293 p opp - d mjop

8/14/2019 293 P Opp - D MJOP

1/127

USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG

S OPPOSITION TO s MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (Doc. 251) 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Eugene D. Lee (SB#: 236812)LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100Los Angeles, CA 90013Phone: (213) 992-3299Fax: (213) 596-0487email: [email protected]

Attorney for PlaintiffDAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRESNO DIVISION

DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF KERN, et al.,

Defendants.

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

PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TODEFENDANTS MOTION FOR JUDGMENTON THE PLEADINGS (Doc. 251)[Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c)]

DATE: January 12, 2009TIME: 10:00CTRM: U.S. Dist. Ct., Crtrm. 3

2500 Tulare St., Fresno, CA

TRIAL: March 24, 2009

Complaint Filed: January 6, 2007

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 293 Filed 12/26/2008 Page 1 of 7

8/14/2019 293 P Opp - D MJOP

2/127



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiff David F. Jadwin submits his Opposition to Defendant County of Kerns Motion for

Judgment on the Pleadings, filed 11/13/08 (Doc. 250).

Defendants motion contends Defendants should be granted judgment as a matter of law

because:

Here, Plaintiff s [California Tort Claims Act] claim did not put the County on notice ofthe Claims Plaintiff actually filed in his complaint. None of the Claims in PlaintiffsSecond Amended Complaint are identified or described in his claim.Motion, Doc. 251 at 5:3-8.

Defendants motion is frivolous, harassing and violates Rule 11.

A. DEFENDANTS JUDICIALLY ADMITTED THAT PLAINTIFF EXHAUSTEDALL ADEQUATE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES FOR ALL OF HIS CLAIMSBOTHBEFORE AND AFTER FILING THE INSTANT MOTION

Defendants have admitted on numerous occasions that Plaintiff exhausted all adequate

administrative remedies for all of his claims. In fact, such admissions occurred both before and after the

filing of their frivolous motion for judgment on the pleadings on 11/13/08.

On 5/13/08, Defendants stated in discovery responses that they were not presently aware of any

facts that support the Eighth Affirmative Defense [alleging failure to exhaust administrative remedies].1

See Lee Decl., Exh. 1 (Defendants Second Supplemental Responses to Plaintiffs Interrogatories, ROG

6 at 5:26-6:3).On 8/7/08, Defendants admitted that Plaintiff had exhausted all adequate administrative

remedies for all of his claims. See Lee Decl., Exh. 2 (Defendants Responses to Plaintiffs Request for

Admission, Set One, RFA 16 at 4:23-27).

Then on 12/1/08, almost 3 weeks after Defendants filed the instant motion for judgment on the

pleadings, Defendants again admitted Plaintiff had exhausted all his administrative remedies as to all

claims. See Lee Decl., Exh. 3 (Defendants Response to Plaintiffs Statement of Undisputed Facts, Doc.

278, at PMF 210 & 211 on 37:8-17).

Defendantss admissions both before and after the filing of the instant motion belie their own

present contention that Plaintiff failed to exhaust remedies under the Tort Claims Act. There motion is

1 The Eighth Affirmative Defense states: As and for an eighth affirmative defense, Defendants allegethat Plaintiff has available adequate administrative remedies which he failed to exhaust and that hisclaims are, therefore, barred. Defendants Answer to Second Amended Complaint, Doc. 246 at 13:3-5.


8/14/2019 293 P Opp - D MJOP

3/127



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

frivolous and harassing.

B. DEFENDANTS MOTION VIOLATES THE COURTS EXPRESS RULINGAGAINST FILING OF RULE 12 MOTIONS

At the hearing held before Judge Wanger on 10/6/08, Defendants requested permission to file

Rule 12 motions in connection with Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint. Defendants stated their

strong belief that Plaintiffs new oppositional retaliation claims would be dismissed on a Rule 12

motion. Plaintiff pointed out that the parties intended to file motions for summary judgment on 11/13/08

anyway and that any Rule 12 motions should be subsumed by the motions for summary judgment for

sake of judicial economy and to minimize further delays in the trial calendar. Having heard all the

arguments of the parties, Judge Wanger agreed with Plaintiff and ruled from the bench that the parties

should not file Rule 12 motions subsequent to the filing of the Second Amended Complaint (which

Plaintiff filed on 10/7/08).

In observance of this ruling, Plaintiff refrained from filing separate Rule 12 motions to strike

Defendants 10 frivolous affirmative defenses and instead strained to include these arguments within the

restrictive page limits of his motion for summary judgment brief.

Defendants motion is a violation of Judge Wangers ruling. Plaintiff has been prejudiced.

C. PLAINTIFFS TORT CLAIMS ACT COMPLAINT WAS MORE THANADEQUATEDefendants contend:

[Plaintiffs] [Tort Claims Act] claim contains no allegation and no factual description ofany violation of CFRA, no allegation of disability, depression, whistleblowing toa governmental agency, reasonable accommodation, failure to accommodate or failureto engage in the interactive process allegations that are all integral to his complaint.Motion, Doc. 251 at 5:5-6.

Defendants contention rests on bad law and bad facts.

1. Well-settled Caselaw Holds that FEHA Claims are Exempt from General TortClaims Act Requirements

As Defendants well know, the caselaw is well settled that actions under FEHA (of which CFRA

is a part) are exempt from general California Tort Claims Act requirements. In Snipes v. City of

Bakersfield, a case Defendant County of Kern is surely familiar with, the Court of Appeal reversed a

grant of demurrer by a Kern County Superior Court, ruling:


8/14/2019 293 P Opp - D MJOP

4/127



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

In this appeal we conclude that actions seeking redress for employment discriminationpursuant to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) ( Gov. Code, 12900 et seq.) are not subject to the claim-presentation requirements of the Tort ClaimsAct ( Gov. Code, 810 et seq.).145 Cal. App. 3d 861, 863.

The court further reasoned:

We agree with appellants argument that the purposes and procedures of the FEHAdemonstrate a legislative intent that actions against governmental entities brought underthe FEHA are to be excepted from the general requirements of the Tort Claims Act. TheFEHA constitutes a comprehensive scheme for combating employment discrimination,with specific time limitations related to the remedies provided.

Snipes was cited with approval by the California Supreme Court in Rojo v. Kliger, 52 Cal.3d 65, 80

(Cal. 1990) (actions under FEHA are exempt from general Tort Claims Act requirements).

In fact, on 7/31/06, Plaintiff filed, and served on Defendants, his complaint with the California

Department of Fair Employment & Housing regarding his claims under FEHA and CFRA. That

complaint included an attachment which fully detailed the chronology of transactions and occurrences

underlying all of Plaintiffs FEHA and CFRA claims. It also included many of the legal catchphrases

which Defendants seem to hold so dear accommodation, disability, retaliation, etc.:

[. . .] I would be pursuing claims for, among other things, disability discrimination,failure to accommodate disability, retaliation for taking California Family Rights Actmedical leaves, etc.Exhibits to Second Amended Complaint, Doc. 241-2, Exh. 4 at pp. 52-54 (FEHA

complaint of 8/3/06).

2. Plaintiffs Disclosure of His Claims Exceeded the Requirements ofGovernment Code 911

The disclosures contained in Plaintiffs Tort Claims Act complaint were more than adequate.

Cal. Govt. C. 910 requires Plaintiff only to disclose the date, place, and other circumstances of the

occurrence or transaction; it does not require recitation of the specific statutory or other legal bases for

Plaintiffs claims as Defendants contend.2 Nor does it require evidentiary detail. SeeBlair v. Sup. Ct.

2 Cal. Govt. C. 910 states:

A claim shall be presented by the claimant or by a person acting on his or her behalf and shall show allof the following:

(a) The name and post office address of the claimant.(b) The post office address to which the person presenting the claim desires notices to be sent.(c) The date, place and other circumstances of the occurrence or transaction which gave rise to the


8/14/2019 293 P Opp - D MJOP

5/127



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 221, 224;More v. City of San Bernardino (1931) 118 Cal.App. 732. The claim

need only be drafted with sufficient factual breadth and character to support the legal theories on which

the plaintiff subsequently plans to sue if the claim is rejected. See Stearns v. County of Los Angeles

(1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 134, 138 n.3. Recognizing that laypersons often prepare claims without benefit

of legal advice, courts have ruled that claims need not adhere to the standards of clarity and precision

expected in pleadings. SeeMartinez v. County of Los Angeles (1978) 78 Cal.App.3d 242; Foster v.

McFadden (1973) 30 Cal.App.3d 943. In short, the focus is on disclosure of the circumstances of

relevant transactions and occurrences, not recitation of legal catchphrases like reasonable

accommodation, whistleblowing, interactive process, etc.

Plaintiffs Tort Claims Act complaint amply fulfills these factual disclosure requirements.

Regarding Plaintiffs whistleblower retaliation claim, the complaint discloses:

Pursuant to an employment contract (Contract), Complainant was formerly Chair ofPathology at Kern Medical Center (KMC). On June 14, 2006, Mr. Peter Bryan (CEOof KMC) summarily informed Complainant that he was being stripped of chairmanshipeffective June 17, 2006, due to his taking excessive sick leaves. . . . Thedemotion/termination constituted retaliation by Mr. Bryan against Complainant forraising concerns relating to patient health care. Previous to June 14, Complainant hadapprised Mr. Bryan and other medical staff leadership in emails and communications toonumerous to count of several crisis issues which critically jeopardized patient health careat KMC: i) need for follow-up on failure of a formerly-employed KMC pathologist to

detect cancer diagnoses in numerous patient prostate biopsies; ii) chronically incompleteor inaccurate KMC blood component product chart copies, in violation of stateregulations and accreditation standards of JCAHO, CAP and AABB; iii) chronicallyinadequate fine needle aspirations collected by KMC radiologists leading to incompleteand/or incorrect patient diagnoses and greatly increased expense for KMC; iv) need forKMC pathology dept. i) to review outsourced pathology diagnoses prior to undergoingmajor therapy in reliance on those diagnoses and ii) to approve outsourcing of pathologyto outside vendors; and v) need for effective oversight of blood usage program bypathology dept.

claim asserted.

(d) A general description of the indebtedness, obligation, injury, damage or loss incurred so far as itmay be known at the time of presentation of the claim.(e) The name or names of the public employee or employees causing the injury, damage, or loss, ifknown.(f) The amount claimed if it totals less than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) as of the date of presentationof the claim, including the estimated amount of any prospective injury, damage, or loss, insofar as itmay be known at the time of the presentation of the claim, together with the basis of computation of theamount claimed. If the amount claimed exceeds ten thousand dollars ($10,000), no dollar amount shallbe included in the claim. However, it shall indicate whether the claim would be a limited civil case.


8/14/2019 293 P Opp - D MJOP

6/127



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Exhibits to Second Amended Complaint, Doc. 241-2, Exh. 2 at pp. 28-30 (Tort ClaimsAct complaint of 7/3/06).

Both whistleblower statutes which Plaintiff is suing under Labor Code 1102.5 and Health & Safety

Code 1278.5 expressly provide that an employees reports to his public employer constitute

whistleblowing. H&S 1278.5(b)(1)(A); Labor C. 1102.5(e). That is exactly what is disclosed in the

foregoing. Nor did Plaintiff blow the whistle to external regulatory authorities until much later, in

November 2006. Defendants allegation that Plaintiffs Tort Claims Act complaint is deficient is

baseless and frivolous.

Moreover, the purpose of the Tort Claims Act is to provide the public entity sufficient

information to enable it to adequately investigate claims and to settle them, if appropriate, without the

expense of litigation. City of San Jose v. Sup. Ct. (1974) 12 Cal.3d 447, 455. Even before Plaintiff had

filed his Tort Claims Act complaint on 7/3/06, Plaintiff sent a demand letter on 6/29/06 to Defendants,

fully detailing Plaintiffs pending claims for retaliation for reporting patient care issues to his employers,

disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, etc. The disclosure of pending claims in that letter put

Defendants on notice as to the nature of all of Plaintiffs claims, not just those required to be disclosed

under the Tort Claims Act. See See Lee Decl., Exh. 4 (Demand letter, as served by Plaintiffs counsel

upon Karen Barnes, Chief Deputy County Counsel for the County of Kern on 6/29/06).

Similarly, the FEHA complaint of 8/3/06 referenced in Section C.1. supra provided detailed

disclosure to Defendants, more than enabling them to investigate and/or settle Plaintiffs claims had they

chosen to do so.

In short, there were no deficiencies in Plaintiffs Tort Claims Act complaint, nor can Defendants

now claim prejudice from deficiencies which they contend existed in such complaint.

D. CONCLUSIONPlaintiff questions what good faith basis Defendants could have had in bringing this motion. It

rests on bad facts and bad law, and is ultimately nothing more than bad faith argument. Defendants

judicial admissions that Plaintiff exhausted all administrative remedies on all claims both before and

after the filing of this motion establish that beyond question. It is apparent that Defendants purposes in

bringing this frivolous motion are improper: to harass Plaintiff and increase his costs of litigation, as


8/14/2019 293 P Opp - D MJOP

7/127



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

they have done throughout this action. Defendants have violated Rule 113 more times than Plaintiff can

recount. This motion is but the latest example of that.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court deny Defendants Motion for

Judgment on the Pleadings in its entirety.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED on December 26, 2008.

/s/ Eugene D. LeeLAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100

Los Angeles, CA 90013Phone: (213) 992-3299Fax: (213) 596-0487email: [email protected] for Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.

3 FRCP Rule 11(b) states:

By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper--whether by signing, filing,submitting, or later advocating it--an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of thepersons knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under thecircumstances:

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, orneedlessly increase the cost of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolousargument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;

(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely haveevidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, arereasonably based on belief or a lack of information.


8/14/2019 293 P Opp - D MJOP

8/127


DECLARATION O EUGENE D. LEE IN SUPPORT OF S OPPOSITION TO s MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE

PLEADINGS (Doc. 251) 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Eugene D. Lee (SB#: 236812)LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100Los Angeles, CA 90013Phone: (213) 992-3299Fax: (213) 596-0487email: [email protected]

Attorney for PlaintiffDAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRESNO DIVISION

DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF KERN, et al.,

Defendants.

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

DECLARATION OF EUGENE LEE INSUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TODEFENDANTS MOTION FOR JUDGMENTON PLEADINGS[Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c)]

DATE: January 12, 2009TIME: 10:00CTRM: U.S. Dist. Ct., Crtrm. 3

2500 Tulare St., Fresno, CATRIAL: March 24, 2009

Complaint Filed: January 6, 2007

I, Eugene D. Lee, declare as follows:

1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before the Federal and State Courts of

California and admitted to practice before the U.S.D.C. for the Eastern District of California. I am

counsel of record for Plaintiff David F. Jadwin in this matter.

2. I am making this declaration in support of Plaintiffs opposition to Defendants Motion

for Judgment on the Pleadings. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth below and I could and

would competently testify thereto if called as a witness in this matter.

3. Attached hereto as Exhibits are true and correct copies of the following documents which

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 293-2 Filed 12/26/2008 Page 1 of 120

8/14/2019 293 P Opp - D MJOP

9/127




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

were either served on me or transmitted by me on or around the dates indicated:

Exh. Date Description

1 5/13/2008 Defendants Second Supplemental Responses to PlaintiffsInterrogatories, Set One

2 8/7/2008 Defendants Responses to Plaintiffs Requests for Admission,Set One

3 12/1/2008 Defendants Separate Statement in Opposition to PlaintiffsMotion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 278)

4 6/29/2006 Eugene Lee Faxed Demand Letter to Kern County Deputy

Counsel Karen Barnes


8/14/2019 293 P Opp - D MJOP

10/127




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

EXHIBIT 1: Defendants Second Supplemental Responses to Plaintiffs Interrogatories, Set One


8/14/2019 293 P Opp - D MJOP

11/127

13 08 04:25p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.3

I Mark A Wasser CA 5B #60160LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER2 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100Sacramento, CA 958143 Phone: (916) 444-6400Fax: (916) 444-64054 E-mail: [email protected] Bernard C. Barmarm, Sr. CA SB #60508KERN COUNTY COUNSEL6 Mark Nations, Chief Deputy CA SB #1018381115 Truxtun Avenue, Fourth Floor7 Bakersfield, CA 9330IPhone: (661) 868-38008 Fax: (661) 868-3805E-mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants County of Kern,Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher,11 JelUlifer Abraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smithand William Roy

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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

DEFENDANTS' SECONDSUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TOPLAINTIFF'S INTEROGATORIES (SETONE)

) Case No.: I:07-cv-00026-0WW-TAG))

)))

17 Plaintiff,18 vs.19 COUNTY OF KERN, et al.,20 Defendants.

23

2122

1213141516 DAVID F. JAD"'TN, D.O.

24 PROPOUNDING PARTY:25 RESPONDING PARTY:26 SET NUMBER:27

PlaintiffDAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., F.e.A.p.Defendant COUNTY OF KERNONE (1)

28

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES


8/14/2019 293 P Opp - D MJOP

12/127

13 08 04:25p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 pA

Defendants hereby submit these second supplemental responses to PlaintiffDavid F.2 Jad\\iin's Interrogatories, Set One.3 INTERROGATORY NO.14 State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Third Affinnative Defense.5 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.16 All of the Defendants' actions and communications referenced in the complaint were7 done in furtherance of patient care and the administration ofKMC and KMC's peer-review,S quality assurance and maintenance ofquality-of-care programs, all ofwhich are official9 proceedings authorized by statute. All of the letters, e-mails and statements described in the

10 complaint were prepared and distributed within the context of hospital management, peer reviewII and quality assurance and maintenance of quality-of-care programs. All ofDefendants'12 statements were accurate and true. None were false. None was motivated by malice towards13 Plaintiff or by any improper purpose.14 INTERROGATORY NO.215 State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Fourth Affirmative Defense.16 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.217 All of the Defendants' actions and communications referenced in the complaint were1& done in furtherance ofpatient care and the administration ofKMC and KMC's peer-review,19 quality assurance and maintenance of quality-of-care programs, all ofwhich are officiaI20 proceedings authorized by statute. All of the letters, e-mails and statements described in the21 complaint were prepared and distributed within the context of peer review and quality:assurance22 and maintenance of quality-of-care programs. All ofDefendants' statements were accurate and23 true. None were false. None was motivated by malice towards Plaintiff or by any improper24 purpose.25 INTERROGATORY NO.326 State e:u:h and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Fifth Affirmative Defense.27 11/28 /1/

2DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES


8/14/2019 293 P Opp - D MJOP

13/127

13 08 04:25p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.5

1 SUPPLEMENTALRESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.32 Plaintiff physically assaulted Dr. Lau in a room at KMC; falsely accused Dr. Ragland of3 being an "impaired" physician and being "incompetent", of having a substance abuse problem,4 an emotional or cognitive function disorder, and an intellectual level of functioning well below5 the high school graduate level; he demanded that Dr. Ragland undergo immediate drug testing,6 be referred to the physician well-being committee, and that his patient care duties be monitored7 until Ragland could be evaluated. Plaintiff publicly accused Dr. Roy of being a "bad doctor" and8 committing malpractice and repeatedly threatened Dr. Roy with lawsuits to recover damages for9 what Plaintiff termed Dr. Roy's "imprudent public behavior." Plaintiffrepeatedly threatened10 legal action as a means of resolving his differences with members of the medical staff;II repeatedly usurped time allocated to other speakers at monthly oncology conferences to make12 speeches, criticize other physicians and providers, inappropriately debate other members of the13 medical staffand disrupt the conference; wrote many letters and e-mails, all ofwhich have been14 produced, in which he complained about other members of the medical statl and non-medical15 staff, made false accusations against KMC and members of the KMC medical staff and16 demanded that various members of the KMC medical staff be "investigated"; he made17 derogatory comments about and complained about Dr. Abrallam, including accusing her of18 being "nothing more than a weight-loss doctor." He made derogatory comments about and19 complained about Dr. Kercher, Dr. Harris, Dr. Roy, Dr. Naderi, Dr. Taylor, Dr. McBride, Dr.20 Martin, Dr. Ang, Dr. Lang, Dr. Liu and Dr. Shertudke, he wrote many e-mails and letters, all of21 which have been prodnced, falsely alleging that KL\1C was in violation or non-compliance with22 state law and accepted health care protocols; he used e-mail and memos to avoid more personal23 communication with KMC staff and as a vehicle for verbal retaliation for a variety of perceived24 wrongs and personal slights, he resisted repeated efforts by Peter Bryan, Dr. Harris, Dr.25 Abraham, Dr. Kercher, Dr. Ragland and Dr. Kolb to eounsd him and tacilitate an improvement26 in relationships between Plaintiff and other members of the medical staff; he dismissed the27 opinions and observations of other members ofKMC staff if their opinions and observations did28 not coincide with his own, he proposed a new protocol for fine needle aspirations without

3DEFENDA)[TS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES


8/14/2019 293 P Opp - D MJOP

14/127

13 08 04:26p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.6

discussing it with the Radiology Department and pouted and became openly antagonistic with2 othcr members ofKMC staffwhen it was not adopted; he proposed a change in the record3 keeping for blood product chart copies that would have violated state laws on the integrity 0 r4 patient records and made accusations to several KMC staffmembers when it was not adopted.5 Plaintiffdrove Dr. Aug, Dr. Lang, Dr. Liu, Denise Long and Jane Thornton from the Pathology6 Department as a result of his continual micro-managing of their work, criticism, interference7 with their work and insistence that they devote disproportionate time to preparing reports and8 forms ofminimal importance; he created frustration and stress in other members of the staff as a9 result of the same behaviors, he insisted that staffin the Pathology Department devote

10 extraordinary time to compiling information ofminimal importance and dismissed their resulting1I concerns about workload; repeatedly tried to monopolize Medical Executive Committee and12 Quality Management committee meetings with issues of personal interest and complaints about13 KMC and other members of the medical staff; ignored and dismissed medical texts and other14 authorities that did not agree with his opinions and dismissed the related concerns of staff;15 resisted requests from treating physicians that he send pathology reports out for a second opinion16 and interfered with patient care while feuding witb treating physicians over the preparation and17 release ofpathology reports, interfered with stan; including Evangeline Gallegos, by performing18 their jobs Hnd ignored requests that he let them to their work and do his own job. Plaintiff19 adopted policies for the Pathology Department but applied them inconsistently and selectively;20 he did not comply with his own policies despite insistence that others comply; he gave staff21 inconsistent and contradictory instruction and dismissed their resulting concerns. Plaintiff22 frequently became emotional and argumentative over routine hospital management and23 administration issues and gradually destroyed thc collegiality and teamwork essential to effective24 hospital operation. He routinely retaliated against staffmembers he perceived as non-supportive25 by threatening them, making allegaLiulls against them and demanding they be investigated.26 Plaintifffrequently demanded that various members of the KMC staff"apologize" to him for27 statements made in the course ofpeer-review and quality management processes. Plaintiffs28

4DEFENDANTS' SCPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES


8/14/2019 293 P Opp - D MJOP

15/127

13 08 04:26p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.?

typical response to disagreements was to blame and accuse others, verbally assault them and,2 ultimately, make complaints against them.3 INTERROGATORY NO.44 State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Sixth Affirmative Defense.5 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY :'1"0. 46 Dr. Roy's alleged refusal to submit outside pathology reports for internal review in 20057 (Second Supplemental Complaint at 13 :23-14: 1); the Dr. Roy letter ofApril IS, 2005 (lbid at8 14:5); the concerns Dr. Roy voiced in or before May, 2005 (Ibid at 15:1); the Roy letter of July9 15,2005 (Ibid at 16:3-8); the October 12, 2005 oncology conference (Ibid at 17:5-7); the Roy

10 letter ofOctober 13,2005 (Ibid at 17: 16-18:3); the October 17,2005 meeting with Dr. Harris,11 Dr. Kercher and Dr. Ragland (Ibid at 19:8-9); the October 17,2005 letter from Dr. Harris, Dr.12 Kercher, Dr. Ragland and Dr. Abraham (Ibid at 19:19-20); the Febmary 21, 2006 letter from13 Pcter Bryan (Ibid at 21 :11-19).14 INTERROGATORY !'IO. 515 State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Seventh Affirmative16 Defense.17 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.518 Dr. Roy's alleged refusal to submit outside pathology reports for internal review in 200519 (Second Supplemental Complaint at 13:23-14: 1); the Dr. Roy letter ofApril 15, 2005 (Ibid at20 14:5); the concerns Dr. Roy voiced in or before May, 2005 (Ibid at 15: 1); the Roy letter of July21 15,2005 (Ibid at 16:3-8); the October 12,2005 oncology conference (Ibid at 17:5-7); the Roy22 letter of October 13, 2005 (Tbidat 17:16-18:3); the October 17, 2005 meeting with Dr. Harris,23 Dr. Kercher and Dr. Ragland (Ibid at 19:8-9); the October 17,2005 letter from Dr. I-Ianis, Dr.24 Kercher, Dr. Ragland and Dr. Abraham (Ibid at 19:19-20); the February 21, 2006 letter from25 Peter Bryan (Ibid at 21 :11-19).26 INTERROGATORY NO.627 State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Eighth Affirmative Defensc.28 Ii i

5DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES


8/14/2019 293 P Opp - D MJOP

16/127

13 08 04:27p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.8

23456789

10111213141516171819202122

2425262728

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.6Defendants are not presently aware of any facts that support the Eighth Affirmative

Defense.INTERROGATORY NO.7

State each and every fact that YOU contend supports YOUR Ninth Affirmative Defense.SUPPLEMENTAL RESPO:-lSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.7

Plaintiff's employment agreements and amendments, the KMC medical staffbylaws,Plaintiffs representation by counsel during the negotiation and execution of the October 3, 2006amendment to his employment agreement, Peter Bryan's IWle 14,2006 e-mail and letter toPlaintiff, the membership ofthe joint conference committee on July 10,2006, the dates anddurations of and reasons for Plaintiffs various leaves and absences, all ofwhich have beendisclosed.INTERROGATORYNO. 48

State each and every job function which YOU contend were the essential functions ofPLAINTIFF'S position as Chair of Pathology at K1vlC.SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 48

Administrative responsibilities include ensuring, togetherwith the laboratory manager,the Pathology Department is in compliance with federal and state regulations regarding clinicallaboratory operation, meets the standards for accreditation by the College ofAmericanPathologists and the American Association ofBlood Banks, operates within the policiesestablished by K1vlC and the medical staff bylaws, rules and regulations, and operates effectivelyand smooth Iy and provides timely reports, provided adequate resources are provided.

Administrative duties include overseeing the development, implementation andmaintenance of department policies and procedures for the eiinieallaboratory and pathologydepartment, including surgical pathology, cytopathology and autopsy pathology; operating andmanaging the pathology department quality assessment and improvement program; overseeingthe performance of the clinical laboratory in the CAP laboratory proficiency survey program;ensuring that performance deficicncics arc addresscd in a timely manner; monitoring

6DEFEKDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES


8/14/2019 293 P Opp - D MJOP

17/127

13 08 04:27p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.9

performance and preparing annual evaluations for staffpathologists and the laboratory manager;2 serving as a member of the Medical Executive Committee, the Chairmen's Council, the FacuJty3 Practice Board, the Quality Management Committee, the Blood Usage Committee, and other4 committees that may be assigned by the president of the medical staff; through participation in5 the Blood Usage Committee, ensuring adequate transfusion service and utilization, coordinating6 and monitoring department faculty involvement in hospital committees, conducting and7 monitoring regular department meetings, in compliance 'With medical staff bylaws, and provides8. timely department reports, including an annual department report for the medical staff,9 coordinating medical student and resident training for students and residents on training rotation10 within the department, meeting 'With the KMC medical director at least monthly, overseeing theII scheduling and effectiveness of pathology educational conferences for outside departments,12 including the oncology conference and the oncology clinic, and completing clinical pathology13 and anatomic pathology service work as may be required.14 Teaching duties include coordinating and participating in tcaching conferences to include15 weekly gynecology conference, oncology conference, and surgery conference, preparing and16 presenting didactic lectures, and actively participating in and presenting departmental,17 interdepartmental, and interdisciplinary programs 'Within KMC.18 Other duties may be assigned by the chief executive officer or medical director.19 The standard workweek for Plaintiffs position is 48 hours per week Actual hours may20 vary week-to-week according to specific assignments, however the objective is to achieve 211221 worked hours Juring a twelvemonth period.22 The Chair of the Department ofPathology is responsible to the Board ofSupervisors,23 though the Medical Executive Committee, for high quality professional management and care of24 patients under the jurisdiction of the department; establishing systems to monitor the quality of2S patient care and professional performance in the department through a planned and systematic26 process; specific recommendations and suggestions regarding the improvement of patient care in27 the department; review of professional performance of all members with respcct to clinical28 privileges; recommending delineated clinical privileges for each member of the department,

7DEFEKDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLANTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES


8/14/2019 293 P Opp - D MJOP

18/127

13 08 04:27p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.10

including practitioner appointment and classification, reappointment, criteria for clinical2 privileges, and corrective action; discipline of members and staff pursuant to Article XI of the3 Medical Staff Bylaws, evaluation of all full- and part-time medical staff and other members of4 the medical staff who are active clinically, or teach on an annual basis; enforcing the medical5 staff bylaws, rules, regulations and policies within the department; promoting clinical research in6 the department; implementing within the department actions taken by the medical executive7 committee; recommending, creating, deleting or changing the divisions of the department and th8 appointment of division chiefs, being a member of the medical executive committee and giving9 guidance on the overall medical policies ofthe medical staffand medical center and making10 specific recommendations and suggestions regarding the department; reporting to the medicalII executive committee and president of staff regarding all professional activities within the12 department; assuring the orientation of all practitioners in the department in cooperation with13 medical center administration; any other activity or functions as would reasonably be the14 responsibility of a chair of a department of a teaching hospital or as assigned by the medical15 director.16 The Chair ofthe Department ofPathology is responsible to the Board of Supervisors,17 though the chief executive officer, for administrative activities of the department, establishing18 and maintenance ofpostgraduate medical education programs, participating in every phase of19 administration of the department through cooperation "'ith the department of nursing and the20 medical center administration in matters affecting patient care, including, without limitation,21 personnel, supplies, special regulations, standing orders and techniques, assessing and22 recommending to the relevant medical center authority off-site sources for needed patient care23 services not provided by the department or the medical center, preparing n:ports, budgetary plans24 and infonnation relating to the department, appointing a designee to act as chair of the25 department in thc absence of the chair, with the approval of the chief executive officer and26 president of staff, and any other administrative activity or non-clinical managerial function as27 // /28 III

8DEPENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES


8/14/2019 293 P Opp - D MJOP

19/127

13 08 04:28p Mark Wasser 916-444-6405 p.11

would reasonably be the responsibility of a chair of a department of a teaching hospital or as2 assigned by the chief executive officer.34 SIGNATURE OF PARTY UNDER OATH5 I, Paul J. Hensler, have read Plaintiffs first set of interrogatories to Defendants and the6 foregoing supplemental answers thereto and certify under penalty ofpetjury that the answers are7 true and correct.8 Dated: May 13, 20089

10I I1213141516171819202122232425262728

By:.__ ---,--- _Paul J. HenslerChiefExecutive Officer, Kern Medical Center

9DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLADITIFF'S INTERROGATORIES


8/14/2019 293 P Opp - D MJOP

20/127




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

EXHIBIT 2: Defendants Responses to Plaintiffs Requests for Admission, Set One


8/14/2019 293 P Opp - D MJOP

21/127

I Mark A. Wasser CA SB #60160LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER2 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2640Sacramento, California 958143 Phone: (916) 444-6400Fax: (916) 444-64054 E-mail: [email protected] Bernard C. Barmann, Sr. CA SB #060508KERN COUNTY COUNSEL6 Mark Nations, ChiefDeputy CA SB #101838

IllS Truxtun Avenue, Fourth Floor7 Bakersfield, California 9330IPhone: (661) 868-38008 Fax: (661) 868-3805E-mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants County ofKern,Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher,II Jelli1ifer Abraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smithand William Roy

Case No.: I :07-cv-00026-0WW-TAGDEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TOPLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FORADMISSION (SET ONE)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff,vs.

17

18

121314IS16 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.

Defendants.19 COUNTY OF KERN, et a!.,202122 PROPOUNDING PARTY:23 RESPONDING PARTY:24 SET NUMBER:

Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007Trial Date: December 2, 2008

PlaintiffDAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., F.C.A.P.Defendant COUNTY OF KERNONE (1)

25 Defendants hereby submit these responses to PlaintiffDavid F. Jadwin's Request for26 Admission, Set One.2728

-1-DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FORADMISSION, SET ONE


8/14/2019 293 P Opp - D MJOP

22/127

I. COMMON2 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONNO.13 Admit that at all times from 10117/05 to 10/4/07, DEFENDANT acted or omitted to act4 through its officers and agents.5 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FORADMISSIONNO.16 Admit.7 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONNO.28 Admit that PLAINTIFF was harmed by DEFENDANT's decision to place three letters of9 dissatisfaction in PLAINTIFF's medical staff file on 10117/05.10 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.211 Deny.12 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONNO.313 Admit that PLAINTIFF was harmed by DEFENDANT's decision to remove PLAINTIFF14 from the position of chair of the department of pathology at KMC on 7/10106.15 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FORADMISSIONNO.316 Deny.17 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.418 Admit that PLAINTIFF was harmed by DEFENDANT's decision to reduce19 PLAINTIFF's base salary on 10/3/06.20 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONNO.421 Deny.22 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.523 Admit that PLAINTIFF was harmed by DEFENDANT's decision to deny PLAINTIFF24 the right to work on a part-time basis from 4128/06 to 10/3/06.25 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONNO.526 Deny.27 REQUEST FORADMISSIONNO.628 Admit that PLAINTIFF was harmed by DEFENDANT's decision to deny PLAINTIFF

-2-DEFENDANTS' RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE


8/14/2019 293 P Opp - D MJOP

23/127

the right to work at home occasionally from 4/28/06 to 10/3/06.2 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.63 Deny.4 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.7S Admit that PLAINTIFF was harmed by DEFENDANT's decision to place PLAINTIFF6 on administrative leave from 1217/06 to 10/4/07.7 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.78 Deny.9 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.8

10 Admit that PLAINTIFF was harmed by DEFENDANT's decision not to renewII PLAINTIFF's employment contract with DEFENDANT in 2007.12 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.813 Deny.14 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.9IS Admit that DEFENDANT's decision to place three letters of dissatisfaction in16 PLAINTIFF's medical staff file was a substantial factor in causing PLAINTIFF's harm.17 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.918 Deny.19 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1020 Admit that DEFENDANT's decision to remove PLAINTIFF from the position of the21 chair of the department of pathology at KMC was a substantial factor in causing PLAINTIFF's22 harm.23 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1024 Deny.2S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1126 Admit that DEFENDANT's decision to reduce PLAINTIFF's base salary was a27 substantial factor in causing PLAINTIFF's harm.28



8/14/2019 293 P Opp - D MJOP

24/127

1 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 112 Deny.3 REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 124 Admit that DEFENDANT's decision to deny PLAINTIFF the right to work on a part-S time basis from 4/28/06 to 10/3/06 was a substantial factor in causing PLAINTIFF's harm.6 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 127 Deny.8 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 139 Admit that DEFENDANT's decision to deny PLAINTIFF the right to work at home

10 occasionally from 4/28/06 to 10/3/06 was a substantial factor in causing PLAINTIFF's harm.11 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1312 Deny.13 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1414 Admit that DEFENDANT's decision to place PLAINTIFF on administrative leave from15 12/7/06 to 10/4/07 was a substantial factor in causing PLAINTIFF's harm.16 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 1417 Deny.18 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1519 Admit that DEFENDANT's decision not to renew employment contract with20 DEFENDANT in 2007 was a substantial factor in causing PLAINTIFF's harm.21 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 1522 Deny.23 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1624 Admit that PLAINTIFF exhausted all adequate administrative remedies for all of his25 claims.26 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1627 Admit.28



8/14/2019 293 P Opp - D MJOP

25/127

1 REOUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 172 Admit that throughout the course of PLAINTIFF's employment by DEFENDANT,3 PLAINTIFF had a recurrent major depressive disorder.4 RESPONSE TO REOUEST FORADMISSION NO. 175 Deny.6 II. HS 1278.57 REOUEST FORADMISSION NO. 188 Admit that KMC is a health facility.9 RESPONSE TO REOUEST FORADMISSIONNO. 18

10 Admit.11 REOUEST FORADMISSION NO. 1912 Admit that KMC is a government agency.13 RESPONSE TO REOUEST FORADMISSION NO. 1914 Defendant admits that KMC is a department of the County of Kern and the County of15 Kern is a government agency.16 REOUEST FORADMISSION NO. 2017 Admit that DEFENDANT is a government agency.18 RESPONSE TO REOUEST FORADMISSION NO. 2019 Admit.20 REOUEST FORADMISSION NO. 2121 Admit that the California Department of Health Services is a government agency.22 RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2123 Defendant admits that the California Department of Health Care Services is a govermnen24 agency.25 REOUEST FORADMISSION NO. 2226 Admit that Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations27 ("JCAHO") is an accreditation body.28



8/14/2019 293 P Opp - D MJOP

26/127

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 222 Defendant admits that The Joint Commission is an accreditation body.3 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 234 Admit that College ofAmerican Pathologists ("CAP") is an accreditation body.5 RESPQNSE TQ REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 236 Admit.7 REQUEST FQR ADMISSION NO. 248 Admit that PLAINTIFF was an employee of a health facility from 10/24/00 to 10/4/07.9 RESPQNSE TQ REQUEST FQR ADMISSIQN NO. 24

10 Defendant admits Plaintiffwas an employee of the County of Kern.II REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2512 Admit that PLAINTIFF presented to DEFENDANT complaints about patient care at13 KMC prior to 6/20/05.14 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2515 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond16 to this request.17 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2618 Admit that PLAINTIFF presented to DEFENDANT complaints about patient care at19 KMC from 6/20/05 to 10/17/05.20 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2621 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond22 to this request.23 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2724 Admit that PLAINTIFF presented to DEFENDANT complaints about patient care at25 KMC from 12/29/05 to 4/28/06.26 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2727 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond28 to this request.



8/14/2019 293 P Opp - D MJOP

27/127

I REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 282 Admit that PLAINTIFF presented to DEFENDANT complaints about patient care at3 KMC from 2114/06 to 6/13/06.4 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 285 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond6 to this request.7 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 298 Admit that PLAINTIFF presented to DEFENDANT complaints about patient care at9 KMC from 3/13/06 to 7110/06.

10 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 29II After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond12 to this request.13 REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 3014 Admit that PLAINTIFF presented to DEFENDANT complaints about patient care at15 KMC from 6/5/06 to 10/3/06.16 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3017 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond18 to this request.19 REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 3120 Admit that PLAINTIFF presented to DEFENDANT complaints about patient care at21 KMC from 10/3/06 to 12/6/06.22 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 3123 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond24 to this request.25 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3226 Admit that PLAINTIFF presented to DEFENDANT complaints about patient care at27 KMC from 6/6/07 to 10/4/07.28



8/14/2019 293 P Opp - D MJOP

28/127

1 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 322 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond3 to this request.4 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 345 Admit that PLAINTIFF presented to the College of American Pathologists complaints6 about patient care at KMC in November 2006.7 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 348 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond9 to this request.

10 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3511 Admit that PLAINTIFF presented to the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of12 Healthcare Organizations complaints about patient care at KMC inNovember 2006.13 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3514 Admit.15 REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 3616 Admit that by 10117/05 Peter Bryan was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously17 presented complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant.18 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3619 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond20 to this request.21 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3722 Admit that by 10/17/05 Irwin Harris was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously23 presented complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant.24 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3725 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond26 to this request.27 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3828 Admit that by 10/17/05 Scott Ragland was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously



8/14/2019 293 P Opp - D MJOP

29/127

1 presented complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant.2 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 383 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond4 to this request.5 REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 396 Admit that by 10/17/05 Jennifer Abraham was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously7 presented complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant.8 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 399 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks lmowledge or information sufficient to respond

10 to this request.11 REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 4012 Admit that by 10/17/05 Eugene Kercher was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously13 presented complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant.14 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4015 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond16 to this request.17 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONNO. 4118 Admit that by 4/28/06 Peter Bryan was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously presented19 complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant.20 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4121 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond22 to this request.23 REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 4224 Admit that by 4/28/06 Steve O'Connor was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously25 presented complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant.26 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 4227 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond28 to this request.



8/14/2019 293 P Opp - D MJOP

30/127

I REQUEST FQR ADMISSION NQ. 432 Admit that by 4/28/06 Karen Barnes was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously3 presented complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant.4 RESPQNSE TQ REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 435 Defendant objects to this request on the grounds of attorney-client privilege.6 REQUEST FORADMISSION NQ. 447 Admit that by 6113/06 Peter Bryan was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously presented8 complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant.9 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 44

10 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respondII to this request.12 REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 4513 Admit that by 711 0106 Peter Bryan was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously presented14 complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant.15 RESPONSE TQ REQUEST FQRADMISSIQN NQ. 4516 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond17 to this request.18 REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 4619 Admit that by 711 0106 Scott Ragland was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously20 presented complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant.21 RESPONSE TQ REQUEST FQR ADMISSION NO. 4622 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond23 to this request.24 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4725 Admit tbat by 7/10106 Jennifer Abraham was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously26 presented complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant.27 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4728 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond



8/14/2019 293 P Opp - D MJOP

31/127

to this request.2 REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 483 Admit that by 7/10106 Toni Smith was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously presented4 complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant.5 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONNO. 486 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond7 to this request.8 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 499 Admit that by 7110106 Barbara Patrick was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously10 presented complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant.II RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4912 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond13 to this request.14 REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 5015 Admit that by 7110106 Ray Watson was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously presented16 complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant.17 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5018 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond19 to this request.20 REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 5121 Admit that by 711 0106 Jose Perez was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously presented22 complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant.23 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5124 Deny.25 REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 5226 Admit that by 7/10106 David Hill was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously presented27 complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant.28



8/14/2019 293 P Opp - D MJOP

32/127

1 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FORADMISSION NQ. 522 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond3 to this request.4 REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 535 Admit that by 7/10/06 Eugene Kercher was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously6 presented complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant.7 RESPONSE TQ REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 538 Deny.9 REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 5410 Admit that by 10/3/06 Peter Bryan was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously presented11 complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant.12 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 5413 Deny.14 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5515 Admit that by 10/3/06 David Culberson was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously16 presented complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant.17 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FQR ADMISSIQN NO. 5518 Deny.19 REQUEST FORADMISSION NQ. 5620 Admit that by 10/3/06 Karen Barnes was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously21 presented complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant.22 RESPQNSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONNO. 5623 Defendant objects to this request on the grounds of attorney-client privilege.24 REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 5725 Admit that by 10/3/06 Barbara Patrick was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously26 presented complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant.27 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIQN NO. 5728 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond



8/14/2019 293 P Opp - D MJOP

33/127

1 to this request.2 REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 583 Admit that by 10/3/06 Ray Watson was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously presented4 complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant.5 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 586 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond7 to this request.8 REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 599 Admit that by 1216/06 David Culberson was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously

10 presented complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant.11 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 5912 Deny.13 REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 6014 Admit that by 12/6/06 Irwin Harris was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously presented15 complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant.16 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 6017 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or infonllation sufficient to respond18 to this request.19 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6120 Admit that by 12/6/06 Philip Dutt was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously presented21 complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant.22 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONNO. 6123 Defendant admits that Philip Dutt was aware by 12/6/06 that Plaintiff had complained24 about the diagnosis of specific pathology specimens. Defendant denies the balance of this25 request.26 REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 6227 Admit that by 12/6/06 Karen Barnes was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously28 presented complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant.



8/14/2019 293 P Opp - D MJOP

34/127

I RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 622 Defendant objects to this request on the grounds of attorney-client privilege.3 REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 634 Admit that by 10/4/07 Paul Hensler was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously presented5 complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant.6 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 637 Deny.8 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 649 Admit that by 10/4/07 Mark Nations was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously

10 presented complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant.I I RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6412 Defendant objects to this request on the grounds of attorney-client privilege.13 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6514 Admit that by 10/4/07 Mark Wasser was aware that PLAINTIFF had previouslyIS presented complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant.16 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6517 Defendant objects to this request on the grounds of attorney-client privilege.18 REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 6619 Admit that by 10/4/07 Michael Rubio was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously20 presented complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant.21 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6622 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond23 to this request.24 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6725 Admit that by 10/4/07 Ray Watson was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously presented26 complaints about patient care at KMC to Defendant.27 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 6728 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond



8/14/2019 293 P Opp - D MJOP

35/127

I to this request.2 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 683 Admit that by 10/4/07 Paul Hensler was aware that PLAlNTIFF had previously presented4 complaints about patient care at KMC to the California Department of Health Services.5 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 686 Deny.7 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 698 Admit that by 10/4/07 Mark Nations was aware that PLAlNTIFF had previously9 presented complaints about patient care at KMC to the California Department ofHealth Services.

10 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 69II Defendant objects to this request on the grounds of attorney-client privilege.12 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7013 Admit that by 10/4/07 Mark Wasser was aware that PLAlNTIFF had previously14 presented complaints about patient care at KMC to the California Department ofHealth Services.15 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7016 Defendant objects to this request on the grounds of attorney-client privilege.17 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7118 Admit that by 10/4/07 Michael Rubio was aware that PLAlNTIFF had previously19 presented complaints about patient care at KMC to the California Department ofHealth Services.20 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7121 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond22 to this request.23 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7224 Admit that by 10/4/07 Ray Watson was aware that PLAlNTIFF had previously presented25 complaints about patient care at KMC to the California Department ofHealth Services.26 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7227 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond28 to this request.



8/14/2019 293 P Opp - D MJOP

36/127

1 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 732 Admit that by 10/4/07 Paul Hensler was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously presented3 complaints about patient care at KMC to an accreditation body.4 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 735 Deny.6 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 747 Admit that by 1014/07 Mark Nations was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously8 presented complaints about patient care at KMC to an accreditation body.9 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 74

10 Defendant objects to this request on the grounds of attorney-client privilege.11 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7512 Admit that by 10/4/07 Mark Wasser was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously13 presented complaints about patient care at KMC to an accreditation body.14 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7515 Defendant objects to this request on the grounds of attorney-client privilege.16 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7617 Admit that by 10/4/07 Michael Rubio was aware that PLAINTIFF had previously18 presented complaints about patient care at KMC to an accreditation body.19 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7620 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond21 to this request.22 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7723 Admit that by 10/4/07 Ray Watsonwas aware that PLAINTIFF had previously presented24 complaints about patient care at KMC to an accreditation body.25 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7726 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond27 to this request.28



8/14/2019 293 P Opp - D MJOP

37/127

I REQUEST FQR ADMISSION NO. 782 Admit that PLAINTIFF's complaints about patient care at KMC were a motivating3 reason in DEFENDANT's decision to place three letters of dissatisfaction in PLAINTIFF's4 medical staff file on 10/17/05.5 RESPQNSE TQ REQUEST FOR ADMISSIQN NO. 786 Deny.7 REQUEST FQR ADMISSION NO. 798 Admit that PLAINTIFF's complaints about patient care at KMC were a motivating9 reason in DEFENDANT's decision to convert PLAINTIFF's leave to full time leave on 4/28/06.

10 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FQR ADMISSIONNO. 79II Deny.12 REQUEST FQR ADMISSION NO. 8013 Admit that PLAINTIFF's complaints about patient care at KMC were a motivating14 reason in DEFENDANT's decision to recommend removal of PLAINTIFF from the position of15 chair of the department of pathology on 6/13/06.16 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8017 Deny.18 REQUEST FQRADMISSION NO. 8119 Admit that PLAINTIFF's complaints about patient care at KMC were a motivating20 reason in DEFENDANT's decision to remove PLAINTIFF from the position of chair of the21 department of pathology on 7/10/06.22 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONNO. 8123 Deny.24 REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 8225 Admit that PLAINTIFF's complaints about patient care at KMC were a motivating26 reason in DEFENDANT's decision to reduce PLAINTIFF base salary on 10/3/06.27 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FORADMISSIQN NQ. 8228 Deny.



8/14/2019 293 P Opp - D MJOP

38/127

I REQUEST FQRADMISSION NO. 832 Admit that PLAINTIFF's complaints about patient care at KMC were a motivating3 reason in DEFENDANT's decision to place PLAINTIFF on administrative leave on 12/7/06.4 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 835 Deny.6 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 847 Admit that PLAINTIFF's complaints about patient care at KMC were a motivating8 reason in DEFENDANT's decision not to renew PLAINTIFF's employment contract with9 DEFENDANT in 2007.

10 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8411 Deny.12 III. LC 1102.513 REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 8514 Admit that PLAINTIFF made reports of violations of law to DEFENDANT.15 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FQRADMISSIQN NO. 8516 Deny.17 REQUEST FQRADMISSIQN NO. 8618 Admit that PLAINTIFF made reports of violations of law to the California Department 019 Health Services.20 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FORADMISSION NQ. 8621 Deny.22 REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 8723 Admit that PLAINTIFF had reasonable cause to believe that he was disclosing violations24 of law to DEFENDANT.25 RESPONSE TQ REQUEST FQRADMISSION NQ. 8726 Deny.27 REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 8828 Admit that PLAINTIFF had reasonable cause to believe that he was disclosing violations



8/14/2019 293 P Opp - D MJOP

39/127

of law to the California Department ofHealth Services.2 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 883 Deny.4 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 895 Admit that by 10117/05 Peter Bryan was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of6 violations of law to DEFENDANT.7 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONNO. 898 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond9 to this request.

10 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 90II Admit that by 10117/05 Irwin Harris was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of12 violations of law to DEFENDANT.13 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9014 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond15 to this request.16 REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 9117 Admit that by 10/17/05 Scott Ragland was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of18 violations of law to DEFENDANT.19 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9120 Aftcr reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond21 to this request.22 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9223 Admit that by 10/17/05 Jermifer Abraham was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports24 of violations oflaw to DEFENDANT.25 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9226 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond27 to this request.28



8/14/2019 293 P Opp - D MJOP

40/127

1 REOUEST FORADMISSION NO. 932 Admit that by 10/17/05 Eugene Kercher was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of3 violations oflaw to DEFENDANT.4 RESPONSE TO REOUEST FORADMISSION NO. 935 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond6 to this request.7 REOUEST FORADMISSION NO. 948 Admit that by 4/28/06 Peter Bryan was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of9 violations of law to DEFENDANT.

10 RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9411 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond12 to this request.13 REOUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9514 Admit that by 4/28/06 Steve O'Connor was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of15 violations of law to DEFENDANT.16 RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9517 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or infonnation sufficient to respond18 to this request.19 REOUEST FORADMISSION NO. 9620 Admit that by 4/28/06 Karen Barnes was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of21 violations oflaw to DEFENDANT.22 RESPONSE TO REOUEST FORADMISSION NO. 9623 Defendant objects to this request on the grounds of attorney-client privilege.24 REOUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9725 Admit that by 6/13/06 Peter Bryan was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of26 violations oflaw to DEFENDANT.27 RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9728 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond



8/14/2019 293 P Opp - D MJOP

41/127

I to this request.2 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 983 Admit that by 7/10/06 Peter Bryan was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of4 violations oflaw to DEFENDANT.5 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 986 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond7 to this request.8 REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 999 Admit that by 7/10/06 Scott Ragland was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of

10 violations of law to DEFENDANT.II RESPONSE TO REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 9912 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond13 to this request.14 REQUEST FORADMISSIONNO. 100IS Admit that by 7/ I 0/06 Jennifer Abraham was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports 016 violations oflaw to DEFENDANT.17 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 10018 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond19 to this request.20 REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 10121 Admit that by 7/1 0/06 Toni Smith was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of22 violations oflaw to DEFENDANT.23 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10124 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks Imowledge or information sufficient to respond25 to this request.26 REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 10227 Admit that by 7/10/06 Barbara Patrick was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of28 violations of law to DEFENDANT.



8/14/2019 293 P Opp - D MJOP

42/127

1 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1022 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond3 to this request.4 REQUEST FQRADMISSIQN NO. 1035 Admit that by 7/10/06 Ray Watson was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of6 violations of law to DEFENDANT.7 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1038 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond9 to this request.10 REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 10411 Admit that by 7/1 0/06 Jose Perez was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of12 violations of law to DEFENDANT.13 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10414 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond15 to this request.16 REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 10517 Admit that by 7/10/06 David Hill was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of18 violations oflaw to DEFENDANT.19 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NQ. 10520 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond21 to this request.22 REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 10623 Admit that by 7/1 0/06 Eugene Kercher was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of24 violations oflaw to DEFENDANT.25 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FQR ADMISSION NO. 10626 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond27 to this request.28



8/14/2019 293 P Opp - D MJOP

43/127

1 REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 1072 Admit that by 10/3/06 Peter Bryan was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of3 violations oflaw to DEFENDANT.4 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 1075 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond6 to this request.7 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1088 Admit that by 10/3/06 David Culberson was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of9 violations of law to DEFENDANT.10 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 10811 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond12 to this request.13 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10914 Admit that by 10/3106 Karen Barnes was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of15 violations oflaw to DEFENDANT.16 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 10917 Defendant objects to this request on the grounds of attorney-client privilege.18 REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONNO. 11019 Admit that by 10/3106 Barbara Patrick was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of20 violations of law to DEFENDANT.21 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11022 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond23 to this request.24 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11125 Admit that by 10/3/06 Ray Watson was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of26 violations of law to DEFENDANT.27 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 11128 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond



8/14/2019 293 P Opp - D MJOP

44/127

1 to this request.2 REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 1123 Admit that by 12/6/06 David Culberson was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of4 violations of law to DEFENDANT.5 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1126 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond7 to this request.8 REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 1139 Admit that by 12/6/06 Irwin Harris was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of

10 violations of law to DEFENDANT.11 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11312 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond13 to this request.14 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11415 Admit that by 12/6/06 Philip Dutt was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of16 violations of law to DEFENDANT.17 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11418 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond19 to this request.20 REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 11521 Admit that by 12/6/06 Karen Barnes was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of22 violations of law to DEFENDANT.23 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11524 Defendant objects to this request on the grounds of attorney-client privilege.25 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11626 Admit that by 10/4/07 Paul Hensler was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of27 violations oflaw to DEFENDANT.28



8/14/2019 293 P Opp - D MJOP

45/127

1 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1162 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond3 to this request.4 REQUEST FORADMISSIQN NO. 1175 Admit that by 10/4/07 Mark Nations was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of6 violations of law to DEFENDANT.7 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1178 Defendant objects to this request on the grounds of attorney-client privilege.9 REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 118

10 Admit that by 10/4/07 Mark Wasser was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of11 violations of law to DEFENDANT.12 RESPONSE TQ REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11813 Defendant objects to this request on the grounds of attorney-client privilege.14 REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 11915 Admit that by 10/4/07 Michael Rubio was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of16 violations oflaw to DEFENDANT.17 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FORADMISSION NQ. 11918 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or infonnation sufficient to respond19 to this request.20 REQUEST FQRADMISSION NO. 12021 Admit that by 10/4/07 Ray Watson was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of22 violations oflaw to DEFENDANT.23 RESPONSE TQ REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 12024 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond25 to this request.26 REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 12127 Admit that by 10/4/07 Paul Hensler was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of28 violations of law to the California Department of Health Services.



8/14/2019 293 P Opp - D MJOP

46/127

1 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1212 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond3 to this request.4 REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 1225 Admit that by 10/4/07 Mark Nations was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of6 violations of law to the California Department ofHealth Services.7 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 1228 Defendant objects to this request on the grounds of attorney-client privilege.9 REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 123

10 Admit that by 10/4/07 Mark Wasser was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of11 violations of law to the California Department ofHealth Services.12 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 12313 Defendant objects to this request on the grounds of attorney-client privilege.14 REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 12415 Admit that by 10/4/07 Michael Rubio was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of16 violations of law to the California Department ofHealth Services.17 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 12418 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond19 to this request.20 REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 12521 Admit that by 10/4/07 Ray Watson was aware that PLAINTIFF had made reports of22 violations of law to the California Department ofHealth Services.23 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 12524 After reasonable inquiry, Defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to respond25 to this request.26 REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 12627 Admit that PLAINTIFF's reports of violations oflaw were a contributing factor in28 DEFENDANT's decision to place three letters of dissatisfaction in PLAINTIFF's medical staff



8/14/2019 293 P Opp - D MJOP

47/127

1 file on 10/17/05.2 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1263 Deny.4 REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 1275 Admit that PLAINTIFF's reports of violations oflaw were a contributing factor in6 DEFENDANT's decision to convert PLAINTIFF's leave to full time leave on 4/28/06.7 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 1278 Deny.9 REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 128

10 Admit that PLAINTIFF's reports of violations of law were a contributing factor in11 DEFENDANT's decision to recommend removal of PLAINTIFF from the position of chair of12 the department ofpathology on 6/13/06.13 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12814 Deny.15 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12916 Admit that PLAINTIFF's reports ofviolations oflaw were a contributing factor in17 DEFENDANT's decision to remove PLAINTIFF from the position of chair of the department of18 pathology on 7/1 0/06.19 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 12920 Deny.21 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13022 Admit that PLAINTIFF's reports ofviolations of law were a contributing factor in23 DEFENDANT's decision to reduce PLAINTIFF base salary on 10/3/06.24 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13025 Deny.26 REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 13127 Admit that PLAINTIFF's reports ofviolations of law were a contributing factor in28 DEFENDANT's decision to place PLAINTIFF on administrative leave on 1217/06.



8/14/2019 293 P Opp - D MJOP

48/127

1 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 1312 Deny.3 REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 1324 Admit that PLAINTIFF's reports of violations of law were a contributing factor in5 DEFENDANT's decision not to renew PLAINTIFF's employment contract with DEFENDANT6 in 2007.7 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 1328 Deny.9 IV. CFRAlFMLA10 REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 13311 Admit that DEFENDANT granted PLAINTIFF medical leave on a "REDUCED LEAVE12 SCHEDULE" (as that term is defined in 29 C.F.R. 825.203(a fromI2/16/05 to 4/28/06.13 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13314 Deny.15 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13416 Admit that as of 12/16/05, PLAINTIFF had more than 12 months of service with17 DEFENDANT.18 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 13419 Admit.20 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13521 Admit that as of 12/16/05, PLAINTIFF had worked more than 1,250 hours for22 DEFENDANT during the previous 12 months.23 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 13524 Admit.25 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13626 Admit that as of 12116/05, PLAINTIFF had taken no more than 12 weeks ofmedical27 leave in the previous 12 months.28



8/14/2019 293 P Opp - D MJOP

49/127

1 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1362 Admit.3 REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 1374 Admit that as of 12116/05, PLAINTIFF was eligible for medica11eave under CFRA.5 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 1376 Admit.7 REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 1388 Admit that as of 12116/05, PLAINTIFF was eligible for medica11eave under FMLA.9 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 13810 Admit.11 REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 13912 Admit that PLAINTIFF's recurrent major depressive disorder was a "SERIOUS13 HEALTH CONDITION" (as that term is defined in 29 C.F.R. 825.114) from 12116/05 to14 9111/06.15 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13916 Deny.17 REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 14018 Admit that PLAINTIFF took medica11eave from 12116/05 to 4/28/06 for a SERIOUS19 HEALTH CONDITION that made him unable to perform ftffictions of his job on a full-time20 basis.21 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 14022 Deny.23 REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 14124 Admit that PLAINTIFF provided reasonable notice to DEFENDANT of his need for the25 medica11eave which began on 12116/05.26 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 14127 Deny.28



8/14/2019 293 P Opp - D MJOP

50/127

1 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1422 Admit that PLAINTIFF provided reasonable notice to DEFENDANT of his need for an3 extension of the medical leave which began on 12/16/06.4 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1425 Deny.6 REQUEST FORADMISSION NO. 1437 Admit that PLAINTIFF timely provided certification of his SERIOUS HEALTH8 CONDITION from a health-care pro

293 p opp - d mjop

Documents