St., Bakersfield, CA
23
Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007
24 Date Set for Trial: December 3, 2008
25
26
27
28
EXHIBITS TO JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT
re: INTERROGATORIES 1
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 2 of 130

1
2 EXHIBIT 1: Plaintiff’s Interrogatories, Set One – served 1/2/08
3 EXHIBIT 2: Defendant’s Responses to Interrogatories – served 2/1/08
4 EXHIBIT 3: Defendant’s Supplemental Responses to Interrogatories – served 3/5/08
5 EXHIBIT 4: Meet and confer correspondence between the parties
6 EXHIBIT 5: Declaration of Eugene Lee in Support of Motion
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBITS TO JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT
re: INTERROGATORIES 2
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 3 of 130

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 EXHIBIT 1:
27 Plaintiff’s Interrogatories, Set One – served 1/2/08
28
EXHIBITS TO JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT
re: INTERROGATORIES 1
To: 213-596-0487 From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee Pg 1/26 01/02/08 3:58 pm

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 ELEE@LOEL.COM


Page 4 of 130
(213) 992-3299
TELEPHONE
LAW OFFICE OF EMAIL

E U G ENE L E E
(213) 596-0487 555 WEST FIFTH STREET SUITE 3100 WWW.LOEL.COM
FACSIMILE Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9001 3-1 01 0 WEBSITE

FAX
To: From: Law Office of Eugene Lee
Fax Number: 2135960487 Date: 01/02/2008
Pages: 26 (including cover page)
Re: Jadwin/KC: Interrogatories 1

Comments:

Mark:

Please see the attached.


To: 213-596-0487 From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee Pg 2/26 01/02/08 3:58 pm

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 5 of 130

1 Eugene D. Lee SB# 236812


LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE
2 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100
Los Angeles, California 90013
3 Telephone: (213) 992-3299
Facsimile: (213) 596-0487
4 Email: elee@LOEL.com
5 Joan Herrington, SB# 178988
BAY AREA EMPLOYMENT LAW OFFICE
6 5032 Woodminster Lane
Oakland, CA 94602-2614
7 Telephone: (510) 530-4078
Facsimile: (510) 530-4725
8 Email: jh@baelo.com
Of Counsel to LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE
9
Attorneys for Plaintiff
10 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.
11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13

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


15 Plaintiff, INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT
COUNTY OF KERN (SET ONE).
16 v.
Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007
17 COUNTY OF KERN; et aI. Date Set for Trial: December 3 , 2008
18 Defendants.
19

20
PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., F.C.A.P.
21
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant COUNTY OF KERN
22
SET NO.: One
23

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

INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT KERN COUNTY (SET ONE)


To: 213-596-0487 From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee Pg 3/26 01/02/08 3:58 pm

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 6 of 130

DEFINITIONS
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 plaintiff David F. Jadwin, D.O., F.C.A.P.

6 C. The term "DEFENDANT" means defendant County of Kern.

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

8 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 of DEFENDANT and/or any other PERSONS acting under the control of

12 DEFENDANT or on behalf of DEFENDANT.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


To: 213-596-0487 From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee Pg 4/26 01/02/08 3:58 pm

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 7 of 130

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

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

3 file and any attachments thereto and all files maintained by PERSONS employed by you.
4 r. The term "PATHOLOGY REPORT" as used herein is broadly defined to include all

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

13 reports.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

24 versa.
INSTRUCTIONS
25

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

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

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

INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT KERN COUNTY (SET ONE) 3


To: 213-596-0487 From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee Pg 5/26 01/02/08 3:58 pm

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 8 of 130

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 of Civil 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.

20 INTERROGATORY NO.3:
21 State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Fifth Affirmative Defense.
22 INTERROGATORY NO.4:

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

24 INTERROGATORY NO.5:
25 State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Seventh Affirmative Defense.

26 INTERROGATORY NO.6:

27 State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Eighth Affirmative Defense.
28 INTERROGATORY NO.7:

INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT KERN COUNTY (SET ONE) 4


To: 213-596-0487 From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee Pg 6/26 01/02/08 3:58 pm

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 9 of 130

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

3 IDENTIFY any and all ofthe following PERSONS whom YOU contend were not employees
4 while they worked at KMC at any time from October 24,2000 to the present; for each such PERSON,

5 state all facts on which you base YOUR contention:


6 a) Peter Bryan;
7 b) Irwin Harris;
8 c) Eugene Kercher;
9 d) Jennifer Abraham;
10 e) Scott Ragland;
11 f) Toni Smith;

12 g) William Roy;
13 h) Philip Dutt.
14 INTERROGATORY NO.9:
15 IDENTIFY any and all of YOUR current and former employees listed in the "WITNESSES"

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

17 2007.
18 INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
19 For each ofthe PERSONS YOU listed in the "WITNESSES" section (Section 1 and Appendix

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

21 September 13, 2007, state the following:


22 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.
28 INTERROGATORY NO. 11:

INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT KERN COUNTY (SET ONE) 5


To: 213-596-0487 From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee Pg 7/26 01/02/08 3:58 pm

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 10 of 130

1 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who are or were members of each ofthe following
2 committees at KMC from October 4, 2001 to the present, their roles on each such committee, and the

3 dates oftheir membership:


4 a) Medical Executive Committee

5 b) Joint Conference Committee


6 c) Quality Management Committee

7 d) Cancer Committee

8 e) Second Level Peer Review Committee


9 f) Transfusion Committee

1 0 9 ) Executive Staff Meetings


11 INTERROGATORY NO. 12:

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

14 a) Medical Executive Committee

15 b) Joint Conference Committee


16 c) Quality Management Committee

17 d) Cancer Committee
18 e) Second Level Peer Review Committee

19 f) Transfusion Committee

20 g) Executive Staff Meetings


21 INTERROGATORY NO. 13:
22 IDENTIFY all PERSONS to whom the Cancer Committee at KMC sent a DOCUMENT

23 requesting such PERSONS refrain from exceeding presentation time limits at the "ONCOLOGY
24 CONFERENCE" (as that term is used in the memo from Dr. Albert McBride to Dr. David Jadwin, dated

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

26 INTERROGATORY NO. 14:

27 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

INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT KERN COUNTY (SET ONE) 6


To: 213-596-0487 From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee Pg 8/26 01/02/08 3:58 pm

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 11 of 130

1 Complaint; state the claims each such PERSON investigated; and IDENTIFY any written reports
2 RELATING TO said investigations that each such PERSON produced, authored or otherwise

3 contributed to.
4 INTERROGATORY NO. 15:
5 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS whom YOU contend participated in any "PEER REVIEW"

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

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

8 PATHOLOGY REPORTS each such PERSON peer reviewed.


9 INTERROGATORY NO. 16:

10 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC other than
11 PLAINTIFF whom YOU removed or suspended from the position of Chair ofa Department at KMC

12 since October 4, 1996; state the date and any and all reasons for each and every such removal or
13 suspension; and describe the opportunities provided to such former or current employees to defend

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

15 suspensIOn.

16 INTERROGATORY NO. 17:

17 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who held the position of Acting Chair of a Department at
18 KMC since October 24, 1995; state the dates of their tenure in said position; and state any and all

19 reasons for the end oftheir tenure in said position.

20 INTERROGATORY NO. 18:


21 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS other than PLAINTIFF who took or were placed on
22 "PERSONAL NECESSITY LEAVE" (as that term is used in Rule 1202.20 ofthe Civil Service

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

24 of a Department at KMC since October 24, 1995; state any and all reasons for each such period of
25 PERSONAL NECESSITY LEAVE; and state the dates of each and every such period of PERSONAL

26 NECESSITY LEAVE.

27 INTERROGATORY NO. 19:


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

INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT KERN COUNTY (SET ONE) 7


To: 213-596-0487 From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee Pg 9/26 01/02/08 3:58 pm

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 12 of 130

1 PLAINTIFF who were not reinstated to their same position following a period of PERSONAL
2 NECESSITY LEAVE taken since October 24, 1995; state any and all reasons for each such non-

3 reinstatement.
4 INTERROGATORY NO. 20:

5 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC who were
6 demoted during the pendency of, or within one month after their return to work from, a period of

7 PERSONAL NECESSITY LEAVE taken since October 24,2005.

8 INTERROGATORY NO. 21:


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

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

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

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

14 INTERROGATORY NO. 22:

15 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC other than
16 PLAINTIFF who were not reinstated to their same position following a period of SICK LEAVE since

17 October 24, 1995.


18 INTERROGATORY NO. 23:

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

20 demoted during the pendency of, or within one month after their return to work from, a period of SICK
21 LEAVE since October 24, 1995.
22 INTERROGATORY NO. 24:

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

24 PLAINTIFF who took leave pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act or California Family Rights
25 Act since October 24, 1995; and state the dates of each and every such period of leave.

26 INTERROGATORY NO. 25:

27 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC other than
28 PLAINTIFF who were not reinstated to their same position following a period of leave taken pursuant to

INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT KERN COUNTY (SET ONE) 8


To: 213-596-0487 From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee Pg 10/26 01/02/08 3:58 pm

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 13 of 130

1 the Family and Medical Leave Act or California Family Rights Act since October 24, 1995.
2 INTERROGATORY NO. 26:

3 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC who were
4 demoted during the pendency of or within one month after their return to work from a period of leave

5 taken pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act or California Family Rights Act since October 24,
6 1995.

7 INTERROGATORY NO. 27:

8 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC other than
9 PLAINTIFF who took or were placed on "ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE" (as that term is used in David

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

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

12 state the dates of each and every such period of ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE; state whether each such
13 period of ADMINSTRATIVE LEAVE was paid or unpaid; and state any and all reasons for each such

14 period of ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE.

15 INTERROGATORY NO. 28:


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

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

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

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

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

21 INTERROGATORY NO. 29:


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

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

24 five years during the period from October 24,2000 to November 16,2006.
25 INTERROGATORY NO. 30:

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

27 employment contract was extended or renewed for a contract term offive or more years during the
28 period from October 24,2000 to November 16,2006.

INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT KERN COUNTY (SET ONE) 9


To: 213-596-0487 From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee Pg 11/2601/02/08 3:58 pm

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 14 of 130

1 INTERROGATORY NO. 31:


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

3 at KMC after October 24, 2000 other than PLAINTIFF whose job description or employment contract
4 contained a provision requiring him or her to be responsible for providing onsite shift coverage during

5 specifically stated hours, unless otherwise assigned or excused by the department chairman.
6 INTERROGATORY NO. 32:

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

8 at KMC after October 24, 2000 other than PLAINTIFF whose job description or employment contract
9 contained a provision requiring him or her to carry a pager when on call and respond to KMC within a

10 specific number minutes of being called.


11 INTERROGATORY NO. 33:

12 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who worked as a staff pathologist at KMC after October 24,
13 2000 other than PLAINTIFF whose job description or employment contract contained a provision

14 requiring him or her to perform according to productivity standards set by the department chairman, but
15 at no time read out and report less than an average of a specified number cases per day, for "County

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

17 17000 et seq., and adult inmates and juvenile detainees in custody in County-owned or operated
18 detention facilities) undercompensated and uninsured patients.

19 INTERROGATORY NO. 34:

20 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to solicit and/or collect
21 "LETTERS OF DISSATISFACTION" (as that term is used in the letter from Drs. Eugene Kercher,

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

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

24 INTERROGATORY NO. 35:


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

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

27 the date that decision was made.


28 INTERROGATORY NO. 36:

INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT KERN COUNTY (SET ONE) 10


To: 213-596-0487 From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee Pg 12/26 01/02/08 3:58 pm

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 15 of 130

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.


4 INTERROGATORY NO. 37:

5 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to recommend removal of
6 PLAINTIFF from his position as Chair of Pathology at KMC in 2006; and state the date that decision

7 was made.

8 INTERROGATORY NO. 38:


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

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

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

12 INTERROGATORY NO. 39:


13 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to recommend reduction
14 of PLAINTIFF's base salary in 2006; and state the date that decision was made.

15 INTERROGATORY NO. 40:


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

17 of PLAINTIFF's base salary in 2006.

18 INTERROGATORY NO. 41:


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

20 salary in 2006; and state all factual bases on which YOU relied in support thereof.
21 INTERROGATORY NO. 42:
22 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to place PLAINTIFF on

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

24 INTERROGATORY NO. 43:


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

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

27 Wasser, DEFENDANT'S counsel [DFJ7101]); and state the date that decision was made.
28 INTERROGATORY NO. 44:

INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT KERN COUNTY (SET ONE) 11


To: 213-596-0487 From: Law Office
OFFice of Eugene Lee Pg 13/26 01/02/08 3:58 pm

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 16 of 130

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 of May 1, 2007 from Mark Wasser, DEFENDANT'S
1,2007

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


counsel [DFJ01482]);
4 INTERROGATORY NO. 45:

5 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision not to renew
6 PLAINTIFF's employment contract with YOU; and state the date that decision was made.

7 INTERROGATORY NO. 46:

8 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

lOin detail the factual bases for each such asserted privilege.
11 INTERROGATORY NO. 47:

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

14 detail the factual bases for each such asserted privilege.

15 INTERROGATORY NO. 48:

16 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 Date: January 2, 2008

19

20
QgeneD. Lee
21 LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE
555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100
22 Los Angeles, California 90013
Telephone: (213) 992-3299
23 Facsimile: (213) 596-0487
Email: elee@LOEL.com
24 Attorneys for Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.
25

26

27

28

INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT KERN COUNTY (SET ONE) 12


To: 213-596-0487 From: Law Office
OFFice of Eugene Lee Pg 14/26 01/02/08 3:58 pm

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 17 of 130

1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2
I, the undersigned, hereby declare:
3
I am a resident of Los Angeles in the State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party
4 to the action described herein. I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, California. My business
address is LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE, 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100, Los Angeles, CA
5 90013. On the date of execution ofthis DOCUMENT, I served the following:
6 INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT COUNTY OF KERN (SET ONE).
7 on the following parties in this action by and through their attorneys addressed as follows:
8 Mark A. Wasser
LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER
9 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100
Sacramento, CA 95814
10 Fax: (916) 444-6405
11 Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern, Peter
Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher, Jennifer
12 Abraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smith and
William Roy
13

14 ~
[2J BY UNITED STATES MAIL: I enclosed the DOCUMENT(s) listed above in a sealed envelope
with postage thereon fully prepaid, addressed to the PERSON(s) listed above, and deposited the sealed
15 envelope with the United States Postal Service at Los Angeles, California. I am aware that on motion of
the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more
16 than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
17 ~
[2J BY FACSIMILE: I transmitted via facsimile the DOCUMENT(s) listed above to the fax
number(s) set forth above on this date before 5:00 p.rn.
p.m. The outgoing facsimile machine telephone
18 number in this office is (213) 596-0487. The facsimile service used in this office creates a transmission
report for each outgoing facsimile transmitted. A copy ofthe transmission report(s) for the service of
19 this DOCUMENT, properly issued by the facsimile service that transmitted this DOCUMENT and
showing that such transmission was (transmissions were) completed without error, is attached hereto.
20
~
[2J FEDERAL: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe United States of America
21 that the above is true and correct and that I took said actions at the direction of a licensed attorney
authorized to practice before this Federal Court.
22
Executed on January 2, 2008, at Los Angeles, California.
23

24
-A~
25 ~ V0}':U
\ Eugene D. Lee
26

27

28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 18 of 130

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 EXHIBIT 2:
27 Defendant’s Responses to Interrogatories – served 2/1/08
28
EXHIBITS TO JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT
re: INTERROGATORIES 2
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 19 of 130
Eugene D. Lee
From: Mark Wasser [mwasser@markwasser.com]
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 5:28 PM
To: Eugene Lee
Subject: Response to Plaintiffs Interrogatories 1.16.08
Attachments: Response to Plaintiffs Interrogatories 1.16.08.doc

Gene,

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

Mark

1
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 20 of 130

1 Mark A. Wasser CA SB #60160


LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER
2 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100
Sacramento, CA 95814
3 Phone: (916) 444-6400
Fax: (916) 444-6405
4 E-mail: mwasser@markwasser.com
5 Bernard C. Barmann, Sr.
KERN COUNTY COUNSEL
6 Mark Nations, Chief Deputy
1115 Truxtun Avenue, Fourth Floor
7 Bakersfield, CA 93301
Phone: (661) 868-3800
8 Fax: (661) 868-3805
E-mail: mnations@co.kern.ca.us
9
10 Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern,
Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher,
11 Jennifer Abraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smith
and William Roy
12
13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
14 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
15
16 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O. ) Case No.: 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
)
17 Plaintiff, ) DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO
) PLAINTIFF’S INTEROGATORIES (SET
18 vs. ) ONE)
)
19 COUNTY OF KERN, et al., ) Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007
) Trial Date: August 26, 2008
20 Defendants. )
)
21 )
)
22 )
)
23 )
24 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., F.C.A.P.
25 RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant COUNTY OF KERN
26 SET NUMBER: ONE (1)
27
28

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES


Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 21 of 130

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


2 Plaintiff David F. Jadwin’s Interrogatories, Set One.
3 INTERROGATORY NO. 1
4 State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Third Affirmative Defense.
5 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1
6 The Third Affirmative Defense is a legal defense. Defendants object to it to the extent it
7 seeks information protected under the attorney/client privilege and attorney work product
8 privilege.
9 INTERROGATORY NO. 2
10 State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Fourth Affirmative Defense.
11 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2
12 The Fourth Affirmative Defense is a legal defense. Defendants object to it to the extent it
13 seeks information protected under the attorney/client privilege and attorney work product
14 privilege.
15 INTERROGATORY NO. 3
16 State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Fifth Affirmative Defense.

17 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

27 INTERROGATORY NO. 4

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

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES


Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 22 of 130

1 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4


2 The Sixth Affirmative Defense is a legal defense. Defendants object to it to the extent it
3 seeks information protected under the attorney/client privilege and attorney work product
4 privilege.
5 INTERROGATORY NO. 5
6 State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Seventh Affirmative
7 Defense.
8 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5
9 The Seventh Affirmative Defense is a legal defense. Defendants object to it to the extent
10 it seeks information protected under the attorney/client privilege and attorney work product
11 privilege.
12 INTERROGATORY NO. 6
13 State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Eighth Affirmative Defense.
14 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6
15 The Eighth Third Affirmative Defense is a legal defense. Defendants object to it to the
16 extent it seeks information protected under the attorney/client privilege and attorney work
17 product privilege.
18 INTERROGATORY NO. 7
19 State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Ninth Affirmative Defense.
20 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7
21 The Ninth Affirmative Defense is a legal defense. Defendants object to it to the extent it
22 seeks information protected under the attorney/client privilege and attorney work product

23 privilege.

24 INTERROGATORY NO. 8

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

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

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

28 a) Peter Bryan;

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES


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

1 b) Irwin Harris;
2 c) Eugene Kercher;
3 d) Jennifer Abraham;
4 e) Scott Ragland;
5 f) Toni Smith;
6 g) William Roy;
7 h) Philip Dutt.
8 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8
9 William Roy was an independent contractor who served under contract from about
10 September 1, 2005 to about March 30, 2007.
11 INTERROGATORY NO. 9
12 IDENTIFY any and all of YOUR current and former employees listed in the
13 “WITNESSES” section (Section 1 and Appendix 1) of PLAINTIFF’s FRCP Rule 26 Initial
14 Disclosures, dated August 6, 2007.
15 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9
16 Leonard Perez, Adam Lang, Elsa Ang, Fangluo Liu, Savita Shertukde, Gilbert Martinez,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

25 Rini, Carol Gates and Denise Long.

26
27
28

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES


Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 24 of 130

1 INTERROGATORY NO. 10
2 For each of the PERSONS YOU listed in the “WITNESSES” section (Section 1 and
3 Appendix 1) of YOUR FRCP Rule 26 “Supplement to Defendants’ Rule 26(a)(1) Initial
4 Disclosures”, dated September 13, 2007, state the following:
5 a) Whether each PERSON is YOUR current employees or former employees, and if
6 so, their dates of employment and job titles;
7 b) For each PERSON who is YOUR former employees, the date and reason for their
8 separation from employment;
9 c) For each PERSON who is YOUR former employees, whether the employee
10 resigned, abandoned his job, was laid off, or was otherwise terminated.
11 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10
12 Defendants object to this Interrogatory, to the extent it requests the dates of employment
13 of current and former employees, on the grounds it is burdensome and oppressive and is not
14 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES


Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 25 of 130

1 (former), Patricia Parada (current), Serena Sepulveda-Rini (former), Carol Gates (current) and
2 Denise Long (former).
3 Defendants object to the balance of this Interrogatory on the grounds it requests
4 confidential personnel information about employees or former employees that is protected under
5 California Evidence Code section 1040 and case authority. In some cases, it also requests
6 personal medical information that is protected from disclosure under HIPAA and Defendants
7 object on that ground, as well.
8 INTERROGATORY NO. 11
9 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who are or were members of each of the following
10 committees at KMC from October 4, 2001 to the present, their roles on each such committee,
11 and the dates of their membership:
12 a) Medical Executive Committee;
13 b) Joint Conference Committee
14 c) Quality Management Committee
15 d) Cancer Committee

16 e) Second Level Peer Review Committee

17 f) Transfusion Committee

18 g) Executive Staff Meetings

19 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11


20 a) Medical Executive Committee:

21 October 2001 – June 2002

22 Jose A. Perez, Jr., MD President

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

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

25 James Sproul, MD Member At Large

26 Augustine Munoz, MD Member At Large

27 Soheil Etesham, MD Chair, Department of Anesthesiology

28 Eugene Kercher, MD Chair, Department of Emergency Medicine

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES


Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 26 of 130

1 Parameswaran Aiylam, MD Division Chief, Pediatrics


2 Leonard Perez, MD Chair, Department of OB/GYN
3 David Jadwin, DO Chair, Department of Pathology
4 Tai Yoo, MD Chair, Department of Psychiatry
5 Javad Naderi, MD Chair, Department of Radiology
6 Jack Bloch, MD Chair, Department of Surgery
7 NON-VOTING MEMBERS
8 Peter Bryan Chief Executive Officer
9 Marvin Kolb, MD Chief Medical Officer
10 Toni Smith, RN Nursing Administrator
11 Holly Gallagher County Counsel
12 Vipul Dev, MD President, Resident Staff
13 A. Scott Ragland, DO Chair, Quality Management Committee
14 July 2002 – June 2003
15 Navin Amin, MD President, Chair, Department of Family Practice
16 Jennifer Abraham, MD President-Elect
17 Jose A. Perez, Jr., MD Past President
18 William Meyer, MD Member At Large
19 Augustine Munoz, MD Member At Large
20 Royce Johnson, MD Chair, Department of Medicine
21 Soheil Etesham, MD Chair, Department of Anesthesiology
22 Eugene Kercher, MD Chair, Department of Emergency Medicine
23 Parameswaran Aiylam, MD Division Chief, Pediatrics
24 Leonard Perez, MD Chair, Department of OB/GYN
25 David Jadwin, DO Chair, Department of Pathology
26 Tai Yoo, MD Chair, Department of Psychiatry
27 Javad Naderi, MD Chair, Department of Radiology
28 Maureen Martin, MD Chair, Department of Surgery

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES


Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 27 of 130

1 NON-VOTING MEMBERS
2 Peter Bryan Chief Executive Officer
3 Marvin Kolb, MD Chief Medical Officer
4 Toni Smith, RN Nursing Administrator
5 Karen Barnes County Counsel
6 John Ngoi Associate Director, Medical Education
7 Amit Shah, MD President, Resident Staff
8 A. Scott Ragland, DO Chair, Quality Management Committee
9 July 2003 – June 2004
10 Jennifer Abraham, MD President
11 Eugene Kercher, MD President-Elect, Chair, Deparmtent of Emergency Medicine
12 Navin Amin, MD Past President, Chair, Department of Family Practice
13 David Moore, MD Member At Large
14 James Sverchek, MD Member At Large
15 Royce Johnson, MD Chair, Department of Medicine
16 Soheil Etesham, MD Chair, Department of Anesthesiology
17 Parameswaran Aiylam, MD Division Chief, Pediatrics
18 Leonard Perez, MD Chair, Department of OB/GYN
19 David Jadwin, DO Chair, Department of Pathology
20 Tai Yoo, MD Chair, Department of Psychiatry
21 Javad Naderi, MD Chair, Department of Radiology
22 Maureen Martin, MD Chair, Department of Surgery
23 NON-VOTING MEMBERS
24 Peter Bryan Chief Executive Officer
25 Marvin Kolb, MD Chief Medical Officer
26 Toni Smith, RN Nursing Administrator
27 Karen Barnes County Counsel
28 Jose A. Perez, Jr., MD Director, Medical Education

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES


Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 28 of 130

1 John Ngoi Associate Director, Medical Education


2 Brian Penton, MD President, Resident Staff
3 A. Scott Ragland, DO Chair, Quality Management Committee
4 July 2004 – June 2006
5 Eugene Kercher, MD President, Chair, Deparmtent of Emergency Medicine
6 A. Scott Ragland, DO President-Elect
7 Jennifer Abraham, MD Past President
8 Navin Amin, MD Chair, Department of Family Practice
9 David Moore, MD Member At Large
10 James Sverchek, MD Member At Large
11 Royce Johnson, MD Chair, Department of Medicine
12 Soheil Etesham, MD Chair, Department of Anesthesiology
13 Parameswaran Aiylam, MD Division Chief, Pediatrics
14 Leonard Perez, MD Chair, Department of OB/GYN
15 David Jadwin, DO Chair, Department of Pathology
16 Tai Yoo, MD Chair, Department of Psychiatry
17 Javad Naderi, MD Chair, Department of Radiology
18 Maureen Martin, MD Chair, Department of Surgery
19 NON-VOTING MEMBERS
20 Peter Bryan Chief Executive Officer
21 Marvin Kolb, MD Chief Medical Officer (until 9/2004)
22 Irwin Harris, MD Chief Medical Officer (As of 7/2005)
23 Toni Smith, RN Nursing Administrator
24 David Hill Director of Ambulatory Care (As of 9/2004)
25 Karen Barnes County Counsel
26 Jose A. Perez, Jr., MD Director, Medical Education
27 John Ngoi Associate Director, Medical Education
28 Murali Naidu, MD President, Resident Staff

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES


Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 29 of 130

1 A. Scott Ragland, DO Chair, Quality Management Committee


2 July 2006 – December 2007
3 A. Scott Ragland, DO President
4 Eugene Kercher, MD Past President, Chair, Deparmtent of Emergency Medicine
5 Jose A. Perez, Jr., MD President-Elect (until 6/2007)
6 Jennifer Abraham, MD President-Elect (As of 8/2007)
7 Navin Amin, MD Chair, Department of Family Practice
8 Vasanthi Srinivas, MD Member At Large
9 E. William Taylor, MD Member At Large
10 Royce Johnson, MD Chair, Department of Medicine
11 Soheil Etesham, MD Chair, Department of Anesthesiology (until 6/2007)
12 Thomas Schares, MD Chair, Department of Anesthesiology (until 7/2007)
13 Parameswaran Aiylam, MD Division Chief, Pediatrics
14 Leonard Perez, MD Chair, Department of OB/GYN (until 8/2007)
15 Robert Wallace, MD Chair, Department of OB/GYN (As of 8/2007)
16 Philip Dutt, MD Chair, Department of Pathology (As of 8/2006)
17 Tai Yoo, MD Chair, Department of Psychiatry
18 Javad Naderi, MD Chair, Department of Radiology
19 Maureen Martin, MD Chair, Department of Surgery
20 NON-VOTING MEMBERS
21 Peter Bryan Chief Executive Officer (until 9/2006)
22 David Culberson Interim, Chief Executive Officer (9/2006-5/2007)
23 Paul Hensler Chief Executive Officer (As of 5/2007)
24 Irwin Harris, MD Chief Medical Officer (7/2005-9/2007)
25 Toni Smith, RN Nursing Administrator
26 David Hill Director of Ambulatory Care (9/2004-12/2006)
27 Karen Barnes County Counsel
28 John Ngoi Associate Director, Medical Education

10

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES


Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 30 of 130

1 Tony Hoang, MD Co-President, Resident Staff


2 Anthony Maldonado, MD Co-President, Resident Staff
3 A. Scott Ragland, DO Chair, Quality Management Committee
4 b) Joint Conference Committee:
5 October 2001-November 2007
6 Supervisor Barbara Patrick
7 Supervisor Ken Peterson
8 Peter Bryan, CEO
9 Marvin Kolb, MD, CMO
10 Toni Smith, RN
11 Jose A. Perez, Jr., MD
12 Navin Amin, MD
13 Royce Johnson, MD
14 Scotte E. Jones, CAO
15 Alberto Diaz, CFO
16 January 2002-October 2002
17 Supervisor Steve Perez
18 Supervisor Barbara Patrick
19 Peter Bryan, CEO
20 Marvin Kolb, MD, CMO
21 Toni Smith, RN
22 Jose A. Perez, Jr., MD
23 Navin Amin, MD
24 Jennifer Abraham, MD
25 Scott E. Jones, CAO
26 Alberto Diaz, CFO
27 January 2003-December 2003
28 Supervisor Pete Para

11

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES


Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 31 of 130

1 Supervisor Barbara Patrick


2 Peter Bryan, CEO
3 Marvin Kolb, MD, CMO
4 Toni Smith, RN
5 Jennifer Abraham, MD
6 Navin Amin, MD
7 Eugene Kercher, MD
8 Scott E. Jones, CAO
9 Albert Diaz, CFO
10 Michael Ewald, Dir. HR
11 January 2004-December 2004
12 Supervisor Jon McQuiston
13 Supervisor Ray Watson
14 Peter Bryan, CEO
15 Marvin Kolb, MD, CMO
16 Toni Smith, RN
17 Jennifer Abraham, MD
18 Navin Amin, MD
19 Eugene Kercher, MD
20 A. Scott Ragland, DO
21 Scott E. Jones, CAO
22 Alberto Diaz, CFO
23 Michael Ewald, Dir. Of HR
24 David Hill, Dir. Of Ambulatory Care
25 January 2005-December 2005
26 Supervisor Jon McQuiston
27 Supervisor Ray Watson
28 Peter Bryan, CEO

12

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES


Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 32 of 130

1 Irwin Harris, MD, CMO


2 Toni Smith, RN
3 Jennifer Abraham, MD
4 Eugene Kercher, MD
5 A. Scott Ragland, DO
6 Ron Errea, CAO
7 Tom Willman, CFO
8 Sandi Chester, Dir. Of HR
9 David Hill, Dir. Of Ambulatory Care
10 January 2006-December 2006
11 Supervisor Barbara Patrick
12 Supervisor Ray Watson
13 David Culberson, Internim CEO
14 Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
15 Toni Smith, RN
16 Jose A. Perez, Jr., MD
17 Eugene Kercher, MD
18 A. Scott Ragland, DO
19 Ron Errea, CAO
20 Kent Johnson, CFO
21 David Hill, Dir. Of Ambulatory Care

22 January 2007-December 2007


23 Supervisor Don Maben
24 Supervisor Ray Watson
25 Paul Hensler CEO
26 Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
27 Toni Smith, RN
28 Jose A. Perez, Jr., MD

13

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES


Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 33 of 130

1 Eugene Kercher, MD
2 A. Scott Ragland, DO
3 Ron Errea, CAO
4 Fred Plane, CFO
5 c) Quality Management Committee:
6 October 2001-November 2001
7 A. Scott Ragland, DO Chair, Medicine
8 Antonio Garcia, MD OB/GYN
9 David Jadwin, DO Pathology
10 Charles Brown, MD Surgery
11 Chester Lau, MD Radiology
12 Dianne McConnehey, RN Quality Management
13 Elaine Castroverde, MD Pediatrics
14 Marvin Kolb, MD Chief Medical Officer
15 J. Paul Miller, MD Family Practice
16 Sarojini Rajguru, MD Psychiatry
17 Thomas Purcell, MD Emergency Medicine
18 Toni Smith, RN Nursing Admintration
19 Ted Uchio, MD Anesthesiology
20 January 2002-November 2002
21 A. Scott Ragland, DO Chair, Medicine
22 Vasanthi Ramaswami, MD OB/GYN
23 David Jadwin, DO Pathology
24 Jack Bloch, MD Surgery
25 Charles Brown, MD Surgery
26 Chester Lau, MD Radiology
27 Dianne McConnehey, RN Quality Management
28 Elaine Castroverde, MD Pediatrics

14

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES


Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 34 of 130

1 Marvin Kolb, MD Chief Medical Officer


2 J. Paul Miller, MD Family Practice
3 Stephen Williams, MD Psychiatry
4 Thomas Purcell, MD Emergency Medicine
5 Toni Smith, RN Nursing Admintration
6 Ted Uchio, MD Anesthesiology
7 Richard Busch, MD Surgery
8 January 2003-November 2003
9 A. Scott Ragland, DO Chair, Medicine
10 Vasanthi Ramaswami, MD OB/GYN
11 David Jadwin, DO Pathology
12 Jack Bloch, MD Surgery
13 Chester Lau, MD Radiology
14 Dianne McConnehey, RN Quality Management
15 Elaine Castroverde, MD Pediatrics
16 Marvin Kolb, MD Chief Medical Officer
17 J. Paul Miller, MD Family Practice
18 David Lai, MD Psychiatry
19 Thomas Purcell, MD Emergency Medicine
20 Toni Smith, RN Nursing Admintration
21 Ted Uchio, MD Anesthesiology

22 January 2004-November 2004


23 A. Scott Ragland, DO Chair, Medicine
24 Vasanthi Srinivas (Ramaswami, MD)OB/GYN
25 David Jadwin, DO Pathology
26 Jack Bloch, MD Surgery
27 Chester Lau, MD Radiology
28 Dianne McConnehey, RN Quality Management

15

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES


Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 35 of 130

1 Elaine Castroverde, MD Pediatrics


2 Marvin Kolb, MD Chief Medical Officer
3 J. Paul Miller, MD Family Practice
4 David Lai, MD Psychiatry
5 Thomas Purcell, MD Emergency Medicine
6 Toni Smith, RN Nursing Admintration
7 Ted Uchio, MD Anesthesiology
8 January 2005-November 2005
9 J. Paul Miller, MD Chair, Family Practice
10 A. Scott Ragland, DO Medicine
11 Vasanthi Srinivas, MD OB/GYN
12 David Jadwin, DO Pathology
13 Jack Bloch, MD Surgery
14 Chester Lau, MD Radiology
15 Irwin Harris, MD Chief Medical Officer
16 Dianne McConnehey, RN Quality Management
17 Elaine Castroverde, MD Pediatrics
18 Marvin Kolb, MD Chief Medical Officer
19 David Lai, MD Psychiatry
20 Thomas Purcell, MD Emergency Medicine
21 Toni Smith, RN Nursing Admintration
22 Ted Uchio, MD Anesthesiology
23 January 2006-November 2006
24 J. Paul Miller, MD Chair, Family Practice
25 A. Scott Ragland, DO Medicine
26 Vasanthi Srinivas, MD OB/GYN
27 Philip Dutt, MD Pathology
28 Jack Bloch, MD Surgery

16

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES


Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 36 of 130

1 Bahram Raofi, MD Radiology


2 Irwin Harris, MD Chief Medical Officer
3 Dianne McConnehey, RN Quality Management
4 Elaine Castroverde, MD Pediatrics
5 Marvin Kolb, MD Chief Medical Officer
6 David Lai, MD Psychiatry
7 Thomas Purcell, MD Emergency Medicine
8 Toni Smith, RN Nursing Admintration
9 Ted Uchio, MD Anesthesiology
10 David Culberson Chief Executive Officer
11 David Hill Director, Ambulatory Care
12 Evelyn Elliott, Director, Pharmacy
13 Shirley Strickler, RN Manager, Med Surg/Telemetry
14 January 2007-November 2007
15 J. Paul Miller, MD Chair, Family Practice
16 A. Scott Ragland, DO Medicine
17 Vasanthi Srinivas, MD OB/GYN
18 Philip Dutt, MD Pathology
19 Jack Bloch, MD Surgery
20 Bahram Raofi, MD Radiology
21 Irwin Harris, MD Chief Medical Officer
22 Dianne McConnehey, RN Quality Management
23 Elaine Castroverde, MD Pediatrics
24 Marvin Kolb, MD Chief Medical Officer
25 David Lai, MD Psychiatry
26 Thomas Purcell, MD Emergency Medicine
27 Toni Smith, RN Nursing Admintration
28 Ted Uchio, MD Anesthesiology

17

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES


Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 37 of 130

1 Paul Hensler Chief Executive Officer


2 Evelyn Elliott, Director, Pharmacy
3 Shirley Strickler, RN Manager, Med Surg/Telemetry
4 d) Cancer Committee:
5 October 2001-December 2001
6 Ravi Patel, MD Chair, Oncology
7 David Kanamori, MD Co-Chair, Oncology
8 Ali Bazmi Oncology Pharmacy
9 Peter Bryan Chief Executive Officer
10 John Byfield, MD Radiation Oncology
11 Laura Heredia Cancer Registry
12 Annie Hollingsead, RN Quality Management
13 David Jadwin, DO Pathology
14 Bonnie Klein, MFCC Department of Medicine
15 Marvin Kolb, MD Chief Medical Director
16 Chester Lau, MD Radiology
17 Joseph Mansour, MD OB/GYN
18 Linda Marham, MSW Social Services
19 Albert McBride, MD Physician Liason/Surgery
20 Dianne McConnehey, RN Quality Management
21 Linda McMillan Medical Records
22 Ray Purcell, NP Medicine
23 Sergio Perticucci, MD Gynecology Oncology
24 Bonnie Quinonez, CTR Cancer Registrar
25 Angelina Reyes Medical Records
26 Toni Smith, RN Nursing Adminstration
27 Michael Wells, DO Radiology
28 March 2002-November 2002

18

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES


Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 38 of 130

1 Ravi Patel, MD Chair, Oncology


2 David Kanamori, MD Co-Chair, Oncology
3 Ali Bazmi Oncology Pharmacy
4 Peter Bryan Chief Executive Officer
5 John Byfield, MD Radiation Oncology
6 Laura Heredia Cancer Registry
7 David Jadwin, DO Pathology
8 Marvin Kolb, MD Chief Medical Director
9 Chester Lau, MD Radiology
10 Linda Marham, MSW Social Services
11 Albert McBride, MD Physician Liason/Surgery
12 Hope Donovan, RN Quality Management
13 Ray Purcell, NP Medicine
14 Sergio Perticucci, MD Gynecology Oncology
15 Bonnie Quinonez, CTR Cancer Registrar
16 Angelina Reyes Medical Records
17 Toni Smith, RN Nursing Adminstration
18 February 2003-December 2003
19 Ravi Patel, MD Chair, Oncology
20 David Kanamori, MD Co-Chair, Oncology
21 Shawn Abrishamy, MD Family Practice
22 Ali Bazmi Oncology Pharmacy
23 John Byfield, MD Radiation Oncology
24 Laura Heredia Cancer Registry
25 David Jadwin, DO Pathology
26 Marvin Kolb, MD Chief Medical Director
27 Chester Lau, MD Radiology
28 Linda Marham, MSW Social Services

19

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES


Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 39 of 130

1 Albert McBride, MD Physician Liason/Surgery


2 Maureen Martin, MD Surgery
3 Hope Donovan, RN Quality Management
4 Ray Purcell, NP Medicine
5 Sergio Perticucci, MD Gynecology Oncology
6 Bonnie Quinonez, CTR Cancer Registrar
7 Angelina Reyes Medical Records
8 Toni Smith, RN Nursing Adminstration
9 Abu Taher, MD Pediatric Oncology
10 Micheal Wells, MD Radiology
11 Kathryn VanMeter, NP Medicine
12 January 2004-November 2004
13 Ravi Patel, MD Chair, Oncology
14 David Kanamori, MD Co-Chair, Oncology
15 Ali Bazmi Oncology Pharmacy
16 John Byfield, MD Radiation Oncology
17 Chris Gambrioloi, MD Family Practice
18 Sandra Gordon, MD Medicine/Palliative Care
19 Mary Guerrero, RN Chemo/Oncology
20 Laura Heredia Cancer Registry
21 David Jadwin, DO Pathology
22 Marvin Kolb, MD Chief Medical Director
23 Chester Lau, MD Radiology
24 Linda Marham, MSW Social Services
25 Albert McBride, MD Physician Liason/Surgery
26 Maureen Martin, MD Surgery
27 Hope Donovan, RN Quality Management
28 Ray Purcell, NP Medicine

20

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES


Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 40 of 130

1 Sergio Perticucci, MD Gynecology Oncology


2 Bonnie Quinonez, CTR Cancer Registrar
3 Angelina Reyes Medical Records
4 Toni Smith, RN Nursing Adminstration
5 Abu Taher, MD Pediatric Oncology
6 Kara Shaw, RN Chemo Nurse
7 Kathryn VanMeter, NP Medicine
8 January 2005-December 2005
9 Ravi Patel, MD Chair, Oncology
10 Ali Bazmi Oncology Pharmacy
11 Philip Dutt, MD Pathology
12 Chris Gambrioloi, MD Family Practice
13 Mary Guerrero, RN Chemo/Oncology
14 Laura Heredia Cancer Registry
15 David Jadwin, DO Pathology
16 Irwin Harris, MD Chief Medical Director
17 Chester Lau, MD Radiology
18 Linda Marham, MSW Social Services
19 Albert McBride, MD Physician Liason/Surgery
20 Maureen Martin, MD Surgery
21 Hope Donovan, RN Quality Management
22 Ray Purcell, NP Medicine
23 Sergio Perticucci, MD Gynecology Oncology
24 Bonnie Quinonez, CTR Cancer Registrar
25 Angelina Reyes Medical Records
26 Bahram Raofi, MD Radiology
27 William Roy, MD Gynecology/Oncology
28 Toni Smith, RN Nursing Adminstration

21

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES


Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 41 of 130

1 Abu Taher, MD Pediatric Oncology


2 Kevin Taubman, MD Surgery
3 Kathryn VanMeter, NP Medicine
4 January 2006-December 2006
5 Ravi Patel, MD Chair, Oncology
6 Ali Bazmi Oncology Pharmacy
7 Patsy Bradshaw, CTR Cancer Registrar
8 David Culberson Chief Executive Officer
9 Ajay Desai, MD Radiation Oncology
10 Hope Donovan, RN Quality Management
11 Philip Dutt, MD Pathology
12 Irwin Harris, MD Chief Medical Officer
13 Royce Johnson, MD Medicine
14 Linda Markham, MSW Social Services
15 Maureen Martin, MD Surgery
16 Albert McBride, MD Physician Liason/Surgery
17 Javad Naderi, MD Radiology
18 Jemi Olak, MD Surgery
19 Laura Quinonez, CTR Cancer Registrar
20 William Roy, MD Gynecology/Oncology
21 Toni Smith, RN Nursing Adminstration
22 Abu Taher, MD Pediatric Oncology
23 Kathryn VanMeter, RN Medicine
24 January 2007-November 2007
25 Ravi Patel, MD Chair, Oncology
26 Ali Bazmi Oncology Pharmacy
27 Patsy Bradshaw, CTR Cancer Registrar
28 Socorro Carrillo ACS Program Coordinator

22

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES


Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 42 of 130

1 Paul Hensler Chief Executive Officer


2 Ajay Desai, MD Radiation Oncology
3 Michelle Langston, RN Quality Management
4 Philip Dutt, MD Pathology
5 Irwin Harris, MD Chief Medical Officer
6 Royce Johnson, MD Medicine
7 Linda Markham, MSW Social Services
8 Maureen Martin, MD Surgery
9 Albert McBride, MD Physician Liason/Surgery
10 Javad Naderi, MD Radiology
11 Jemi Olak, MD Surgery
12 Laura Quinonez, CTR Cancer Registrar
13 William Roy, MD Gynecology/Oncology
14 Kara Shaw, RN Chemo/Onc
15 Toni Smith, RN Nursing Adminstration
16 Abu Taher, MD Pediatric Oncology
17 Kathryn VanMeter, RN Medicine
18 e) Second Level Peer Review Committee:
19 October 2001 – Present
20 Thomas Purcell, MD, Chair
21 Navin Amin, MD
22 Jack Bloch, MD
23 Dianne McConnehey, RN, Manager, Quality Management
24 Marvin Kolb, MD (Until 9/2004)
25 Irwin Harris, MD (7/2005-9/2007)
26 f) Transfusion Committee:
27 October 2001
28

23

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES


Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 43 of 130

1 Adam Lang, MD Chair, Pathology


2 David Jadwin, DO Pathology
3 Gilbert Martinez Lab Designee
4 Michelle Burris Lab Manager/Blood Bank
5 AD-HOC COMMITTEE MEMBERS
6 Rick McPheeters, DO Emergency Medicine
7 Charles Brown, MD Surgery
8 Vasanthi Ramaswami, MD OB/GYN
9 David Kanamori, MD Medicine
10 Marvin Kolb, MD CMO
11 Steve Watson Respiratory Therapy Manager
12 Lon Lancaster Respiratory Therapy
13 January 2002-August 2002
14 Adam Lang, MD Chair, Pathology
15 David Jadwin, DO Pathology
16 Gilbert Martinez Lab Designee
17 Michelle Burris Lab Manager/Blood Bank
18 Alice Hevle Quality Management
19 Dianne McConnehey Manager, Quality Management
20 Steve Watson Respiratory Therapy Manager
21 February 2003-December 2003
22 February 21, 2003
23 Dr. Jadwin, Chair
24 Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor
25 March 19, 2003
26 Dr. Jadwin, Chair
27 Dr. Lang, Pathologist
28 Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor

24

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES


Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 44 of 130

1 Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager


2 April 23, 2003
3 Dr. Lang, Pathologist
4 Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor
5 Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager.
6 Don Bull, Pulmonary Services (provides cell saver data)
7 Dr. Jadwin, Chair (absent)
8 May 29, 2003
9 Dr. Jadwin, Chair
10 Dr. Lang, Pathologist
11 Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager
12 Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor
13 Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC
14 June 17, 2003
15 Dr. Jadwin, Chair
16 Dr. Lang, Pathologist
17 Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager
18 Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor
19 Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC
20 Lonnie Lancaster, Pulmonary Services (provides cell saver data)
21 October 21, 2003
22 Dr. Jadwin, Chair
23 Dr. Lang, Pathologist
24 Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor
25 Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager
26 Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC
27 Toni Smith, RN
28

25

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES


Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 45 of 130

1 December 16, 2003


2 Dr. Jadwin, Chair
3 Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor
4 Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager
5 Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC
6 February 2003-December 2003
7 February 21, 2003
8 Dr. Jadwin, Chair
9 Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor
10 March 19, 2003
11 Dr. Jadwin, Chair
12 Dr. Lang, Pathologist
13 Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor
14 Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager
15 April 23, 2003
16 Dr. Lang, Pathologist
17 Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor
18 Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager.
19 Don Bull, Pulmonary Services (provides cell saver data)
20 Dr. Jadwin, Chair (absent)
21 May 29, 2003
22 Dr. Jadwin, Chair
23 Dr. Lang, Pathologist
24 Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager
25 Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor
26 Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC
27 June 17, 2003
28 Dr. Jadwin, Chair

26

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES


Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 46 of 130

1 Dr. Lang, Pathologist


2 Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager
3 Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor
4 Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC
5 Lonnie Lancaster, Pulmonary Services (provides cell saver data)
6 October 21, 2003
7 Dr. Jadwin, Chair
8 Dr. Lang, Pathologist
9 Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor
10 Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager
11 Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC
12 Toni Smith, RN
13 December 16, 2003
14 Dr. Jadwin, Chair
15 Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor
16 Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager
17 Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC
18 January 2006-December 2006
19 January 31, 2006
20 Dr. Dutt, Pathologist
21 Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor
22 Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager
23 February 21, 2006
24 Dr. Jadwin, Chair
25 Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor
26 Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager
27 March 28, 2006
28 Dr. Dutt, Pathologist

27

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES


Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 47 of 130

1 Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor


2 Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC
3 April 18, 2006
4 Dr. Dutt, Pathologist
5 Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor
6 Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC
7 May 9, 2006
8 Dr. Dutt, Pathologist
9 Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor
10 Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager
11 Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC
12 June 20, 2006
13 Dr. Dutt, Pathologist
14 Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor
15 Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager
16 Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC
17 September 13, 2006
18 Dr. Dutt, Chair
19 Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor
20 Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager
21 September 27, 2006
22 Dr. Dutt, Chair
23 Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor
24 Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC
25 October 18, 2006
26 Dr. Dutt, Chair
27 Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor
28 Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager

28

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES


Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 48 of 130

1 November 1, 2006
2 Dr. Dutt, Chair
3 Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor
4 Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager
5 Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC
6 December 12, 2006
7 Dr. Dutt, Chair
8 Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor
9 Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC
10 Diane McConnehey, QRC
11 January 2007-April 2007
12 February 2, 2007
13 Dr. Ragland, Chair (absent)
14 Dr. Dutt, Pathology
15 Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor
16 Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC (absent)
17 Diane McConnehey, QRC (absent)
18 Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager (absent)
19 March 15, 2007
20 Dr. Ragland, Chair (absent)
21 Dr. Dutt, Pathology
22 Dr. Sorensen, Surgery
23 Dr. Dong, Emergency Medicine
24 Diane McConnehey, QRC
25 Gilbert Martinez, Laboratory Manager
26 Michele Burris, Blood Bank Supervisor
27 Dr. Taher, Pediatrics (absent)
28 Dr. Lascano, OB-GYN (absent)

29

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES


Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 49 of 130

1 Alice Hevle, Analyst, QRC (absent)


2 g) Executive Staff Meetings:
3 February 9, 2005
4 Peter Bryan, CEO
5 Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
6 David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
7 Tom Willman, Special Projects Manager
8 Michael Ewald, Dir., HR
9 March 2, 2005
10 Peter Bryan, CEO
11 Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
12 David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
13 Tom Willman, Special Projects Manager
14 Michael Ewald, Dir., HR
15 March 9, 2005
16 Peter Bryan, CEO
17 Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
18 David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
19 Tom Willman, Special Projects Manager
20 Michael Ewald, Dir., HR
21 March 30, 2005
22 Peter Bryan, CEO
23 Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
24 David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
25 Tom Willman, Special Projects Manager
26 Michael Ewald, Dir., HR
27 April 6, 2005
28 Peter Bryan, CEO

30

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES


Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 50 of 130

1 Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive


2 David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
3 Tom Willman, Special Projects Manager
4 Michael Ewald, Dir., HR
5 April 13, 2005
6 Peter Bryan, CEO
7 Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
8 David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
9 Tom Willman, Special Projects Manager
10 Michael Ewald, Dir., HR
11 April 20, 2005
12 Peter Bryan, CEO
13 Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
14 David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
15 Tom Willman, Special Projects Manager
16 Michael Ewald, Dir., HR
17 April 27, 2005
18 Peter Bryan, CEO
19 Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
20 David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
21 Tom Willman, Special Projects Manager
22 Michael Ewald, Dir., HR
23 May 4, 2005
24 Peter Bryan, CEO
25 David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
26 Tom Willman, CFO
27 Michael Ewald, Dir., HR
28 May 11, 2005

31

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES


Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 51 of 130

1 Peter Bryan, CEO


2 Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
3 David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
4 Tom Willman, CFO
5 Michael Ewald, Dir., HR
6 May 18, 2005
7 Peter Bryan, CEO
8 Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
9 Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
10 David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
11 Tom Willman, CFO
12 Michael Ewald, Dir., HR
13 Linda Nipper, Interim, Dir., HR
14 June 1, 2005
15 Peter Bryan, CEO
16 Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
17 Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
18 David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
19 Tom Willman, CFO
20 Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR
21 June 15, 2005
22 Peter Bryan, CEO
23 Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
24 Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
25 David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
26 Tom Willman, CFO
27 Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR
28 July 13, 2005

32

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES


Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 52 of 130

1 Irwin Harris, MD, CMO


2 Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
3 Tom Willman, CFO
4 Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR
5 July 25, 2005
6 Peter Bryan, CEO
7 Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
8 Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
9 David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
10 Tom Willman, CFO
11 Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR
12 August 3, 2005
13 Peter Bryan, CEO
14 Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
15 Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
16 David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
17 Tom Willman, CFO
18 Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR
19 August 10, 2005
20 Peter Bryan, CEO
21 Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
22 Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
23 David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
24 Tom Willman, CFO
25 Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR
26 August 17, 2005
27 Peter Bryan, CEO
28 Irwin Harris, MD, CMO

33

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES


Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 53 of 130

1 Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive


2 David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
3 Tom Willman, CFO
4 Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR
5 August 24, 2005
6 Peter Bryan, CEO
7 Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
8 Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
9 David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
10 Tom Willman, CFO
11 Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR
12 September 7, 2005
13 Peter Bryan, CEO
14 Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
15 Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
16 David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
17 Tom Willman, CFO
18 Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR
19 September 14, 2005
20 Peter Bryan, CEO
21 Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
22 Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
23 David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
24 Tom Willman, CFO
25 Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR
26 September 21, 2005
27 Peter Bryan, CEO
28 Irwin Harris, MD, CMO

34

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES


Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 54 of 130

1 Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive


2 David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
3 Tom Willman, CFO
4 Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR
5 September 28, 2005
6 Peter Bryan, CEO
7 Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
8 David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
9 Tom Willman, CFO
10 Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR
11 October 5, 2005
12 Peter Bryan, CEO
13 Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
14 Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
15 David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
16 Tom Willman, CFO
17 Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR
18 October 19, 2005
19 Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
20 Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
21 David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
22 Tom Willman, CFO
23 Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR
24 October 26, 2005
25 Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
26 Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
27 David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
28 Tom Willman, CFO

35

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES


Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 55 of 130

1 Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR


2 November 2, 2005
3 Peter Bryan, CEO
4 Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
5 Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
6 David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
7 Tom Willman, CFO
8 Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR
9 November 9, 2005
10 Peter Bryan, CEO
11 Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
12 Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
13 David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
14 Tom Willman, CFO
15 Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR
16 November 16, 2005
17 Peter Bryan, CEO
18 Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
19 Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
20 David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
21 Tom Willman, CFO
22 Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR
23 November 23, 2005
24 Peter Bryan, CEO
25 Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
26 Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
27 David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
28 Tom Willman, CFO

36

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES


Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 56 of 130

1 Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR


2 November 30, 2005
3 Peter Bryan, CEO
4 Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
5 Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
6 David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
7 Tom Willman, CFO
8 Linda Nipper, Interim Dir., HR
9 December 14, 2005
10 Peter Bryan, CEO
11 Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
12 Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
13 David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
14 Tom Willman, CFO
15 Sandra Chester, Dir., HR
16 December 21, 2005
17 Peter Bryan, CEO
18 Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
19 Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
20 David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
21 Tom Willman, CFO
22 December 29, 2005
23 Peter Bryan, CEO
24 Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
25 Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
26 David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
27 January 4, 2006
28 Peter Bryan, CEO

37

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES


Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 57 of 130

1 Irwin Harris, MD, CMO


2 Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
3 David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
4 Tom Willman, CFO
5 Sandra Chester, Dir. HR
6 January 11, 2006
7 Peter Bryan, CEO
8 Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
9 Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
10 David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
11 Tom Willman, CFO
12 February 1, 2006
13 Peter Bryan, CEO
14 Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
15 Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
16 David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
17 Tom Willman, CFO
18 Sandra Chester, Dir., HR
19 February 8, 2006
20 Peter Bryan, CEO
21 Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
22 David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
23 Tom Willman, CFO
24 Sandra Chester, Dir., HR
25 February 15, 2006
26 Peter Bryan, CEO
27 Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
28 Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive

38

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES


Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 58 of 130

1 David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care


2 Tom Willman, CFO
3 Sandra Chester, Dir., HR
4 February 22, 2006
5 Peter Bryan, CEO
6 Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
7 Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
8 David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
9 Tom Willman, CFO
10 Sandra Chester, Dir,. HR
11 March 1, 2006
12 Peter Bryan, CEO
13 Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
14 Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
15 David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
16 Tom Willman, CFO
17 Sandra Chester, Dir., HR
18 March 8, 2006
19 Peter Bryan, CEO
20 Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
21 David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
22 Tom Willman, CFO
23 Sandra Chester, Dir., HR
24 March 15, 2006
25 Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
26 Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
27 David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
28 Tom Willman, CFO

39

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES


Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 59 of 130

1 Sandra Chester, Dir., HR


2 March 22, 2006
3 Peter Bryan, CEO
4 Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
5 Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
6 David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
7 Sandra Chester, Dir., HR
8 April 5, 2006
9 Peter Bryan, CEO
10 Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
11 Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
12 David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
13 Sandra Chester, Dir., HR
14 April 6, 2006
15 Peter Bryan, CEO
16 Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
17 Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
18 David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
19 Sandra Chester, Dir., HR
20 April 12, 2006
21 Peter Bryan, CEO
22 Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
23 Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
24 David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
25 Sandra Chester, Dir., HR
26 April 19, 2006
27 Peter Bryan, CEO
28 Irwin Harris, MD, CMO

40

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES


Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 60 of 130

1 Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive


2 David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
3 Sandra Chester, Dir., HR
4 April 26, 2006
5 Peter Bryan, CEO
6 Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
7 Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
8 David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
9 Sandra Chester, Dir., HR
10 May 3, 2006
11 Peter Bryan, CEO
12 Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
13 Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
14 David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
15 Sandra Chester, Dir., HR
16 August 9, 2006
17 Peter Bryan, CEO
18 Irwin Harris, MD, CMO
19 Kent Johnson, CFO
20 Toni Smith, RN, Nurse Executive
21 David Hill, Director of Ambulatory Care
22 Sandra Chester, Dir., HR
23 INTERROGATORY NO. 12
24 State the dates, times and locations of each meeting held by the following committees
25 from October 4, 2001 to the present:
26 a) Medical Executive Committee
27 b) Joint Conference Committee
28 c) Quality Management Committee

41

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES


Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 61 of 130

1 d) Cancer Committee
2 e) Second Level Peer Review Committee
3 f) Transfusion Committee
4 g) Executive Staff Meetings
5 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12
6 MEDICAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
7 1ST Tuesday, monthly at 7:30 a.m. in room 3321
8 SECOND LEVEL PEER REVIEW
9 2ND Friday, monthly at 11:30 a.m. in the administrative conference room
10 CANCER COMMITTEE
11 1st Wednesday, quarterly at 7:30 a.m. in room 1437
12 QUALITY MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
13 4th Wednesday, monthly at 7:30 a.m. in room 1437
14 JOINT CONFERENCE COMMITTEE
15 2nd Monday, monthly at 10:00 a.m. in the administrative conference room
16 ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF MEETINGS
17 Every Wednesday at 9:00 a.m. in the administrative conference room
18 TRANSFUSION COMMITTEE
19 Meet monthly, different days. In 2003 met at 11:00 a.m. in room 1437
20 In 2004, met at 10:00 a.m or 11:00 a.m. in room 1437
21 In 2005, no record of any meetings
22 In 2006, met at 2:00 p.m. , once at 3:00 p.m. and once at 12:00 p.m. in room 1437
23 In 2007, met at 12:00 p.m. and 12:30 p.m. in room 1437
24 INTERROGATORY NO. 13
25 IDENTIFY all PERSONS to whom the Cancer Committee at KMC sent a DOCUMENT
26 requesting such PERSONS refrain from exceeding presentation time limits at the “ONCOLOGY
27 CONFERENCE” (as that term is used in the memo from Dr. Albert McBride to Dr. David
28 Jadwin, dated May 9, 2005 [DFJ381]) from October 4, 2001 to the present.

42

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES


Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 62 of 130

1 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13


2 We do not know the answer to this Interrogatory. The only such documents we know of
3 were sent to Plaintiff. There may be others but we have not found any.
4 INTERROGATORY NO. 14
5 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who conducted any investigations for or on YOUR
6 behalf into any aspect of PLAINTIFF’s claims against YOU that are alleged in the Second
7 Supplemental Complaint; state the claims that each such PERSON investigated; and IDENTIFY
8 any written reports RELATING TO said investigations that each such PERSON produced,
9 authored or otherwise contributed to.
10 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14
11 None.
12 INTERROGATORY NO. 15
13 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS whom YOU contend participated in any “PEER
14 REVIEW” (as that term is defined in the KMC Bylaws) of PLAINTIFF’s work from April 15,
15 2005 to the present, describe each such PERSON’s role in the PEER REVIEW, and IDENTIFY

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

17 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15

18 PEER REVIEW

19 Masukh Ghadiya, MD

20 MR#1152531 (S06-4619)

21 Mohammed Molla, MD

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

23 Mia Lagunda, MD

24 MR #1029588 (S06-5394)

25 William J. Colburn, MD

26 PATHOLOGY SLIDES/REPORT

27 Quality Assessment Review by William J. Colburn, MD

28 Kern Medical Center

43

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES


Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 63 of 130

1 Case # MR # Name # of Slides


2 S05-2186 1145729 WHEAT 63
3 S05-3265 679293 BURTON 93
4 S05-2176 1146515 MATHIS 73
5 S05-1066 1029137 THOMPSON 2
6 S05-1680 14
7 S05-7551 1146283 VOSS 32
8 S05381 1138812 UNRICH 6
9 S06-91 1100262 VILLAREAL 4
10 S05-812 1142312 KAUR, S. 4
11 S04-7471 1138692 MASSONI 2
12 S05-3286 870589 DAWSON 16
13 S05-2811 12
14 S05-1514 5
15
S06-728 800794 PERALES 32
16
S05-2246 1146465 MARTINEZ 36
17
S05-923 1128182 RODRIQUEZ 59
18
S05-592 1141122 KAUR, N. 35
19
S04-6857 633431 SPILLERS 37
20
S04-4674 1000548 KIRSCH 12
21
N04-222 3
22
S05-7114 1142693 CISNEROS 22
23
S05-1347 1135192 HOLSCHER 2
24
S06-981 1155514 SANCHEZ 38
25
N06-51 1
26
S06-757 1
27
28

44

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES


Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 64 of 130

1 S06-541 0871307 BORQUEZ 38


2 C04-28 1097368 CARPIO 0 Consult only,
3 slides sent back
4 (9)
5 Jonathan I. Epstein, MD
6 S06-4131
7 Parakrama T. Chandrasoma, MD
8 S06-3933
9 S05-123
10 S02-4614
11 INTERROGATORY NO. 16
12 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC other
13 than Plaintiff whom YOU removed or suspended from the position of Chair of a Department at
14 KMC since October 4, 1996; state the date and any and all reasons for each and every such
15 removal or suspension; and describe the opportunities provided to such former or current
16 employees to defend themselves, present evidence and/or cross-examine witnesses RELATING
17 TO their removal or suspension.
18 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 16
19 None.
20 INTERROGATORY NO. 17
21 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who held the position of Acting Chair of a
22 Department at KMC since October 24, 1995; state the dates of their tenure in said position; and
23 state any all reasons for the end of their tenure in said position.
24 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 17
25 Royce Johnson, Dept of Medicine, December 8, 1998 to Present; Leonard Perez, Dept of
26 OB/Gyn, August 31, 1996 to June 11, 2007, voluntary resignation; Robert Wallace, Dept of
27 OB/GYN, June 12, 2007 – Present; Phillip Dutt, Dept of Pathology, August 2006 – Present; Rick
28

45

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES


Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 65 of 130

1 McPheeters, Dept of Emergency Medicine, December 12, 2007 – Present; Elsa Ang, replaced by
2 Plaintiff.
3 INTERROGATORY NO. 18
4 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS other than PLAINTIFF who took or were placed on
5 “PERSONAL NECESSITY LEAVE” (as that term is used in Rule 1202.20 of the Civil Service
6 Commission Rules for the County of Kern) in excess of one month while holding the position of
7 Chair of a Department at KMC since October 24, 1995, state any all reasons for each such period
8 of PERSONAL NECESSITY LEAVE; and state the dates of each and every such period of
9 PERSONAL NECESSITY LEAVE.
10 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 18
11 None.
12 INTERROGATORY NO. 19
13 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC other
14 than PLAINTIFF who were not reinstated to their same position following a period of
15 PERSONAL NECESSITY LEAVE taken since October 24, 1995; state any and all reasons for
16 each such non-reinstatement.

17 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 19


18 None

19 INTERROGATORY NO. 20
20 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC who

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

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

23 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 20

24 None

25 INTERROGATORY NO. 21

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

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

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

46

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES


Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 66 of 130

1 Chair of a Department at KMC since October 24, 1995; and for each such PERSON state the
2 dates of each and every such period of SICK LEAVE.
3 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 21
4 None.
5 INTERROGATORY NO. 22
6 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC other
7 than PLAINTIFF who were not reinstated to their same position following a period of SICK
8 LEAVE since October 24, 1995.
9 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 22
10 None.
11 INTERROGATORY NO. 23
12 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC who
13 were demoted during the pendency of, or within one month after their return to work from, a
14 period SICK LEAVE since October 24, 1995.
15 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 23
16 Defendants object to this Interrogatory on the grounds it seeks confidential personnel and

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

18 section 1040 and HIPAA.

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

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

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

23 leave.

24 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 24

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

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

27 section 1040 and HIPAA.

28

47

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES


Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 67 of 130

1 INTERROGATORY NO. 25
2 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC other
3 than PLAINTIFF who were not reinstated to their same position following a period of leave
4 taken pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act or California Family Rights Act since
5 October 24, 1995.
6 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 25
7 To the extent this Interrogatory suggests or implies that Plaintiff was not reinstated to his
8 same position following a period of leave taken pursuant to the FMLA, Defendants object on the
9 grounds that the Interrogatory mistakes the evidence and is factually incorrect and misleading.
10 Defendants are, therefore, not able to respond further.
11 INTERROGATORY NO. 26
12 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC who
13 were demoted during the pendency of or within one month after their return to work from a
14 period of leave taken pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act or California Family Rights

15 Act since October 24, 1995.

16 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 26

17 None

18 INTERROGATORY NO. 27

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

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

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

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

23 1995; for each such PERSON state the dates of each and every such period of

24 ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE; state whether each such period of ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE

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

26 LEAVE.

27 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 27

28 Sheldon Freedman, 2000. 217 hours, paid

48

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES


Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 68 of 130

1 INTERROGATORY NO. 28
2 During the period from October 24, 2000 to the present, IDENTIFY any and all former
3 members of the “MEDICAL STAFF” at KMC (as the term is defined in the Bylaws of KMC)
4 other than PLAINTIFF who employment contract with YOU was not renewed or extended; state
5 whether the contract expired or was terminated; and state any and all reasons for non-renewal or
6 non-extension of each such contract.
7 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 28
8 Defendants object to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is burdensome and
9 oppressive and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
10 Defendants also object on the grounds it seeks confidential personnel and personal medical
11 information that is protected from disclosure by California Evidence Code section 1040 and
12 HIPAA. Without waiving these objections, Defendants state that members of the Medical Staff
13 have left KMC for almost every reason imaginable, including such reasons as moving to
14 Pakistan, lack of credentials, careers opportunities and undisclosed personal reasons. We do not
15 know the reasons in many, if not most cases.
16 INTERROGATORY NO. 29
17 IDENTIFY any and all of YOUR former or current members of the MEDICAL STAFF
18 other than PLAINTIFF whose employment contract was extended or renewed for a contract term
19 of less than five years during the period from October 24, 2000 to November 16, 2006.
20 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 29
21 None.

22 INTERROGATORY NO. 30
23 IDENTIFY any and all of YOUR former or current members of the MEDICAL STAFF

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

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

26 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 30

27 None.

28

49

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES


Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 69 of 130

1 INTERROGATORY NO. 31
2 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked as a staff
3 pathologist at KMC after October 24, 2000 other than PLAINTIFF whose job description or
4 employment contract contained a provision requiring him or her to be responsible for providing
5 onsite shift coverage during specifically stated hours, unless otherwise assigned or excused by
6 the department chairman.
7 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 31
8 Plaintiff issued rules for the Pathology Department that required this.
9 INTERROGATORY NO. 32
10 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked as a staff
11 pathologist at KMC after October 24, 2000 other than PLAINTIFF whose job description or
12 employment contract contained a provision requiring him or her to carry a pager when on call
13 and respond to KMC within a specific number minutes of being called.
14 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 32
15 Plaintiff issued rules for the Pathology Department that required this.

16 INTERROGATORY NO. 33
17 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who worked as a staff pathologist at KMC after

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

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

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

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

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

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

24 patients.

25 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 33

26 None.

27
28

50

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES


Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 70 of 130

1 INTERROGATORY NO. 34
2 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to solicit and/or
3 collect “LETTERS OF DISSATISFACTION” (as that term is used in the letter from Dr. Eugene
4 Kercher, Scott Ragland, Jennifer Abraham and Irwin Harris to PLAINTIFF, dated October 17,
5 2005 [DFJ588]) in or about October 12, 2005; and state the date that such decision was made.
6 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 34
7 None.
8 INTERROGATORY NO. 35
9 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the initial decision to place
10 LETTERS OF DISSATISFACTION in PLAINTIFF’S PERSONNEL FILE on or about October
11 17, 2005; and state the date that decision was made.
12 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 35
13 None.
14 INTERROGATORY NO. 36
15 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to convert

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

17 state the date that decision was made.

18 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 36

19 Peter Bryan and Plaintiff.

20 INTERROGATORY NO. 37

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

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

23 date that decision was made.

24 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 37

25 Peter Bryan.

26 INTERROGATORY NO. 38

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

28 each and every provision contained in the DOCUMENT entitled “Amendment No. 1 to

51

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES


Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 71 of 130

1 Agreement for Professional Services” [DFJ1416]; and state the date that each such decision was
2 made.
3 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 38
4 Peter Bryan, David Culberson, Karen Barnes, Eugene Lee, Kern County Board of
5 Supervisors. The decision was made on the date the amendment was approved by the Board of
6 Supervisors.
7 INTERROGATORY NO. 39
8 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to recommend
9 reduction of PLAINTIFF’S base salary in 2006; and state the date that decision was made.
10 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 39
11 Peter Bryan, David Culberson, Karen Barnes, Eugene Lee, Kern County Board of
12 Supervisors. The decision was made on the date the amendment was approved by the Board of
13 Supervisors.
14 INTERROGATORY NO. 40
15 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in calculating the amount of the
16 reduction of PLAINTIFF’S base salary in 2006.
17 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 40
18 David Culberson and Peter Bryan
19 INTERROGATORY NO. 41
20 State the manner in which YOU calculated the amount of the reduction of PLAINTIFF’S

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

22 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 41

23 The new salary was comparable to that of a core pathologist.

24 INTERROGATORY NO. 42

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

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

27 that decision was made.

28

52

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES


Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 72 of 130

1 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 42


2 David Culberson, Irwin Harris, Phil Dutt and counsel.
3 INTERROGATORY NO. 43
4 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to lift the
5 restriction on PLAINTIFF’S administrative leave (as that term is used in the letter of April 30,
6 2007 from Mark Wasser, DEFENDANT’S counsel [DFJ7101]); and state the date that decision
7 was made.
8 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 43
9 Mark Nations and Mark Wasser.
10 INTERROGATORY NO. 44
11 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to propose to
12 PLAINTIFF a “BUYOUT” (as that term is used in the email of May 1, 2007 from Mark Wasser,
13 DEFENDANT’S counsel [DFJ01482]); and state the date that decision was made.
14 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 44
15 It was a settlement offer communicated to Plaintiff’s counsel.
16 INTERROGATORY NO. 45
17 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision not to renew

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

19 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 45

20 None.

21 INTERROGATORY NO. 46

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

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

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

25 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 46

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

27 is privileged about the documents Plaintiff produced?

28

53

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES


Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 73 of 130

1 INTERROGATORY NO. 47
2 IDENTIFY each DOCUMENT or portion thereof contained in YOUR FRCP Rule 26
3 Initial Disclosures that YOU contend is privileged; state the nature of each privilege asserted;
4 and state in detail the factual bases for each such asserted privilege.
5 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 47
6 We do not understand this Interrogatory and are, consequently, unable to answer it. Are
7 you inquiring about our privilege log?
8 INTERROGATORY NO. 48
9 State each and every job function which YOU contend were the essential functions of
10 PLAINTIFF’S position as Chair of Pathology at KMC.
11 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 48
12 Medical Staff Bylaws and job description for the position.
13
14 Dated: February 1, 2008 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER
15
16 By: /s/ Mark A. Wasser
Mark A. Wasser
17 Attorney for Defendants, County of Kern, et al.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

54

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES


Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 74 of 130

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 EXHIBIT 3:
26 Defendant’s Supplemental Responses to Interrogatories – served 3/5/08
27
28
EXHIBITS TO JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT
re: INTERROGATORIES 3
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 75 of 130

11 Mark A. Wasser CA SB #60160


LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER
22 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100
Sacramento, CA 95814
33 Phone: (916) 444-6400
Fax: (916) 444-6405
44 E-mail: mwasser@markwasser.com
55 Bernard C. Barrnann, Sr.
KERN COUNTY COUNSEL
66 Mark Nations, Chief Deputy
1115 Truxtun Avenue, Fourth Floor
77 Bakersfield, CA 93301
Phone: (661) 868-3800
88 Fax: (661) 868-3805
E-mail: mnations@co.kern.ca.us
99

10
10 Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern,
Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher,
11
11 Jennifer Abraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smith
and William Roy
12
12
13
13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
14
14 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
15
15
16
16 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O. j Case No.: 1:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG
17
17 Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL
j RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S
18 vs. INTEROGATORIES (SET ONE)
18
j
19
19 COUNTY OF KERN, et aI., ) Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007
Trial Date: August 26, 2008
20
20 Defendants. j
21
21 ~)
22
22 )
)
23
23 -- - - - - - - - - - - - )
-
24
24 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., F.C.A.P.
25
25 RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant COUNTY OF KERN
26
26 SET NUMBER: ONE (1) SUPPLEMENTAL
27
27
28
28
1
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES
TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 76 of 130

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


2 Interrogatories, Set One.

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

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

6 Disclosures", dated September 13,2007, state the following:

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

8 so, their dates of employment and job titles;

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

10 separation from employment;

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

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

13 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10

14 NAME JOB TITLE EMPLOYMENT DATE DATE OF EXPLANATION


STATUS OF HIRE SEPARATION
15 Leonard Chairman!O Former 8/11/90 1/17108 Terminated
16 Perez B-GYN
Adam Associatel Former 8129/85 11117/03 Personal
17 Lang Pathology
ElsaAng Associatel Former 712/79 5/11/02 Retired
18
Pathology
19 Fangluo Associatel Former 73/95 5120102 No record
Liu Pathology
20 Ellen Independent Never
21 Bunyi- Contractor employed
Teopengc
22 0
Savita Associatel Current 10/5/04
23 Shertukde Pathology
24 Gilbert Manager, Current 1/5/81
Martinez Clinical Lab
25 Services
Royce Chairman! Current 7115/75
26
Johnson Medicine
27 Irwin Medical Former 5/16/05 8/31/07 Resigned
Harris Director
28
2

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES


TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 77 of 130

11 NAME JOB TITLE EMPLOYMENT DATE DATE OF EXPLANATION


EXPLANATION
STATUS OF HIRE SEPARATION
2
Antionette
Antionette Hospital Current 9/3/96
33 Smith
Smith Nurse
Executive
44 David
David Interim Never
Culberson
Culberson Chief employed
55
Executive
66 Officer
Jane
Jane Supervising Current 8/21195
77 Thornton
Thornton Clinical Lab
88 Scientist
Kathy
Kathy Supervisor, Current 5/22/79
99 Griffith
Griffith Core
Lab/Client
10
10 Services
11
11 Juan
Juan Felix nla Never
employed
12
12 Bernard
Bernard County Current 112/75
Barmann
Barmann Counsel
13
13
Nitin
Nitin Associate/ Former 11112/01 9/30/03 Personal
14
14 Athavale
Athavale Radiology
Jennifer
Jennifer Associate/ Current 6/23/87
15
15 Abraham
Abraham Medicine
16
16 Eugene
Eugene Chief Current 12/1/87
Kercher
Kercher Medical
17
17 Officer
Scott
Scott Associate/ Current 6/23/89
18
18 Ragland
Ragland Medicine
19
19 Peter
Peter Chief Former 7/15/96 11110/06 Retired
Bryan
Bryan Executive
20
20 Officer
Edward
Edward Associate/ Current 6/23/87
21
21
Taylor
Taylor Surgery
22
22 Michele
Michele Supervising Current 3112/84
Burris
Burris Clinical Lab
23
23 Scientist
24 Javad
Javad Chairmanl Current 8/31/01
24
Naderi
Naderi Radiology
25
25 Maureen
Maureen Chairmanl Current 6/18/02
Martin
Martin Surgery
26
26
27
27
28
28
3

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES


TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 78 of 130

11 NAME JOB TlTLE EMPLOYMENT DATE DATE OF EXPLANATlON


EXPLANATlON
STATUS OFHlRE SEPARATlON
2
Navin
Navin Chairman! Current 9/4/79
33 Amin
Amin Family
Practice
44 Chester
Chester Associatel Former 8/31101 9126106 Other
Lau
Lau Radiology employment
55
Steve
Steve Human Current 7128180
66 O'Connor
O'Connor Resources
Director
77 Albert
Albert Associatel Current 10113/97
88 McBride
McBride Surgery
Alice
Alice Quality Current 4/15/91
99 Hevle
Hevle Management
Analvst
10
10 Philip
Philip Associatel Current 6/25/05
Dutt
Dutt Pathology
11
11
Karen
Karen Chief Current 10/22/01
12
12 Barnes
Barnes Deputy
County
13
13 Counsel
14
14 Ronald
Ronald County Current 8/22/88
Errera
Errera Administrative
15
15 Officer
Cindy
Cindy nla Never
16
16 Lighthill
Lighthill employed
17
17 Erin
Erin Resident Former No No record Completed
Baldwin
Baldwin record residency
18
18 training
Carol
Carol Office Current 1115/90
19
19 Gates
Gates Services
20
20 Specialist
Denise
Denise Office Current 11118/02
21
21 Long
Long Services
Specialist
22
22
23
23
INTERROGATORY NO. 15
INTERROGATORY
24
IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS whom YOU contend participated in any "PEER
25
25 REVIEW" (as that term is defined in the KMC Bylaws) of PLAINTIFF's work from April 15,
REVIEW"
26
26 2005 to the present, describe each such PERSON's role in the PEER REVIEW, and IDENTIFY
2005 IDENTIFY
27
27 the work and/or PATHOLOGY REPORTS each such PERSON peer reviewed.
the
28
4
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES
TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 79 of 130

11 SUPPLEMENTAL
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15
2 Masukh
Masukh Ghadiya, MD
Kern
Kern Medical Center
33 Department
Department of Family Practice
44 1830
1830 Flower Street
Bakersfield,
Bakersfield, California 93305
55
Mohammed
Mohammed Molla, MD
66 Kern
Kern Medical Center
Department
Department of Psychiatry
77 1830
1830 Flower Street
88 Bakersfield,
Bakersfield, California 93305

99 Mia
Mia Lagunda, MD
Sagebrush
Sagebrush Pediatric Care Center
10
10 1111
1111 Columbus Street, Suite 1100
Bakersfield,
Bakersfield, California 93305
11
11
William
William 1. Colburn, MD
12
12
Tarzana
Tarzana Regional Medical Center
13
13 Department of Anatomic Pathology
Department
18321 Clark Street
18321
14
14 Tarzana, California 91356
Tarzana,
15
15 Jonathan 1. Epstein, MD
Jonathan
The Johns Hopkins Hospital
The
16
16
Department of Pathology
Department
17
17 401 N
401 N Broadway
Weinberg Building, Rm 2242
Weinberg
18
18 Baltimore, Maryland 21231
Baltimore,
19
19 Parakrama T. Chandrasoma, MD
Parakrama
GNH2900
GNH2900
20
20
1200 North State Street
1200
21
21 Los Angeles, California 90033
Los

22
22 INTERROGATORY NO. 23
INTERROGATORY

23
23 IDENTIFY any and all PERSONS who currently work or formerly worked at KMC who
who

24
24 were demoted during the pendency of, or within one month after their return to work from, a
were

25
25 period SICK LEAVE since October 24, 1995.
period

26
26 SUUPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 23

27
27 Michael Ardis, Sara Diaz, Rosann Guadian, Linda Huggins and Rosanna Ruiz.

28
28
5

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES


TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 80 of 130

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

33 than
than PLAINTIFF who took leave pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act or California
44 Family
Family Rights Act since October 24, 1995; and state the dates of each and every such period of
55 leave.
leave.
66 SUPPLEMENTAL
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 24
77 NAME
NAME BEGIN LEAVE END LEAVE

88 Acosta,
Acosta, Cynthia 03/23/98 06/14/98

99 Acosta,
Acosta, Cynthia 04/05/01 05/21101

10
10 Acosta,
Acosta, Cynthia 11104/03 01/02/04

11
11 Acosta,
Acosta, Manuel 01105198 01117/98

12
12 Acosta, Manuel
Acosta, 09/22/03 10116103

13
13 Aguilar, Cynthia
Aguilar, 10/31105 11104/05

14
14 Aguilera, Elizabeth
Aguilera, 03/25/03 04/24/03

15
15 Aguirre, Mary
Aguirre, 03/15/00 05/01100

16
16 Aguirre, Mary
Aguirre, 09/16103 12110/03

17
17 Alaniz, Felipa
Alaniz, 03/08/05 03117105

18
18 Alaniz, Felipa
Alaniz, 01122/07 01131107

19
19 Alcala, Phillis
Alcala, 01129/04 03/08/04

20
20 Alcala, Phillis 06/24/04 11108104

21
21 Alfaro, Beverly
Alfaro, 09/17/06 10102/06

22
22 Alfaro, Beverly
Alfaro, 01119107 01129/07

23
23 Alire, Rosalina
Alire, 01126106 02/14/06

24
24 Alkhouri, George 01122/07 02/01107

25
25 Allen, Nonna
Allen, 01118/07 02/16107

26
26 Allen, Tracy
Allen, 08/06103 08121103

27
27 Allen, Tracy 08/30107 09/26107

28
28
6

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES


TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 81 of 130

1 Allen, Tracy 01/28/08

2 Amaya, Victoria 12/14/01 01/21/02

3 Amaya, Victoria 06/02/04 08/16/04

4 Amaya, Victoria 03/03/06 05/30/06

5 Ancheta, Kathleen 04/13/06 07/13/06

6 Araujo, Yolanda 01/13/04 01/24/04

7 Arguello-Rizo, Maria 12/23/97 02/03/98

8 Arguello-Rizo, Maria 09/13/03 11/18/03

9 Arguello-Rizo, Maria 06/12/06 09/06/06

10 AUclair, Barbara 10/02/03 12/26/03

11 Bakalar, Debra 03/13/07 03/24/07

12 Baldivia, Patricia 09/06/06 10/19/06

13 Baldivia, Patricia 12/16/06 12/31/06

14 Baldivia, Patricia 05/19/07 06/02/07

15 Baldivia, Patricia 06/28/07 07/12/07

16 Baldoz, Nancy 12/19/05 01/19/06

17 Baldoz, Vilma 06/18/00 07/05/00

18 Bareng, Mafe 01/08/07 02/02/07

19 Bazmi, Ali 03/19/06 03/27/06

20 Bazmi, Ali 04/10/06 04/17/06

21 Bernal, Angelica 02/27/07 04/28/07

22 Bernal, Angelica 01/09/08

23 Bickford, Lisa 10/08/06 01/02/07

24 Black, Shirley OS/25/05 11/11/05

25 Black, Shirley OS/26/06 OS/27/07

26 Blank, Rosearme 12/25/99 12/26/99

27 Blommers, Mercedes 11/03/00 11/25/00

28
7

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES


TO PLAlNTlFF'S lNTERROGATORIES
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 82 of 130

1 Boschini, Deborah 08/14/04 10/15/04

2 Bouldokian, Anne 09/07/01 11/21/01

3 Boxley, Sandra 03/09/01 03/27/01

4 Boxley, Sandra 08/16/01 09/09/01

5 Boyd, Susan 11/29/97 12/21/97

6 Boyd, Susan 09/17/07 12/21/97

7 Braswell, Debra 02/17/06 04/01/06

8 Braswell, Debra OS/20/06 OS/28/06

9 Braswell, Debra 06/24/06 07/01/06

10 Braswell, Debra 08/04/06 08/11/06

11 Braswell, Debra 08/19/06 08/26/06

12 Braswell, Debra 09/28/06 10/16/06

13 Broom, Serena 07/25/05 09/01/05

14 Brown, Janice 07/16/07 07/28/07

15 Burger, David 04/16/07 06/11/07

16 Burrell, Kellie 05/12/06 06/24/06

17 Burrell, Kellie 04/24/07 07/16/07

18 Camarillo, Veronica 03/19/07 04/27/07

19 Cameron, Alice 12/05/04 01/07/05

20 Cameron, Jennifer 06/15/06 06/22/06

21 Campa, Andree 12/16/05 01/30/06

22 Carbaj aI, Delfina 01/26/06 02/06/06

23 Carey, Todd 01/05/08

24 Carrillo, Eduardo 02/16/05 03/10/05

25 Castro, Marisol 10/25/06 01/02/07

26 Celestino, Virginia 02/25/05 03/15/05

27 Cervantes, Mary 06/01/04 07/10/04

28
8

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES


TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 83 of 130

11 Chacon Jr, Ezequiel 05/01105 05/16/05


22 Chahal,
Chahal, Manjinder 12/22/07

33 Colgan,
Colgan, Nieves 01120/07 03/03/07

44 Collett,
Collett, Catherine 11/29/07 01107/08

55 Contancio,
Contancio, Teresa 02/11/99 04/13/99

66 Contreras-Hernandez,
Contreras-Hernandez, 07/21/04 09/13/04
Melissa
Melissa
77 Coodey,
Coodey, Monica 07/22/06 10/02/06
88 Coodey,
Coodey, Monica 12/19/06 01119/07
99 Cozby,
Cozby, Maria OS/23/06 06/23/06
10
10 Crow,
Crow, James 07/23/07 08/14/07
II
II Crow, James 09/06/07 09/28/07
12
12 Crow, Teresa 09/27/07 11/09/07
13
13 Cueto, Estella 02/23/04 03/01/04
14
14 Davin, Jennifer 05/13/06 06/25/06
15
15 Davin, Jennifer 10/23/06 10/29/06
16
16 Davis, Nancy 08/30/05 09/26/05
17
17 Decker, Rita 11/19/05 11/28/05
18
18 Dhaliwal, Paramjit 03/24/06 03/31106
19
19 Diaz, Alicia
Diaz, OS/21/07 06/02/07
20
20 Diaz, Alicia
Diaz, 06/18/07 07/04/07
21
21 Divinagracia, Mary OS/23/04 06/25/04
22
22 03/21/98
Dodson, Lorene 12/26/97
23
23 Domingo, Luz
Domingo, 09/11107 10/08/07
24
24 Dominguez, Eva-Marie 12/19/07 01/14/08
25
25 06/18/07
Doss, Justin 06/05/07
26
26 Doss, Justin 07/11107 07/24/07
Doss,
27
27 Douglas, Shayla 10/26/05
Douglas, 10/26/04
28
28
9

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES


TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 84 of 130

1 Doyle, Darlene 05114/04 03/03/05


2 Duarte, Sofia 02128/02 03/04/02

3 Ducato, Diane 02/10/99 03/24/99

4 Dumlao, Shellby 01114/06 02122106

5 Dunn, Debbie 08/18/98 03/26/99

6 Elliott, Evelyn 09/25/06 10113/06

7 Espinoza, Patricia 03115/05 03/22105

8 Esposo, Rosalind 05/26105 06/16105

9 Esqueda, Christina 02115107 02124/07


10 Fadipe, Regina 12115/06 12125/06

11 Ferra, Nicole 07/22106 09/15/06


12 Fischer, Dawn 10104/06 11116106

13 Flaharty, Linda 03/31101 05/21101

14 Flanagan, Eva Marie 06124/06 06124/06


15 Flatt, Carolyn 02101199 02105/99
16 Fox, Pamela 08/08/06 08/11106
17 Fox, Pamela 02112107 03112107

18 Gaeta, Patricia 01114/08

19 Gallegos, Evangeline 06118/07 09111107


20 Gamez, Betty 09111107 10124/07
21 Garcia, Abigail 12127/06 03123107

22 Garcia, Caroline 02115/01 04/01101

23 Garcia, Cheryl 07/29/99 08/15/99

24 Garcia, Esmeralda 10/30107 11105/07

25 Gamette, Theodora 05/20/98 05129198

26 Garnette, Theodora 06/02/01 06/27/01

27 Gamette, Theodora 11117/03 12/18/03

28
10
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES
TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 85 of 130

11 Gates,
Gates, Heather 09/21107 11102/07
22 Gelle,
Gelle, Triah 09/26/07 11120107
33 George,
George, Donna 02/02/05 02119105

44 George,
George, Gloria 05/06/05 05120105
55 Gervasi,
Gervasi, Debbie 12120104 04/11/05

66 Gill,
Gill, Prabhjot 01125/06 03/09/06
77 Gill,
Gill, Prabhjot 04116/06 04/21106

88 Gimena, leana
Gimena, 03/04/05 03/23/05

99 Gomez,
Gomez, Enrique 03/09/06 03120106

10
10 Gonzalez, Anna
Gonzalez, 09/19/99 12/08/99

11
11 Gonzalez,
Gonzalez, Cynthia 04/30107 05/09/07

12
12 Goodwin,
Goodwin, Barbara 10/26/04 05/26/06

13
13 Graham,
Graham, Caryn 08/16/99 09116199

14
14 Gray,
Gray, Suzann 06/05/07 06/21107

15
15 Green, Danielle
Green, 05/03/07 05114107

16
16 Green, Terri
Green, 09/05/00 09/11100

17
17 Greene, Amy
Greene, 07/16/99 08/25/99

18
18 Greenfield, Traci
Greenfield, 07113/00 08107/00

19
19 Grewal, Da1j i t
Grewal, 03/24/06 04/01106

20
20 Guajardo, Sandra
Guajardo, 03/01100 04/03/00

21
21 Haile, Asghedet
Haile, 07/04/06 09117106

22
22 Halko1a, Kurt
Halko1a, 01113/05 02114/05

23
23 Ha1ko1a, Kurt
Ha1ko1a, 04/16/07 04/30107

24
24 Ha1ko1a, Kurt
Ha1ko1a, 05/05/07 05/27/07

25
25 Harder, Debra
Harder, 03/30106 04/11106

26
26 Harris, Frances
Harris, 03/21105 03/28/05

27
27 Hawkins, Karen
Hawkins, 11126107 12/17/07

28
28
11

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES


TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 86 of 130

I Heer, Jagdipak 02/14/01 03/14/01

2 Heer, Jagdipak 08/08/05 08/21105

3 Hernandez, Cecilia 09/12/03 10106103

4 Hernandez, Eva 09/29/07 11110107

5 Hernandez, Lorraine 09/28/05 10/10105

6 Herron, Wanda 09/10103 10/20103

7 Herron, Wanda 01105104 01110104

8 Hicks, Kimberly 05/20105 06104/05

9 Hodges, Chavon 06108/06 07/08/06

10 Hosseini, Gowhartaj 05/28/03 06/29/03

11 Idolyantes, Edna 03/16104 03/29/04

12 Irias, Cecilia 03/20100 04/24/00

13 Ivey, Sharon 03/09/99 03117199

14 Jimenez, Evangeline 06102/03 06112103

15 Jimenez, Pamela 11104/00 12/06100

16 Johnson, Kerrie 04/03/04 03/20104

17 Juarez, Grace 05/14/97 05/21/97

18 Juarez, Grace 02/19/99 02124199

19 Kalish, David 07/15/07 08/03/07

20 Karunakar, Arsr 06/25/07 07/10107

21 Kennison, Carolyn 09/25/07 01118108

22 Kent, April 08/23/04 08129104

23 Khan, Farah 03/12/07 04/19107

24 Khandaker, Nurun 08115/07 09/24/07

25 King, Carie 08/07/07 09117107

26 Kinsella, Robert 11110199 12101199

27 Larios, Guadalupe 09/05/05 10119105

28
12
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES
TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 87 of 130

1 Ledezma, Gladys 12118/07

2 Lee, Ruth 06/12/04 08/16/04

3 Liu, Hsin 09/08/05 12/01105


4 Lizalde, Kathleen 02/25/05 03/21105
5 Lomely, Veronica 09/11107 11102/07
6 Lynch, Laura 10/30103 12/04/03

7 Lynch, Laura 05/23/02 06110102


8 Macias, Cruz 03112/07 04116/07

9 Macias, F 04/07/97 12/30/97

10 Magno, Maria 08110105 08/29/05

11 Malaque, Marygrace 01127/07 03/08/07

12 Marderosian, Susanne 05/24/03 08/24/03

13
13 Marichalar, Nereyda 06/30/97 07/12/97

14 Martinez, Laura 05/04/05 05111105

15 Martinez, Rosa 10102/06 10116106

16 Martinez, Susan 04117/04 04/20104

17 Mcaliste, Tracie 12/01/98 12116198

18 Mcconnehey, Diane 01124/05 02114/05

19 McNinch, Kathleen 03118/07 03/26/07

20 Medrano, Jdarius 05112107 05/27/07

21
21 Medrano, Jdarius 11123/07 12109/07

22 Menchaca, Vicki 12/24/06 01128107

23 Merabi, Shila 09/12/05 01106106

24 Miller, Lori
Miller, 07/07/98 09/02/98

25
25 Montano, Rovelyn 01120107 01127/07

26 Montano, Rovelyn 02/24/07 03/03/07

27 Montano, Rovelyn 03/17/07 03124107

28
28
13

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES


TO PLAlNTIFF'S lNTERROGATORIES
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 88 of 130

11 Montano, Rove1yn 04114/07 04/21/07


22 Montano, Rove1yn OS/27/07 06/03/07
33 Montano, Rove1yn 06/23/07 06/30/07
44 Montemayor, Martha 10/28/01 01/19/02
55 Moon, Nicole 07110/03 09/08/03
66 Morales, Maria 12/04/07 01/14/08
77 Morris, Jeneal 11/19/03 12/09/03
88 Morrow, Antonieta 06118/07 09/30/07

99 Mudryk, Cheri 03/26/99 04/27/99


10
10 Mullen, Amanda 07/26/03 12/16/03

11
11 Murr, George 05/04/05 05116/05
12
12 Negranza, Melita 08111/99 09/03/99

13
13 Nitro, Gilbert 04/25/04 05/08/04

14
14 Nunez, Leticia 07/21/06 08/4/06

15
15 Nunez, Nicole 01/10/07 03/28/07

16
16 Nunez, Nicole 11/29/07
17
17 Nunn, Patsy 11115/06 11/30/06

18
18 Ochoa, Gary 01/09/05 02/21/05

19
19 Ornelas, Petra 10116/06 10/27/06

20
20 Ortiz, Mary 09/24/07 10/04/07

21
21 Ortiz, Rosario 06/19/01 06/25/01

22
22 Padgett, Shirley 09/14/98 10112/98

23
23 Patrick, Brian 07/21/06 09/29/06

24
24 Patterson, Shane 02/21/06 02/27/06

25
25 Peet, John 10/16/06 10/23/06

26
26 Pensinger, Stephanie 11120/05 01/03/06

27
27 Perez, Esperanza 02/14/07 02119/07

28
28
14

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES


TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 89 of 130

11 Perez,
Perez, Jeanette 11103/03 ll/17/03
22 Perez, Maria 02/23/05 04/14/05

33 Perkins, Lois 01108/07 01117/07

44 Peterson,
Peterson, Michelle 09/25/07 11/08/07

55 Peterson,
Peterson, Sandra 03/19/02 03/26/02

66 Pob1ete, Ma
Pob1ete, OS/22/03 06/13/03

77 Poindexter,
Poindexter, Lisa 06/01198 01102/99

88 Powers,
Powers, Alexandra 11120/07

99 Prince,
Prince, Lynn 12111106 01115/07

10
10 Probert-Thomas,
Probert-Thomas, G 09/14/99 12115/99

11
11 Prows,
Prows, Jodi 06/03/02 06/17/02

12
12 Quintero,
Quintero, Gloria 11/06/05 ll/09/05

13
13 Rabe,
Rabe, Thomas 06/01100 08/12/00

14
14 Radica, Rebecca
Radica, 02117/99 05/18/99

15
15 Radica, Rebecca
Radica, 09/08/00 12/04/00

16
16 Ramirez, Jesus
Ramirez, 07/07/07 08/03/07

17
17 Ramirez, Jose
Ramirez, 03/17/05 03/22/05

18
18 Ramirez-Padua, Lizie1
Ramirez-Padua, OS/29/06 07/12/06

19
19 Ramos, Esperanza 02/13/01 02118/01

20
20 Recio, Allison 08/11107 09/25/07

21
21 Reneau, Olga
Reneau, 11111/98 02/16/99

22
22 Reyes, Joslyn 07119/02 07/22/02

23
23 Reyes, Joslyn
Reyes, 03/07/05 05/02/05

24
24 Reyes, Ruth
Reyes, 04/21103 05/03/03

25
25 Richardson, Genetra
Richardson, 10/18/99 01120/00

26
26 Rippy, Anna 10/25/04 11105/04

27
27 Rivera, Redempta 02/23/05 03/03/05

28
28
15

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES


TO PLAlNTIFF'S lNTERROGATORlES
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 90 of 130

1 Robles-Gonzalez, D 09/29/05 10/05/05

2 Rogers, Nicole 12126/06 12/20/07

3 Roldan, Mario 11101105 10/31106

4 Rubio, Marcella 06/22/07 08/04/07

5 Ruiz, Rosanna 05/11105 OS/25/05

6 Ruiz, Rosanna 06/06/05 06/21105

7 Ruiz, Rosanna 08/17/05 06/21105

8 Ruiz, Rosanna OS/28/06 07/23/06

9 Ruiz, Rosanna 07/24/06 08/02/06

10 Sabo, Krita 09/10/05 10/20/05

11 Sagun, Jocelyn 10/08/05 12/08/05

12 Sagun, Jocelyn 09/20/07 11101107

13 Sagun, Rbodora 02/28/06 04/11106

14 Salazar, Renato 07/18/97 10/18/97

15 Sa1eewong, Pat 03/07/05 04/18/05

16 Sa1eewong, Pat 06/25/07 07/02/07

17 Salinas, Natalia 01117/06 02121106

18 Salinas, Natalia 01119/07 06/08/07

19 Salinas, Nora 05/08/06 09/25/06

20 Salzman, Anne 08/15/98 09/25/98

21 Sanchez, Nancy OS/24/06 09/04/06

22 Sanchez, Nancy 10131106 01113/07

23 Sanchez, Rosanna 06/18/07 07/09/07

24 Sanchotena, Mary 03/15/00 05/01100

25 Sandoval, Nora 08/21104 11114/04

26 Sandoval, Norma 05/04/04 06/01104

27 Santerre, Eric 02/16/99 02/24/99

28
16

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES


TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 91 of 130

II Sceales, Patricia 11101106 01125/07


2 Serrano, Lydia 02/10101 04116101

3 Sevillano, Maritza 09114/03 09/29103


4 Shafa, Haleh 08/03/99 08/22/99
5 Sharma, Ira 10/23/07 10/31107

6 Shaw, Judith 08111101 08118/01

7 Shaw, Judith 06108/04 06/24/04

8 Shaw, Judith 05117106 10102/06

9 Shergill, Ramanjit 07/13/06 09101106

10 Shiao, Tu 04/11198 05/28/98

11
11 Singh, Manjit 10/30104 12/20104

12 Singh, Manjit 01109108

13
13 Siritaratiwat, Pat 06116103 06/27/03

14 Smith, April 10117106 11117/06

15 Smith, Daian 05/24/04 10/21104

16 Smith, Sara 03/31/07 04/21107

17 Smith, Sara 06/23/07 07114107

18 Smith-White, Regina 04/05/00 04/26100

19 Snook, Karan 08/04/04 08/30104

20 Solanki, Sangita 06105/04 07/20104

21 Solorio, Irene
Solorio, 02/28/06 05/24/06

22 Soto, Mary 02114105 02/23/05

23 Standlee, Angela 09113104 11118/04

24 Standridge, Donna 06120102 07/25/02

25 Steward, Kathy
Steward, 03/20100 03/27/00

26 Struzyna, Karen 11127/99 01103/00

27 Tabano, Gil 05128/07 06107/07

28
17

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES


TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 92 of 130

II Tagumpay, Shiela 12/14/06 01/24/07

2 Tagumpay, Shiela 08/04/07 08/18/07


3 Tagumpay, Shiela 09/26/07 10118/07
4 Tajran, Deena 10101/97 11117/97
5 Tak, Vandana 07/24/01 09/01/01

6 Tak, Vandana 11116/03 12112/03


7 Thiara, Kiranbir 02/07/07 03/14/07
8 Thomas, Julie 08117105 09112/05
9 Thomas, Julie 08/09/07 09/20107

10 Torres, Ramon 04113106 01118/07

11
11 Valadez, Angelina 07/16/97 09/22/97

12 Valencia, Luz 09/23/00 10/16/00

13
13 Vazquez, Lorraine 02113105 03128/05

14 Vela, Isabel 01106107 03/30107

15 Vela, Isabel 04/19/07 06/03/07

16 Velasquez, Vincent 04113103 05101103

17 Velasquez, Vincent 09/16/05 10/11105


18 Vickery, Laura 05/18/97 06/09/97

19 Villarreal, Nicole 01127198 02/22/98

20
20 Villarreal, Nicole 10123199 01114/00

21 Villarreal, Nicole 11122/05 02/14/06

22 Walker, Dawnelle 03112/07 03126/07

23 Walker, Misty
Walker, 09/15/05 10/27/05

24
24 Weese, Charlene 06/12/98 06113199

25 Weese, Charlene 06121101 07/02/01

26 Wells, Deborah 08110106 09/28/06

27
27 Wenceslao, Norma
Wenceslao, 10109/06 11110106

28
28
18
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES
TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 93 of 130

1 Wesson, Earnest 10108/05 11110105

2 Wetlesen, Dorothy 09113/97 09128/97

3 White, Caitlyn 10103/05 11112105

4 Whittier, Nancy 11101106 10101107

5 Williams, Herman 03/08/07 03/19/07

6 Wilson, Brenda 08112103 02/28/04

7 Wilson, Brenda 03/01/04 02/28/05

8 Wilson, Brenda 03/01105 02/28/06

9 Wilson, Frances 08127107 09/22/07

10 Wood, Deborah 06/20/98 8114/958

11 Yee, Angelina 10131/05 01/24/06

12 Young, Ma Rhodora 04110107 05/30107

13 Yzaguirre, S 10/28/99 11109109

14 Zarate, Lucila 12/29/01 01103102

15 Zuniga, Maricela 11117/07 02/08/08

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

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

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

20 October 24,1995.

21 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 25


22 None.

23 INTERROGATORY NO. 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

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES


TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 94 of 130

II ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE; state whether each such period of ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE


LEAVE
22 was paid or unpaid; and state any and all reasons for each such period of ADMINISTRATIVE
33 LEAVE.
44 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 27
55 Dr. Sheldon Freedman was on paid administrative leave from April 13, 2000 to June 30,
30,
66 2000. His persounel file was discarded in 2003 pursuant to the County's records retention policy
policy
77 and we have no record of the reason for his leave of absence.
88 INTERROGATORY NO. 28
99 During the period from October 24, 2000 to the present, IDENTIFY any and all former
10
10 members of the "MEDICAL STAFF" at KMC (as the term is defined in the Bylaws ofKMC)
II
II other than PLAINTIFF who employment contract with YOU was not renewed or extended; state
state
12
12 whether the contract expired or was terminated; and state any and all reasons for non-renewal or
or
13
13 non-extension of each such contract.
14
14 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 28
15
15 Leonard Perez - involuntary termination
16
16 Cary Freeman - involuntary termination
17
17 Irwin Harris - resigned
Irwin
18
18 Mark Root - resigned
19
19 Miguel Lascano - resigned
20
20 Deng Fong - resigned
21
21 John Digges - contract not renewed
22
22 Peter Meade - resigned
23
23 Jose Perez - resigned
24
24 Albert Ma - resigned
25
25 Jaafar Zada - resigned
26
26 HA Pershadsingh - retired
27
27 Lisa Burgess - resigned
28
28 Richard Prather - resigned
Richard
20

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES


TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 95 of 130

11 Arash Heideri - resigned then returned and is currently employed


22 Tha Cha - resigned
33 Shehla Baqi - resigned
44 Chester Lau - resigned
55 Nitin Athavale - resigned
66 Daniel D'Amico - retired
77 Stephen Docherty - resigned
88 Stephen Williams - resigned
99 Victor Ettinger - resigned
10
10 INTERROGATORY NO. 29
11
11 See response to Interrogatory No. 30.
12
12 INTERROGATORY NO. 30
13
13 1. Saman Ratnayake, M.D. - Dr. Ratnayake was hired as a non-core, contrac
contrac
14
14 employee on September 1, 1998. His contract was supposed to terminate on August 31, 2001
2001
15
15 but he entered into an interim core agreement with the County effective June 26, 2001. Tha
Tha
16
16 agreement was to remain in effect through November 30, 2006. It expired on November 30,
30,
17
17 2006 but, on June 19,2007 it was extended to June 22, 2007, retroactive to November 30,2006.
30,2006.
18
18 Dr. Ratnayake entered into a new core agreement on June 23, 2007 for a term of five years.
19
19 2. Irene Spinello, M.D. - Dr. Spinello entered into an interim core agreement with
with
20
20 the County on March 12, 2002. The agreement was to remain in effect through November 30,
30,
21
21 2006 but Dr. Spinello entered into a new core agreement on December 27, 2003 for a term 00
22
22 five years.
23
23 3. Khosrow Mostofi, M.D. - Dr. Mostofi was hired as a non-core, contract employee
employee
24
24 in 1993. The last non-core contract between Dr. Mostofi and the County had an effective date 00
25
25 January 1, 1999 and was for a term of two years. Dr. Mostofi entered into an interim core
core
26
26 agreement with the County on January 1, 2002. Dr. Mostofi entered into a new core agreemen
agreemen
27
27 on December 1, 2006, for a term of five years.
28
28
21

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES


TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 96 of 130

1I 4. Charles Wrobel, M.D. - Dr. Wrobel began providing services to the County as
2 independent contractor in 1991. He was hired as a non-core, contract employee in 1997. Th
3 last non-core contract between Dr. Wrobel and the County had an effective date of January 1
4 2000 and was for a term of two years. On November 12, 2001, Dr. Wrobel entered into
5 interim core agreement with the County. Dr. Wrobel entered into a new core agreement 0a

6 November 1, 2003 for a term of five years.


7 5. Juan Lopez, M.D. -~ Dr. Lopez entered into an interim core agreement with th
8 County on July 1, 2004 for a term of five years. Dr. Lopez entered into a core agreement 0a
9 January 8, 2005 for a term of five years.
10 6. Mansukh Ghadiya, M.D. - Dr. Ghadiya entered into an interim core agreemen
11 with the County on July 1,2002. He entered into a new core agreement on March 20, 2004, for
12 term of five years.

13 7. Paul Miller, M.D. -~ Dr. Miller was hired as a non-core employee on July 6, 1999.
14 His contract was for a term of two years. On July 2, 2001, Dr. Miller entered into an interi
15 core agreement. The agreement was to remain in effect through November 30, 2006. Dr. Mille
16 entered into a core agreement on March 20, 2004, for a term of five years.
17 8. Jose Perez, M.D. - Dr. Perez entered into an interim core agreement with th
18 County on July 1, 2001. The agreement was to remain in effect through November 30, 2006.
19 Dr. Perez entered into a new core agreement on September 6, 2003, for a term of five years. Dr.
20 Perez left County employment before the contract expired.
21 9. Richard Frelinger,
Fre1inger, D.O. - Dr. Frelinger was hired as a non-core, contrac
22 employee in 1995. The last non-core contract between Dr. Frelinger and the County had a
23 effective date of July 1, 1999 and was for a term of two years. Dr. Frelinger entered into a
24 interim core agreement with the County on July 1, 2001. The agreement was to remain in effec
1,2001.
25 through November 30, 2006 but Dr. Fre1inger
Frelinger entered into a new core agreement on March 20

26 2004 for a term of five years.


27 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

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES


TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 97 of 130

1I date of November 16, 1998 and was for a term of two years. On November 10,2000, Dr. Huert
2 entered into an interim core agreement. 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 of five years.
offive
5 II.
11. Gary Zohman, M.D. - Dr. Zohman entered into an interim core agreement wi
6 the County on June 26,2004
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.
8 12. Maureen Martin, M.D. -~ Dr. Martin entered into an interim core agreement wit
9 the County on June 18, 2002 for a term of five years. On November 15, 2003, Dr. Marti
10 entered into a core agreement for a term of five years.
II
11 13. Donald Jagger, M.D. - Dr. Jagger was hired as a non-core contract employee i
12 1996. His last non-core contract was effective on October 1,
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 14. Vahdatyar Amirpour, M.D. - Dr. Amirpour began providing services to
15 county as an independent contractor in 1994. He was hired as a non-core contract employee i
16 1997. His last non-core contract had an effective date of October 1,
I, 1999. On July 24, 2004, Dr.
17 Amirpour entered into a core agreement for a term of five years.
offive
18 15. Daniel D'Amico, M.D. - Dr. D' Amico was hired as a non-core contract employe
19 in 1997. His last non-core contract had an effective date of October 1,
I, 1999 and was for a ter
20 of two years. On September 17, 200 I, Dr. D' Amico entered into an interim core agreement wi
17,2001,
21 the County for a term through November 30, 2006. Dr. D'Amico entered into a core agreemen
22 on July 24, 2004 for a term of five years. He retired in 2006
23 16. Nurun Khandaker, M.D. - Dr. Khandaker was hired as a non-core contrac
24 employee in 1997. Her last non-core contract had an effective date of July 11,
11,1999
1999 and was fo
25 a term of two years. On June 12, 2001, Dr. Khandaker entered into an interim core agreemen
26 with the County that was to remain in effect through November 30, 2006. On August 20, 2002
27 Dr. Khandaker entered into an interim core for a term of five years. On March 20, 2004, Dr.
28 Khandaker entered into a core agreement for a term of five years.
23

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES


TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 98 of 130

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
4, 2007
6 the agreement was amended to extend the term through December 6,2008.
6, 2008.
7 18. Stephan Sway, M.D. - Dr. Sway was hired as a non-core contract employee 0

8 September 1, 1998 for a term of two years. On August 29, 2000, Dr. Sway entered into
9 interim core agreement that expired on November 30, 2006. On December 19, 2006, Dr. Swa
10 entered into a core agreement that was retroactive to December 1, 2006. The agreement is for
11 term of five years.
12 19. William Meyer, M.D. - Dr. Meyer was hired as a non-core contract employee 0

13 June 15, 1999 for a term of two years. On June 12,2001, Dr. Meyer entered into an interim cor
14 agreement for a term through November 30, 2006. On November 1, 2003, Dr. Meyer entere
15 into a core agreement for a term of five years.
16 20. Chester Lau, M.D. - Dr. Lau entered into an interim core agreement effectiv
17 September 25, 2001 that was to remain in effect through November 30, 2006. On December 2,
18 2003, Dr. Lau entered into an interim core agreement, effective January 5, 2004, for a term 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,
25,2001
2001 that was to remain in effect through November 30, 2006. On December 2
22 2003, Dr. Naderi entered into an interim core agreement effective January 5, 2004, for a term 0

23 five years.
24 22. Tai Yoo, M.D. - Dr. Yoo entered into an interim core agreement effective May 1,
25 2001 for a term through November 30,2006.
30, 2006. On September 23,
23,2003,
2003, Dr. Yoo entered into
26 core agreement with an effective date of August 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
28 January 19,1999, for a term of two years. On January 17,2001, Dr. Ettinger entered into a
24

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES


TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 99 of 130

1 interim core agreement that was to remain in effect through November 30, 2006. Dr. Ettinge
2 resigned before the agreement expired. On January 24, 2003, Dr. Ettinger began providin
3 services to the County as an independent contractor and he entered into a core agreement 0

4 February 22, 2005 for a term of five years.


5 24. Savita Shertukde, M.D. - Dr. Shertukde entered into a non-core contract with th
6 County on October 5, 2004 for a term of one year. On October 18, 2005, the agreement wa
7 31, 2005. On November 1,
extended through October 31,2005. 2005, Dr. Shertukde entered into a cor
1,2005,
8 agreement for a term of five years.

9 25. Joshua Tobias, M.D. - On August 14, 2001, Dr. Tobias began providing service
14,2001,
10 to the County as an independent contractor. He was hired as a non-core contract employee
IOta 0

11 April 24, 2001. On February 26, 2002, Dr. Tobias entered into an interim core agreement tha
12 was to remain in effect through November 30, 2006. Dr. Tobias entered into a core agreemen
13 on August 24,2002 for a term of five years. On August 21, 2007, the agreement was amende
14 to extend the term through October 12, 2007. On October 8, 2007, the agreement was amende
12,2007.
15 to extend the term through December 7, 2007. On December 4, 2007, the agreement wa
16 amended to extend the term through December 6, 2008.
17 26. Arash Heidari, M.D. - Dr. Heidari was hired initially as a non-core contrac
18 employee on July 1, 2003 for a term of one year. On June 8, 2004, Dr. Heidari entered into
19 interim core agreement effective July 1, 2004 for a term of five years. Dr. Heidari resigne
20 before the agreement expired. On July 9,2007,
9, 2007, Dr. Heidari entered into a core agreement with
21 term of five years.
22 27. Jack Bloch, M.D. -~ Dr. Bloch was hired as a non-core contract employee on Jul
23 3, 2000. His agreement was terminated effective March 20, 2004. On March 16, 2004, Dr.
24 Bloch entered into a core agreement effective March 20, 2004 for a term of five years. Th
25 agreement was terminated effective October 14, 2006. On October 9, 2006, Dr. Bloch entere
26 into a non-core contract employee agreement effective October 14, 2006 for a term of one year.
14,2006
27 On October 8, 2007, Dr. Bloch entered into a non-core contract effective October 14, 2007, for
14,2007,
28 term of one year.
25

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES


TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 100 of 130

1 28. non~core contract employe


Albert McBride, M.D. - Dr. McBride was hired as a non-core
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.
8 29. Vasanthi (nee Ramaswami) Srinivas, M.D. - Dr. Srinivas was hired as a non-cor
9 contract employee on September 1, 1998 for a term of three years. On August 30,2001, Dr.
10 Srinivas entered into an interim core agreement that was to remain in effect through Novembe
11 30, 2006. On January 8, 2005, Dr. Srinivas entered into a core agreement for a term of fiv
12 years.
13 30. Joseph Mansour, M.D. - Dr. Mansour was hired as a non-core contract employe
14 on September 15, 1999 for a term extending through November 30, 2002. On November 26,
15 2002, Dr. Mansour entered into an interim core agreement effective November 30, 2002 for
16 term of five years. On January 8, 2005, Dr. Mansour entered into a core agreement with a ter
17 of five years.
18 31. Siu-Keung (Ray) Chung, M.D. - Dr. Chung was hired as a non-core contrac
19 employee on July 1,1999
1, 1999 for a term of two years. On June 26,2001, Dr. Chung entered into
20 interim core agreement that was to remain in effect through November 30,2006.
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
2,2007,
22 agreement was amended to extend the term through December 7, 2007. On December 4, 2007
23 the agreement was amended to extend the term through December 6, 2008.
24 INTERROGATORY NO. 36
25 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to convert
26 PLAINTIFF'S reduced work schedule leave to full-time leave on or about April 28, 2006; and
Apri128,
27 state the date that decision was made.
28
26

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES


TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 101 of 130

11 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 36


22 Peter Bryan, Steve O'Connor, Karen Barnes and Plaintiff participated in the decision to
33 convert Plaintiffs leave to full-time leave. The decision to do so was made at their meeting on
44 April 28, 2006.
55 INTERROGATORY NO. 37
66 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to recommend
77 removal of PLAINTIFF from his position as Chair of Pathology at KMC in 2006; and state the
88 date that decision was made.
99 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 37
10
10 Peter Bryan made the decision to recommend that Plaintiff be removed from his
11
11 chairmanship and the decision to make that recommendation was made on July 10, 2006.
12
12 INTERROGATORY NO. 38
13
13 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decisions RELATING TO
14
14 each and every provision contained in the DOCUMENT entitled "Amendment No.1 to
15
15 Agreement for Professional Services" [DFJl416]; and state the date that each such decision was
16
16 made.
17
17 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 38
18
18 Peter Bryan, David Culberson, Karen Barnes, Plaintiff, Eugene Lee, and the Kern County
County
19
19 Board of Supervisors participated in the decisions regarding Amendment No.1 to Plaintiffs
20
20 contract. The decision was made on the October 3, 2006, which is the date the amendment was
21
21 approved by the Board of Supervisors.
22
22 INTERROGATORY NO. 39
23
23 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to recommend
24
24 reduction of PLAINTIFF'S base salary in 2006; and state the date that decision was made.
25
25 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 39
26
26 Peter Bryan, David Culberson, Karen Barnes, Plaintiff, Eugene Lee, and the Kern County
County
27
27 Board of Supervisors participated in the decision to reduce Plaintiffs base salary. The decision
28
28
27

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES


TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 102 of 130

II was made on the October 3, 2006, which is the date the amendment was approved by the Board
22 of Supervisors.
33 INTERROGATORY NO. 42
44 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to place
55 PLAINTIFF on administrative leave with pay on or about December 7, 2006; and state the date
66 that decision was made.
77 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 42
88 David Culberson, Irwin Harris, Phil Dutt, Margo Raison and Karen Barnes. The decision
decision
99 was made on December 6, 2006.
10
10 INTERROGATORY NO. 43
II
II IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to lift the
12
12 restriction on PLAINTIFF'S administrative leave (as that term is used in the letter of April 30,
13
13 2007 from Mark Wasser, DEFENDANT'S counsel [DFJ7101]); and state the date that decision
14
14 was made.
15
15 SUPPLEMETAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 43
16
16 Mark Nations and Mark Wasser. The decision was made on April 27, 2007.
17
17 INTERROGATORY NO. 44
18
18 IDENTIFY each and every PERSON who participated in the decision to propose to
19
19 PLAINTIFF a "BUYOUT" (as that term is used in the email of May I, 2007 from Mark Wasser,
20
20 DEFENDANT'S counsel [DFJOI482]); and state the date that decision was made.
21
21 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 44
22
22 Mark Nations and Mark Wasser. The decision was made on April 27, 2007.
23
23 INTERROGATORY NO. 48
24
24 State each and every job function which YOU contend were the essential functions of
25
25 PLAINTIFF'S position as Chair of Pathology at KMC.
26
26 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 48
27
27 The essential functions of Plaintiffs position are set forth in the KMC Medical Staff
28
28 Bylaws at page 46, section 9.7, Department Chairs; section 9.7-1, Qualifications and pages 48-
28

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES


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

1I 50, section 9.7-5, Responsibilities and Duties of Department Chairs and Plaintiffs job

2 description.

4 SIGNATURE OF PARTY UNDER OATH

5 I, Paul 1.
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 true and correct.

8 Dated: March _, 2008

10 By: _ _
J. Hensler
Paul 1.
11 Chief Executive Officer, Kern Medical Center
12

13 SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY AS TO OBJECTIONS

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

IS
15
By:_-#==.I,..loo=::;!.......::=:....:!...--::..=.===---~ __l
16
Mark A. Wasser
17 Attorney for Defendants, County of Kern, et al.

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26
27

28
29

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES


TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 104 of 130

11 Mark A. Wasser CA SB #060160


LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER
22 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 11 00
Sacramento, CA 95814
33 Phone: (916) 444-6400
Fax: (916) 444-6405
4 E-mail: mwasser@markwasser.com
5 Bernard C. Barmann, Sr.
KERN COUNTY COUNSEL
Mark Nations, Chief Deputy
66 1115 Truxtun Avenue, Fourth Floor
Bakersfield, CA 93301
77 Phone: (661) 868-3800
Fax: (661) 868-3805
88 E-mail: mnations@co.kern.ca.us

9
Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern,
10
10 Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher,
Jennifer Abraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smith
11
11 and William Roy

12
12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13
13 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
14
14

15 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.


15 ~ Case No.: 1:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG
16
16
~
Plaintiff, PROOF OF SERVICE
17
~
17 vs.
18 COUNTY OF KERN, et a\.,
18
~)
19
19 Defendants. )
20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - . )
20
21
21
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
28
28
PROOF
PROOF OF
OF SERVICE
SERVICE
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 105 of 130

11 I, Amy Remly, declare:

22 I am a resident of the State of California and over the age of eighteen years, and not a party
party to
to
the within action; my business address is 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100, Sacramento, CA 95814.
95814. OnOn
33 March 5, 2008, I served the within documents: Defendants' Supplemental Responses to PlaintifrsPlaintifrs
Interrogatories (Set One).
4
o by transmitting via facsimile from (916) 444-6405 the above listed document(s)
5 without error to the fax number(s) set forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m. AA copy
copy
of the transmittal/confirmation sheet is attached, and
66
by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon
thereon fully
fully
77 forth
prepaid, in the United States mail at Sacramento, California addressed as set forth
below.
8
99
o by causing personal delivery by of the document(s) listed above to the
person(s) at the address (es) set forth below.
10
10
o by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed Federal Express Overnight Delivery
Delivery
11
11 envelope and affixing a pre-paid air bill, and causing the envelope to be delivered
delivered to
to aa
Overnight Delivery Federal Express agent for delivery at the address set forth below.
below.
12
Eugene Lee
13
13 Law Offices of Eugene Lee
555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100
14
14 Los Angeles, California 90013-1010

15
15 I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence
correspondence for
for
mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day
day with
with
16 postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the
16 the party
party
17 served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than
17 than one
one
day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
18
18
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above
above is
is true
true
19 and correct.
19

20 Executed on March 5, 2008, at Sacramento, California. ~~


20
21
21 Ov~1!,~V\
22
22
23
23
24
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
28
28
-2- PROOF
PROOF OF
OF SERVICE
SERVICE
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 106 of 130

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 EXHIBIT 4:
25 Meet and confer correspondence between the parties
26
27
28
EXHIBITS TO JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT
re: INTERROGATORIES 4
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 107 of 130
Eugene D. Lee
From: Mark Wasser [mwasser@markwasser.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 8:48 AM
To: elee@LOEL.com
Subject: RE: Jadwin/KC: Interrogatories

Gene,

Sorry. That was my oversight. I will get you a verification.

Mark

From: Eugene D. Lee [mailto:elee@LOEL.com]


Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 8:59 PM
To: mwasser@markwasser.com
Subject: Jadwin/KC: Interrogatories

Mark,

We still haven’t received any verification by Defendants’ of Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories, set
one. As you know, the responses were due on February 1. Please send us the verification immediately.

Sincerely,

Gene Lee
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE
EMPLOYMENT LAW
555 WEST FIFTH ST., STE. 3100
LOS ANGELES, CA 90013
Tel: (213)992-3299
Fax: (213)596-0487
E - m a i l : elee@LOEL.com
W e b s i t e : www.LOEL.com
B l o g : www.CaLaborLaw.com  
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this
transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.

 
Califocnia Laboc & Emplo,ment Law 0109
  Plaintiff Gets $30,300, His Lawyers Get $1,1 mil,
  Febn>o..... , , ... " ..." ,y "'oo,,"..
 

1
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 108 of 130
Eugene D. Lee
From: Assistant [assistant@markwasser.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 10:22 AM
To: 'Eugene Lee'
Cc: assistant@markwasser.com
Subject: FW: Jadwin
Attachments: Jadwin.Signature of Party Under Oath.021408.pdf

Transmitted herewith is the verification to Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories.

Amy Remly, Assistant to Mark A. Wasser

1
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 109 of 130

INTERROGATORY NO. 47
2 IDENTIFY each DOCUMENT or portion thereof contained in YOUR FRCP Rule 26
J Initial Disclosures that YOU contend is privileged; slale the nature oreach privilege asserted;

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

5 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 47


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

7 you inquiring about our privilege log?


8 INTERROGATORY NO. 48

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

BY::---!-Y--~) ==~_
19

20 ! c.::...b='
{

Puul1. Hensler
21 Chief Executive Officer, Kern Medical Center
22
SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY AS TO OIl.IECTIONS

24
Dated: February 1,2008 LA W OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER

26
By: /s/ Mark A. Wasser
27
Mark A. Wasser
28 Attorney for Defendants, COUllty of Kern, et <II.

54
DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 110 of 130
Eugene D. Lee
From: Eugene D. Lee [elee@LOEL.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 3:57 PM
To: 'mwasser@markwasser.com'
Subject: RE: Jadwin/KC: Interrogatories

Mark,

I’ll call you.

Sincerely,

Gene Lee
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE
EMPLOYMENT LAW
555 WEST FIFTH ST., STE. 3100
LOS ANGELES, CA 90013
Tel: (213)992-3299
Fax: (213)596-0487
E - m a i l : elee@LOEL.com
W e b s i t e : www.LOEL.com
B l o g : www.CaLaborLaw.com  
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this
transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.

 
Califocnia Laboc & Emplo,ment Law Bl09
  Plaintiff Gets $30,300, His Lawyers Get $1,1 mil,
  Febn>Arf', , . . .
" . " " ,y "'''"'"''
 

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


Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 3:30 PM
To: elee@LOEL.com
Subject: RE: Jadwin/KC: Interrogatories

Gene,

3:00 p.m. tomorrow is fine. Will you call me?

Mark

From: Eugene D. Lee [mailto:elee@LOEL.com]


Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 3:22 PM
To: mwasser@markwasser.com
Subject: RE: Jadwin/KC: Interrogatories

Mark,

3 p.m. tomorrow works for me. Let me know.


1
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 111 of 130
Sincerely,

Gene Lee
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE
EMPLOYMENT LAW
555 WEST FIFTH ST., STE. 3100
LOS ANGELES, CA 90013
Tel: (213)992-3299
Fax: (213)596-0487
E - m a i l : elee@LOEL.com
W e b s i t e : www.LOEL.com
B l o g : www.CaLaborLaw.com  
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this
transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.

Califocnia Laboc &  Emplo,ment Law 0109


  Plaintiff Gets $30,300, His Lawyers Get $1,1 mil,
  Febn>o..,', , ... " ..." ,y "'oo,,"..
 

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


Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 2:55 PM
To: elee@LOEL.com
Subject: RE: Jadwin/KC: Interrogatories

Gene,

I am back in the office and will be here the rest of the week. We can talk tomorrow, if you want. What time is good for
you?

Mark

From: Eugene D. Lee [mailto:elee@LOEL.com]


Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 10:46 AM
To: mwasser@markwasser.com
Subject: Jadwin/KC: Interrogatories

Mark,

Let’s discuss Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories, set one. When are you available to talk this week?

Sincerely,

Gene Lee
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE
EMPLOYMENT LAW
555 WEST FIFTH ST., STE. 3100
LOS ANGELES, CA 90013

2
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document
T e l : ( 2 1 3 ) 103-2
9 9 2 - 3 2 9 9 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 112 of 130
Fax: (213)596-0487
E - m a i l : elee@LOEL.com
W e b s i t e : www.LOEL.com
B l o g : www.CaLaborLaw.com  
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this
transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.

 
Califocnia Laboc & Emplo,ment Law 0109
  Plaintiff Gets $30,300, His Lawyers Get $1,1 mil,
  Febn>o..,', , ... " ..." ,y "'oo,,"..
 

3
To: 213-596-0487 From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee Pg 1/ 6 02/20/08 8:37 pm

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 113 of 130


ELEE@LOEL.COM
(213) 992-3299
TELEPHONE
LAW OFFICE OF EMAIL

E U G ENE L E E
(213) 596-0487 555 WEST FIFTH STREET SUITE 3100 WWW.LOEL.COM
FACSIMILE Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9001 3-1 01 0 WEBSITE

FAX
To: From: Law Office of Eugene Lee
Fax Number: 2135960487 Date: 02/20/2008
Pages: 6 (including cover page)
Re: Jadwin/KC: Rog1

Comments:

Mark,

Please see attached.


To: 213-596-0487 From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee Pg 2/ 6 02/20/08 8:37 pm

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 114 of 130

(213) 992-3299
TELEPHONE
LAW OFFICE OF ELEE@LOEL.GOM
E-MAIL

EUGENE LEE
(Z 1 3) 596-0487 555 WEST FIFTH STREET, SUITE 3100 WWW.LOEL.COM
FACSIMILE LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90013-1010 WEBSITE
EUGENE D. LEE, ESQ JOAN E. HERRINGTON, ESQ
PRINCIPAL OF COUNSEL

February 20, 2008


VIA U.S. MAIL FIRST CLASS & FACSIMILE

Mark Wasser 100011.001


Law Offices of Mark Wasser
400 Capitol Mall Ste 1100
Sacramento, CA 95814

Re: Defendants Responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories, Set One


Jadwin / County of Kern, et al. (USDC EDCA NO.1 :07-cv-00026-0WW/TAG)

Dear Mark:

It was a pleasure speaking with you today regarding Defendant Kern County's deficient
responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories, Set One. We are writing this letter in follow-up to our
discussion.

As discussed, Defendant has agreed to fully supplement its responses as described below by no
later than March 5, 2008. Ifthe following issues are not fully resolved at that time, Plaintiff will
have no choice but to immediately file a motion to compel.

Response Issue
toRog
No.
1,2,4,5, 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 not
directed to issues of "pure law" that would infringe on the attorney-work product
doctrine as codified in Rule 26(b)(3). Rather, they seek the facts upon which the
Boyces' relied for their defense to the Forms 4340. As such, the contention
interrogatories were permissible and the Boyces were required to respond to them."

You stated Defendant disagrees. Plaintiff intends 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
To: 213-596-0487 From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee Pg 3/ 6 02/20/08 8:37 pm

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 115 of 130

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 YOU
if the PERSON is or was employed with YOU as of the date these interrogatories are
answered, and the last day ofthe PERSON's employment with YOu. Defendant has
not fully responded to the interrogatory.

You stated Defendant will supplement its response by giving the last date of
employment and current or most recent position for each person listed.
10 Plaintiff's position is that it is entitled to know the dates of employment, job titles,
dates, circumstances and reasons for departure of County employees named as
potential witnesses by Defendant. Moreover, all grounds for objection to an
interrogatory must be stated "with specificity." FRCP 33(b)(4); see Nagele v.
Electronic Data Systems Corp. (WD NY 2000) 193 FRD 94,109 (objection that
interrogatories were "burdensome" overruled because objecting party failed to
"particularize" basis for objection). Regarding Ev. C. 1040, it is a generally-worded
statute regarding "official information". Defendants have the burden under Ev. C.
1040 to establish the specific "official information" privilege.

Defendant disagrees. Plaintiff intends to move to compel.


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 with
DOCUMENTS, the term "IDENTIFY" includes the name(s) ofthe author(s),
name(s) of recipient(s), date of creation, date of modification, date of delivery, date
of execution, effective date, subject matter, bates numbers, page numbers, paragraph
numbers, line numbers and/or section numbers. Defendant has not fully responded to
the interrogatory. Also, Defendant has failed to state the "role" each person listed
played in the PEER REVIEW.

You stated Defendant will supplement its response.


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 objecting
party failed to "particularize" basis for objection). Regarding Ev. C. 1040, it is a
generally-worded statute regarding "official information". Defendants have the
burden under Ev. C. 1040 to establish the specific "official information" privilege.

Moreover, no HIPAA protected information has been requested.

You stated Defendant will supplement its response.


24 All grounds for objection to an interrogatory must be stated "with specificity." FRCP

2
To: 213-596-0487 From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee Pg 4/ 6 02/20/08 8:37 pm

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 116 of 130

33(b)(4); see Nagele v. Electronic Data Systems Corp. (WD NY 2000) 193 FRD 94,
109 (objection that interrogatories were "burdensome" overruled because objecting
party failed to "particularize" basis for objection). Regarding Ev. C. 1040, it is a
generally-worded statute regarding "official information". Defendants have the
burden under Ev. C. 1040 to establish the specific "official information" privilege.

Moreover, no HIPAA protected information has been requested.

You stated Defendant will supplement its response.


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).

You stated Defendant will supplement its response.


27 The term "IDENTIFY" when used in connection with natural PERSONS includes
the name, address, phone number, the current or most recent position held with YOU
if the PERSON is or was employed with YOU as of the date these interrogatories are
answered, and the last day ofthe PERSON's employment with you. Defendant has
not fully responded to the interrogatory..

Moreover, Defendant has failed to state the dates of administrative leave, and any
and all reasons for such leave.

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, Plaintiff has agreed to narrow this interrogatory from
"MEDICAL STAFF" to "CORE PHYSICIANS". Based on this narrowing, you
agreed that Defendant would supplement its response.
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 Legal Dictionary.

You agreed and stated Defendant will supplement its response.


31/32 Defendant's response is completely non-responsive.

You stated Defendant will supplement its response.


36/37 Defendant failed to state the date the decision was made.

You stated Defendant will supplement its response.


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
To: 213-596-0487 From: Law OFFice of Eugene Lee Pg 5/ 6 02/20/08 8:37 pm

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 117 of 130

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.

You stated Defendant will supplement its response.


42 The term "IDENTIFY" when used in connection with natural PERSONS includes
the name, address, phone number, the current or most recent position held with YOU
ifthe PERSON is or was employed with YOU as ofthe date these interrogatories are
answered, and the last day ofthe PERSON's employment with you. Defendant has
not fully responded to the interrogatory. and failed to IDENTIFY "counsel".

Moreover, Defendants fail to state the date the decision was made.

You stated Defendant will supplement its response.


43 Defendants fail to state the date the decision was made.

You stated Defendant will supplement its response.


44 Defendant's response is utterly non-responsive.

You stated Defendant will supplement its response.


46/47 Plaintiff explained that the questions are intended to determine which documents in
the Rule 26 Initial Disclosures will be subject to privilege-based admissibility
challenges by Defendant.

You stated Defendant will supplement its response. You also acknowledged the
meaning ofthe term "IDENTIFY" as used in this Interrogatory includes the name(s)
ofthe author(s), name(s) ofrecipient(s), date of creation, date of modification, date
of delivery, date of execution, effective date, subject matter, bates numbers, page
numbers, paragraph numbers, line numbers and/or section numbers.
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 "essential
functions" of Plaintiff's position.

4
To: 213-596-0487 From: Law Office
OFFice of Eugene Lee Pg 6/ 6 02/20/08 8:37 pm

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 118 of 130

We look forward to our next meet and confer conference call with you at 9:30 a.ill.
a.m. tomorrow
(February 21, 2008).

Et
cc: David F. Jadwin, D.O., F.C.A.P. \J
Iv)

5
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 119 of 130
Eugene D. Lee
From: Eugene D. Lee [elee@LOEL.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 12:13 PM
To: 'mwasser@markwasser.com'
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 be
handing me those documents at the beginning of Dr. Jadwin’s deposition on March 11. We also agreed that
we would have a call at 5 p.m. on Sunday, March 9, to discuss Plaintiff’s requests 65, 66, 67, 69, 70, 72, 76,
77 and 78.
- You said that, today, you would be serving supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories 10, 15, 23,
24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 36, 37, 38, 39, 42, 43, 44, 48, as well as a letter explaining Defendant’s refusal to
supplement responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories 1-7, 9, 31-32, 41, 46, 47
- I further clarified interrogatories 46 and 47 (for a second time), explaining that Plaintiff seeks to know which
documents produced in the Initial Disclosures by ANY party are subject to Defendants’ claim of privilege
and challenge to admissibility. You confirmed that you had no further confusions or need for further
clarification of interrogatories 46 and 47 and that you fully understood them.
- I explained that Plaintiff intends to immediately file a motion to compel regarding any unresolved requests
for production and/or interrogatories.

Also, regarding Dr. Jadwin’s deposition, you stated it was Defendants’ intention to complete Dr. Jadwin’s
deposition by March 12. If that does not occur, Plaintiff will not agree to a third deposition session in the absence
of a stipulation or court order.

I look forward to discussing the requests for production with you on March 9. Please contact me if you have any
questions.

Sincerely,

Gene Lee
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE
EMPLOYMENT LAW
555 WEST FIFTH ST., STE. 3100
LOS ANGELES, CA 90013
Tel: (213)992-3299
Fax: (213)596-0487
E - m a i l : elee@LOEL.com
W e b s i t e : www.LOEL.com
B l o g : www.CaLaborLaw.com  
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this
transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.

1
Mar 05 08 03:35p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.1

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 120 of 130


The Law Offices of Mark A. Wasser
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100
Sacramento, California 95814
Office: 916444-6400
Fax: 916-444-6405

Fax
To: Eugene Lee From: Amy Remly

Fax: (213) 596-0487 Pages: 5 (including cover page)

Phone: (213) 992-3299 Date: 3/5/08

Re: Jadwin v. County of Kern CC:

D Urgent D For Review D Please Comment D Please Reply D Please Recycle

• Comments:

Please see attached letter.


Mar 05 08 03:35p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.2

Law Offices of
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 121 of 130
MARK A. WASSER
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100
Sacl'am.entQ, California 95814
Office: 916-444-6400 Fax: 916-444-6405
mwasser@markwasser,com

March 5, 2008

VIA FACSIMILE AND FIRST CLASS MAIL

Eugene Lee
Law Offices of Eugene Lee
555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100
Los Angeles, California 90013-1010

Re: Jadwin v. County ofKern, et al.

Dear Gene:

This is in response to our telephone conferences On February 20 and today


regarding the Defendants' supplemental responses to Plaintiff's first set of
interrogatories.

Interrogatory Numbers 1. 2. 4. 5.6 and 7.

Although we objected to this interrogatory on grounds of attorney work product


and attorney-client privilege, the facts that support the third affinnative defense are set
forth in the Second Supplemental Complaint and in the text of the defense itself. The
third affirmative defense states that the Defendants' actions, as alleged in the Second
Supplemental Complaint, were in furtherance of medical peer review, maintenance of
quality of care standards, discharge of official duties and performed in the course of
official proceedings authorized by law and that, as such, they are privileged under the
referenced statutes. In drafting the third affirmative defense, the Defendants bad in mind
only the facts alleged in the Second Supplemental Complaint. The legal analysis and
reasoning why the Defendants believe their actions are privileged is protected under
attorney-work product and attorney-client privilege doctrines but the facts have been
disclosed.

The same is true of the fourth, sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth affirmative
defenses. They each reference the factual allegations set forth in the Second
Supplemental Complaint. In interposing those defenses the defendants had no facts in
mind other than those set forth in the Second Supplemental Complaint.

Admitted to Pracrice in California and Nevada


Mar 05 08 03:35p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.3

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 122 of 130


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 Plaintiff has taken the depositions
of several current and former members of the Kern Medical Center staff. The Defendants
are under no obligation to summarize, in their response to Interrogatory Number Three,
the discovery that has occurred in this case to date. For example, although you assert that
the Defendants have not disclosed "what physical confrontations plaintiff allegedly had
with other persons" the Defendants have produced the transcript of the investigation that
was conducted after your client pulled a fellow physician out of a room by his necktie.
We have disclosed letters admonishing your client for his behavior and you have listened
to the deposition testimony of several employees describing your client's behavior. The
Defendants' response to Interrogatory Number Three is more than adequate.

Interrogatory Numbers 9 and 10.

You continue to characterize the individuals we identified in our Initial


Disclosures as "witnesses" and these two Interrogatories seek additional information
about those individuals on the assumption they are witnesses. As I have told you on
multiple occasions, the Defendants have not yet identified any ",itnesses.
v.itnesses. The list of
persons included in the Defendants' initial disclosures was compiled in compliance with
Rule 26(a)(I )(A) which requires the name and address "of each individual likely to have
discoverable infoffilation". It is not a witness list and Defendants have made no decision
regarding who may be a witness in this action. There are no "witnesses" identified in the
initial disclosures. I

Plaintiff's attempt to bootstrap the persons identified in Defendants' initial


disclosures into a list of trial witnesses and then demand employment history information
on all of them is burdensome and oppressive and Defendants will not respond further to
tillS interrogatory for that reason.

At your request, Defendants will produce all those individuals for deposition and
you are free to inquire as to their employment history. As soon as Defendants identify
any trial witnesses, we will share that list with you.

Interrogatory Number 28.

It is a small point but the Defendants did not request that Plaintiff narrow this
interrogatory from "medical staff' to "core physicians". The Defendants objected to the
Mar 05 08 03:36p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 pA

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 123 of 130


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.

Interrogatory Numbers 29 and 30.

The Defendants' responses to these interrogatories are neither contradictory nor


illogical and, contrary to what you write in your letter, we have not agreed that they are.
The history of physician agreements at KMC does not lend itself to categorization based
on the length of the contract. It is more complicated. Nevertheless, and despite the fact
that answering this Interrogatory will yield nothing of any use in this case, Defendants
will supplement their answer.

Interrogatory Numbers 31 and 32.

The Defendants' responses to these interrogatories are responsive. As I explained


to you during our telephone conference, the job descriptions and employment agreements
for medical staff employed at Kern Medical Center include a provision requiring them to
comply with all hospital policies and procedures. Your client issued rules for the
Pathology Department that required staff pathologists to provide onsite shift coverage
during specifically stated hours and carry pagers when on call. Thus, those requirements
became part of the job description and employment agreement for each and every staff
pathologist employed after October 24, 2000. The Defendants have previously provided
lists of staff pathologists employed since 2000 and there is no reason to do so again.

Interrogatory Number 41.

The Defendants recognize that the amount of the reduction in Plaintiffs base
salary was a precise number. Our response to Interrogatory Number Forty-One
accurately and completely responds to the interrogatory. Plaintiff's new salary was
selected because it was comparable to that of a core pathologist. There is no further
explanation required and defendants will not respond further to this interrogatory.

Interrogatory Numbers 46 and 47.

Defendants prepared a privilege log that accompanied their initial disclosures.


Documents the Defendants believe are privileged are identified in the privilege log. You
have asked us to review Plaintiff's Initial Disclosures and let you know if we think any
documents Plaintiff disclosed are privileged. As you note, we have discussed it twice.
You describe this request as a "housekeeping" issue and that you simply want to know if
Defendants intend to object to the admissibility of any documents contained in your
Initial Disclosures on the basis of privilege. This still strikes me as a strange request but I
will review your Initial Disclosures and let you know if we believe any of the documents
you disclosed are privileged.
Mar 05 08 03:36p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.5

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Eugene Lee Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 124 of 130
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)


Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 125 of 130
Eugene D. Lee
From: Mark Wasser [mwasser@markwasser.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 3:39 PM
To: Eugene Lee
Subject: Verification to Supplemental Responses
Attachments: Jadwin.Signature.Supplemental Interrogatories.030508.pdf; Karen Barnes.vcf

Gene,

Here is the verification to the supplemental responses to the interrogatories.

Mark

1
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 126 of 130

50, section 9.7-5, Responsibilities and Duties of Dcparlment Chairs and Plaintiffsjob
2 description.
3

4 SIGNATURE 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 Dated: March s-, 2008


9
10 By.:~
yj}J~_L=---_
Paul J. Hensler
II Chief Executive Orficer, Kern Medical Center
12

13 SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY AS TO OBJECTIONS

14
Dated: M,uch __' 2008 LA W OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER

15
By:_-,-.,---,------:.,,-- _
16
Mark A. Wasser
17 Attorney for Defendants, County ofKem, et al.

18

19
20

21

22

24
-,
7'

26
27

28
29
DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES
TO PLAfNTIFF'S fNTERROGATORJES
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 127 of 130

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 EXHIBIT 5:
22 Declaration of Eugene Lee in Support of Motion
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBITS TO JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT
re: INTERROGATORIES 5
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 128 of 130

1 Eugene D. Lee SB#: 236812


LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE
2 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100
Los Angeles, CA 90013
3 Phone: (213) 992-3299
Fax: (213) 596-0487
4 email: elee@LOEL.com
5 Attorneys for Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.
6
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG
10 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE IN
v. SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
11 RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES
COUNTY OF KERN, et al.,
12 Date: April 28, 2008
Defendants. Time: 9:30 a.m.
13 Place: U.S. District Court, Bankruptcy Courtroom
1300 18th St., Bakersfield, CA
14
Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007
15 Date Set for Trial: December 3, 2008
16
Plaintiff submits this Declaration of Eugene D. Lee pursuant to Local Rule 37-251(d) in lieu of a
17
joint statement re discovery disagreement.
18
I, Eugene D. Lee, declare as follows:
19
7. I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before the Federal and State Courts of
20
California and admitted to practice before the U.S.D.C. for the Eastern District of California. I am
21
counsel of record for Plaintiff David F. Jadwin in this matter.
22
8. I am making this declaration in support of plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to
23
interrogatories. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth below and I could and would
24
competently testify thereto if called as a witness in this matter.
25
9. I have spent and anticipate spending substantially in excess of 5 hours meeting and
26
conferring with Mr. Wasser by phone, fax, letter and email, researching and drafting these moving
27
papers and attending the motion hearing in Bakersfield, CA. My regular rate for such services is $400
28
DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO
INTERROGATORIES 1
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 129 of 130

1 per hour.
2 10. My rate is consistent with those charged in the Los Angeles area by attorneys of similar
3 skill and experience. I received my B.A. with honors from Harvard University in 1991 and my J.D. with
4 honors from the University of Michigan Law School in 1995. I was admitted to the New York State Bar
5 in 1996 and worked as an associate in the New York office of Shearman & Sterling from 1995 to 1996. I
6 worked as an associate in the New York office of Sullivan & Cromwell from 1996 to 1997. After a brief
7 leave of absence from practicing law from 1997 to 1999, I returned to active practice as the General
8 Counsel of Tcom America, Inc., a technology venture in Silicon Valley from 1999 to 2002. From 2002
9 to 2004, I worked as a senior associate for Kim & Chang, a law firm located in Seoul, Korea. In 2005, I
10 was admitted to the California Bar. I have been the principal of Law Office of Eugene Lee since 2005.
11 11. I attempted several times to secure local counsel to prosecute Plaintiff’s suit but was
12 ultimately unsuccessful.
13 12. On September 18, 2006, I sent an email to over 600 members of the California
14 Employment Lawyers Association seeking co-counsel. No attorneys from Fresno responded.
15 13. On February 28, 2007, I called Andrew Jones, Esq. in Fresno, CA, requesting his
16 involvement as local counsel in this action. Mr. Jones declined.
17
18 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the United States
19 that the foregoing is true and correct.
20
Executed on: April 23, 2008
21
22
23 /s/ Eugene D. Lee
24 EUGENE D. LEE
Declarant
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO
INTERROGATORIES 2
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 103-2 Filed 04/23/2008 Page 130 of 130

1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2 I, the undersigned, hereby declare:
3 I am a resident of Los Angeles in the State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party
to the action described herein. I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, California. My business
4 address is LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE, 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100, Los Angeles, CA
90013. On the date of execution of this DOCUMENT, I served the following:
5
6 JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISPUTE re: MOTION TO COMPEL
RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES
7
on the following parties in this action by and through their attorneys addressed as follows:
8
Mark A. Wasser
9 LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100
10 Sacramento, CA 95814
Fax: (916) 444-6405
11 Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern, Peter
Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher, Jennifer
12 Abraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smith and
William Roy
13
BY UNITED STATES MAIL: I enclosed the DOCUMENT(s) listed above in a sealed envelope
14 with postage thereon fully prepaid, addressed to the PERSON(s) listed above, and deposited the sealed
envelope with the United States Postal Service at Los Angeles, California. I am aware that on motion of
15 the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more
than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
16
FEDERAL: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America
17 that the above is true and correct and that I took said actions at the direction of a licensed attorney
authorized to practice before this Federal Court.
18
Executed on April 17, 2008, at Los Angeles, California.
19
20
21
22 Eugene D. Lee
23
24
25
26
27
28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE