140 DFJ Mpo Dme

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 140 Filed 05/22/2008 Page 1 of 15
1 LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE

Eugene D. Lee (SB#: 236812)
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 Attorney for Plaintiff
DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10 FRESNO DIVISION
11 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG
12 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE
ORDER; MOTION TO QUASH TWO
13 v. RECORD SUBPOENAS FOR PLAINTIFF’S
PSYCHIATRIC RECORDS; [F.R.C.P. 26 &
14 COUNTY OF KERN, et al., 45].
15 Defendants. Date: May 27, 2008
Time:
16 Place: U.S. District Court, Crtrm. 3
2500 Tulare St, Fresno, CA Complaint
17 Filed: January 5, 2007
Trial Date: December 3, 2008
18
19
20 Defendants have stipulated to shortened time to hear this motion due to the fact that the second
21 session of the defense mental examination is scheduled to take place on May 29, 2008.
22
23 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
24 Please take notice that on May 27, 2008, or as soon thereafter as the parties may be heard, that
25 pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 45, Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O. will move
26 this Court, at the United States Courthouse located at 2500 Tulare Street, Fresno, California 93721
27
USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG
28
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER; MOTION TO QUASH TWO RECORD SUBPOENAS FOR PLAINTIFF’S
PSYCHIATRIC RECORDS. 1
1 (Phone: (559) 499-5600), Courtroom 3, for the following:

2 1. A protective order prohibiting Defendants, and their experts, from seeking discovery of
3 Plaintiff’s psychiatric records in violation of the Scheduling Order dated May 31, 2007;
4 2. An order quashing Defendants’ Records Subpoenas for Plaintiff’s psychiatric records kept by
5 Paul Riskin, M.D;
7 Anoshiravan Taheri-Tafreshi, M.D.;
8 4. An order requiring Defendants to comply with this Court’s modified schedule regarding
9 Plaintiff’s Rule 35 examination.
10 This motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, the accompanying declarations of
11 Eugene D. Lee and David F. Jadwin, D.O., the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities,
12 and the pleadings and papers on file in this action.
13
14 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED on May 22, 2008.
15 /s/ Eugene D. Lee
LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE
17 Phone: (213) 992-3299
Fax: (213) 596-0487
Attorney for Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER; MOTION TO QUASH TWO RECORD SUBPOENAS FOR PLAINTIFF’S
PSYCHIATRIC RECORDS. 2

Eugene D. Lee (SB#: 236812)
3 Phone: (213) 992-3299
Fax: (213) 596-0487
5 Attorney for Plaintiff
DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.
6
7
10 FRESNO DIVISION
12 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF;
13 v. MOTION TO QUASH TWO RECORDS
SUBPOENA RE PLAINTIFF’S
14 COUNTY OF KERN, et al., PSYCHIATRIC RECORDS; MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER; AND REQUEST
15 Defendants. FOR SANCTIONS. [F.R.C.P. 26 & 45].
16 Date: May 27, 2008
Time: 2 p.m.
2500 Tulare St, Fresno, CA
18
Complaint Filed: January 5, 2007
19 Trial Date: December 3, 2008
20
21 Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O. submits this memorandum of points and authorities in
22 support of his motion for the following relief:
23 1. A protective order prohibiting Defendants, and their experts, from seeking discovery of
24 Plaintiff’s psychiatric records in violation of the Scheduling Order dated May 31, 2007;
26 Paul Riskin, M.D.;
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER;
MOTION TO QUASH TWO RECORDS SUBPOENAS RE PLAINTIFF’S PSYCHIATRIC RECORDS. 1
2 Anoshiravan Taheri-Tafreshi, M.D.;
3 4. An order requiring Defendants to comply with this Court’s modified schedule regarding
4 Plaintiff’s Rule 35 examination.
5
I. BACKGROUND
6
At the outset of this case, the parties met and conferred regarding a discovery plan pursuant to
7
Rule 26. As part of this discovery plan, Parties agreed to strike a balance between Plaintiff’s continuing
8
need for psychotherapy and Defendants need for evidence of Plaintiff’s disabling depression and plea
9
for emotional distress damages. The parties entered into a stipulation that was converted into an order
10
(“Stipulation”). Plaintiff requests that the Court take judicial notice of the stipulation and order
11
contained in the Scheduling Order dated May 31, 2007 (Doc. 29, Lee Decl, Exh. 1). The stipulation
12
stated:
13
The parties hereby agree that, in order to preserve the confidentiality required for
14 continued effective treatment of Plaintiff’s depression, anxiety, insomnia, and emotional
distress, Plaintiff’s treating psychiatrists/psychologists shall not be required to produce
15 their actual treatment notes, but instead shall produce a summary of their treatment of
Plaintiff’s depression and emotional distress, including their diagnoses and prognoses,
16 and the basis for their opinion, including raw data of any psychological testing. Plaintiff
is willing to undergo psychological examination by Defendants’ qualified expert
17 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 35 subject to a stipulation regarding
the timing and scope of the examination, including the specific tests to be performed,
18 and prompt production of the subsequent report and raw data supporting the report to all
parties.
19 (Lee Decl, Exh. 1, 14:-19).
20 On May 2, 2008, Defendants issued records subpoenas (“Records Subpoenas”) directing
21 Plaintiffs’ two treating psychiatrists to produce all patient medical records for Plaintiff. (Lee Decl., Exh.
22 2). The Records Subpoenas were served on Plaintiff by regular U.S. mail. Plaintiff received no prior
23 notice of the Records Subpoenass. The Records Subpoenas evidenced defense counsel’s intention to
24 obtain “All patient records relating to [Plaintiff], regardless of date” from two of Plaintiff’s treating
25 psychiatrists, Dr. Paul M. Riskin and Dr. Anoshiravan Taheri-Tafreshi. (Exh. 2, 2-5). They set the
26 records production deadline as 10 a.m. on May 21, 2008.
27
28
1 On May 16, 2008, the parties entered into a stipulation (“Exam Stip”) pursuant to the order of
2 this Court whereby Plaintiff would submit to a mental and psychiatric examination by Dr. Robert
3 Burchuk for 4 hours on May 19, 2008, from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., and again for 4 hours on May 29, 2008
4 from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. in “Dr. Burchuk’s office at 23522 Califa Street, Woodland Hills, California.” (Lee
5 Decl., Exh. 3).
6 On May 19, 2008, at 10:40 a.m., Plaintiff phoned his attorneys to say that he had been waiting
7 since 10 a.m. outside the gate at Dr. Burchuk’s office at 23522 Califa Street, Woodland Hills, California,
8 as he had been required to do pursuant to the stipulation, but no one was letting him in.
9 At 10:43 a.m., Plaintiff’s counsel called defense counsel but he was unavailable, upon which
10 Plaintiff’s counsel sent defense counsel an email apprising him of the situation. (Lee Decl., Exh. 4). At
11 10:58 a.m., defense counsel emailed Plaintiff’s counsel to say that Plaintiff should go to a different
12 address instead. (Lee Decl., Exh. 4).
13 Plaintiff’s counsel attempted to call Plaintiff but was unable to get through to him. Plaintiff’s
14 counsel later learned that he was driving his car and was on his way home.
15 Defense counsel and Plaintiff’s counsel then spoke by phone. Defense counsel explained that
16 there had been a miscommunication between him and Ms. Karen Barnes, Chief Deputy County Counsel
17 for the County of Kern and apologized for giving Plaintiff’s counsel the wrong address for Dr.
18 Burchuk’s office. He asked whether Plaintiff’s counsel would agree to extend the May 19 DME to make
19 up for the missed time. Plaintiff’s counsel said Plaintiff had other appointments that day and must leave
20 at 2 p.m. Plaintiff’s counsel then asked defense counsel to email him additional proposals for making up
21 the missed time and he would look at them.
22 After hanging up with defense counsel, Plaintiff’s counsel repeatedly called Plaintiff until he got
23 through. He told Plaintiff to turn his car around and proceed to the new address which defense counsel
24 had emailed him. Plaintiff estimated he would arrive at the new address by 11:45 or so due to traffic.
25 At 11:47 a.m., Plaintiff’s counsel emailed defense counsel to notify him Plaintiff’s counsel had
26 successfully gotten through to Plaintiff and that he would be arriving at the new address shortly. (Lee
27
28
1 Decl., Exh. 4).

2 Plaintiff arrived at the new address at approximately 12 p.m. upon which Dr. Burchuk began the
3 defense mental examination.
4 Around 2 p.m., as the examination was concluding, Dr. Burchuk presented Plaintiff with two
5 HIPPA authorization and release forms (“Releases”) permitting Dr. Burchuk to speak with and obtain
6 medical records from Plaintiff’s treating psychiatrists, Dr. Paul Riskin and Dr. Anosh Taheri-Tafreshi.
7 (Jadwin Decl., Exh. A). Plaintiff had been instructed that he was not to call his attorneys at any time
8 during the examination. He therefore complied with Dr. Burchuk's request and signed the releases.
9 After the examination concluded, Plaintiff spoke with my attorneys and was infonned that he
10 should not have signed the Releases because there was an agreement among the attorneys that his
11 treating psychiatrists were not to produce any documents to Defendants other than written summary
12 reports, which had already been provided to Defendants. Upon the advice of his attorneys, Plaintiff then
13 immediately revoked the HIPAA releases by calling and emailing Dr. Burchuk, Dr. Riskin and Dr.
14 Taheri-Tafreshi.
15 At 4:17 p.m., Plaintiff’s counsel sent an email to defense counsel. (Lee Decl., Exh. 5). In the
16 email, Plaintiff’s counsel objected to the above-referenced Records Subpoenas to be served on
17 Plaintiff’s treating psychiatrists as being in violation of the stipulation contained in the Scheduling
18 Order. He requested defense counsel meet and confer with him prior to filing a motion to quash
19 subpoena and for protective order.
20 Defense counsel sent Plaintiff’s counsel an email stating that he would comply with the
21 Scheduling Order only if Plaintiff were willing to agree to an additional 2 hours of defense mental
22 examination on May 29, 2008. (Lee Decl., Exh. 5).
23 Plaintiff’s counsel replied that the Records Subpoenas and the DME missed time issues were
24 separate and distinct and that defense counsel had issued the Records Subpoenas on May 2, 2008 in
25 violation of the Scheduling Order, long before the examination wrong address mixup had occurred.
26 Plaintiff’s counsel stated that Plaintiff’s counsel refused to “bargain” for Defendants’ compliance with
27
28
1 the Scheduling Order. (Lee Decl., Exh. 5).

2
II. ARGUMENT
3
The Stipulation states that Plaintiff will not be required to produce psychotherapy notes and
4
Defendants shall instead receive treatment summary reports. Nevertheless, Defendants’ attempt to
5
breach the Stipulation through the use of the Records Subpoenas and by having Plaintiff sign the
6
Releases while cut off from contact with his attorneys. Plaintiff therefore brings this motion to quash
7
and for a protective order to enforce the Stipulation.
8
Moreover, pursuant to the Exam Stip, Plaintiff was ordered to submit to mental examinations on
9
May 19 from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. and May 29 from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. Defendants now seek yet another
10
variance to a Court order by requesting Plaintiff move the second session to June 2 and increase the
11
hours from 4 to 6. Defendants base this request on their own error in providing the wrong address to
12
Plaintiff, which resulted in the loss of 2 hours.
13
Defendants have sought and were granted relief from their stipulated obligation to restrict the
14
scope of their discovery to Plaintiff’s “depression, anxiety, insomnia, and emotional distress”, and are
15
now being allowed to conduct its Rule 35 examination of Plaintiff’s entire mental state without any
16
restriction in scope. Further, Defendants were granted relief from their failure to conduct their Rule 35
17
examination of Plaintiff within the time allowed and submit timely their Rule 26(a)(2)(b) expert reports.
18
This meant that Defendants were also granted the unusual benefit of knowing the contents of Plaintiff’s
19
26(a)(2)(B) forensic psychologist’s report before conducting their Rule 35 examination. Defendants
20
were also granted a full eight hours over two days, 10 days apart, for their Rule 35 examination even
21
though they will not conduct the customary four hours of psychometric testing, but will rely on the raw
22
data of the testing performed by Plaintiff’s forensic psychologist. In addition, Defendants’ have been
23
granted both a 45- and a 90-day continuance of the trial schedule to accommodate their own negligence
24
and needs.
25
This Court has thus far accommodated Defendants to a high degree. Plaintiff asks as a matter of
26
basic fairness that this Court now grant his motions to enforce the Stipulation and also reject
27
28
1 Defendants’ request for an additional 2 hours of mental examination on June 2.

2
A. THE COURT MAY QUASH SUBPOENAS AND ISSUE A PROTECTIVE ORDER
3 WITH GOOD CAUSE.
4 Rule 45(c)(3)(A)(iii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes a district court to quash a
5 subpoena that “requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter and no exception or waiver
6 applies.”
7 Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes a district court to issue a protective
8 order to limit disclosure or discovery. Folz v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance, 331 F.3d 1122, 1130
9 (9th Cir. 2003). The party seeking a protective order has the burden of showing that good cause exists to
10 justify the protection requested. Id. Generally, the moving party must show that specific prejudice
11 exists or that harm will result in the absence of a protective order.
12
B. THE COURT SHOULD ENFORCE THE STIPULATION AND ORDER OF MAY
13 31, 2007, AND PROTECT PLAINTIFF’S PSYCHIATRIST’S ACTUAL
TREATING NOTES FROM DISCOVERY.
14
Defendants have twice attempted to breach the Stipulation. First, on May 2, Defendants issued
15
the Records Subpoenas seeking the psychotherapy notes of Dr. Jadwin’s treating psychiatrists. When
16
Plaintiff confronted Defendants about this attempted breach, Defendants opportunistically responded
17
that they would address Plaintiff’s demand for compliance with the Stipulation in consideration of
18
Plaintiff’s agreement to address the loss of 2 hours during the May 19 examination incurred due to
19
Defendants’ address error by agreeing to an additional 2 hours of examination at the second examination
20
session. Plaintiff refused to bargain for Defendants’ compliance with the Stipulation.
21
Second, Defendants’ forensic psychiatrist, Dr. Burchuk, directed Plaintiff to sign the Releases,
22
giving Dr. Burchuk access to the same psychotherapy notes. Dr. Burchuk did so knowing Plaintiff had
23
been ordered not to contact his attorneys at any time during the examination. It is not in the community
24
standard to have litigants sign HIPPA releases during defense mental examinations in the absence of
25
counsel. This was precisely the kind of conduct Plaintiff had sought to head off when previously
26
requesting that Plaintiff be permitted to contact his attorneys during the examination. Plaintiff’s request
27
28
1 was expressly denied however.

2
C. THE PARTIES HAD ENTERED INTO THE STIPULATION DUE TO THE
3 ABSENCE OF SETTLED FEDERAL LAW REGARDING THE SCOPE OF
PLAINTIFF’S WAIVER OF THE FEDERAL PSYCHOTHERAPIST-PATIENT
4 PRIVILEGE.
5 There is an absence of settled federal law regarding the scope of Plaintiff’s waiver of the federal
6 psychotherapist-patient privilege. As a result, the parties had entered into the Stipulation providing that
7 Plaintiff had placed his “depression, anxiety, insomnia, and emotional distress” in controversy, but
8 agreed to limit the scope of disclosure and discovery regarding these mental conditions, and converted
9 the Stipulation into the Order of this Court of May 31, 2007. By this motion, Plaintiff seeks
10 enforcement of this stipulation.
11
1. Federal Law of Privileges Governs This Case.
12
Plaintiff requests judicial notice that Magistrate Judge Goldner has found herein that because this
13
is a federal question case, federal privilege law governs, even as to the supplemental state claims. See,
14
Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to Compel Production and Further Responses dated
15
May 9, 2008 at 3:7 – 4:2. This is consistent with the comments of the Advisory Committee who, in
16
enacting Fed.R.Evid. 501 (the federal law of privileges), stressed that federal common law, and not the
17
law of the states, governs federal privilege law.
18
19 2. Federal Law Recognizes a Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege.
20 In Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996), the Supreme Court found that, under Rule 501, there
21 exists a psychotherapist-patient privilege under the federal common law. See Id. at 15. The Supreme
22 Court observed that, “like the spousal and attorney-client privileges, the psychotherapist-patient
23 privilege is rooted in the imperative need for confidence and trust.” Id. at 10 (citation omitted). The
24 Supreme Court further noted: “The psychotherapist privilege serves the public interest by facilitating
25 the provision of appropriate treatment for individuals suffering the effects of a mental or emotional
26 problem. The mental health of our citizenry, no less than its physical health, is a public good of
27
28
1 transcendent importance.” Id. at 11. “Because the privilege will serve a public good transcending the
2 normally predominant principle of utilizing all rational means for ascertaining truth, we hold that
3 confidential communications between a licensed psychotherapist and her patients in the course of
4 diagnosis or treatment are protected from compelled disclosure under Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of
5 Evidence.” Id. at 15 (citation omitted).
6
3. Plaintiff Waived The Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege to the Extent that He
7 Placed His Mental State In Controversy.
8 Under Federal Rule of Evidence 504, a Plaintiff waives his psychotherapist-patient privilege to
9 the extent that he places his mental state in controversy. F.R.E. Rule 504. Further, a defendant is
10 entitled to a Rule 35 examination regarding Plaintiff’s mental state placed in controversy. F.R.C.P.
11 Rule 35.
12 Although the Supreme Court noted that the psychotherapist-patient privilege could be waived
13 (see Jaffee, supra, 518 U.S. at 15 n. 14), it did not discuss what exactly would constitute a waiver or the
14 scope of a waiver. Importantly, however, it rejected the “balancing” approach taken by some federal
15 and state courts to determine the applicability of the privilege. It stated: “Making the promise of
16 confidentiality contingent upon a trial judge’s later evaluation of the relative importance of the patient’s
17 interest in privacy and the evidentiary need for disclosure would eviscerate the effectiveness of the
18 privilege. . . if the purpose of the privilege is to be served, the participants in the confidential
19 conversation “must be able to predict with some degree of certainty whether particular discussions will
20 be protected. An uncertain privilege, or one which purports to be certain but results in widely varying
21 applications by the courts, is little better than no privilege at all.” Id. at 17-18.
22
4. Parties Stipulated As to the Scope of Plaintiff’s Waiver of His Psychotherapist-
23 Patient Privilege.
24 There is no direct Ninth Circuit authority on what constitutes a waiver of the psychotherapist-
25 patient privilege under Rule 504, and district courts that have addressed the issue have not come to any
26 consensus. See Sarko v. Penn-Del Directory Co., 170 F.R.D. 127 (E.D. Penn. 1997); Fritsch v. City of
27
28
1 Chula Vista, 196 F.R.D. 562 (S.D. Cal. 1999) (simple allegation of emotional distress in a complaint
2 constitutes waiver); and Vanderbilt v. Town of Chilmark, 174 F.R.D. 225 (D. Mass. 1997); Hucko v. City
3 of Oak Forest, 185 F.R.D. 526 (N.D. Ill. 1999) (affirmative reliance on the psychotherapist-patient
4 communications required before the privilege will be deemed waived).
5 In the absence of federal law, California law provided the parties some guidance as to the scope
6 of Plaintiff’s waiver of his psychotherapist-patient privilege. Under California law, a Plaintiff waives
7 his right to privacy only as to the specific medical information that he has “tendered at issue,” and courts
8 must further restrict even this directly relevant information to a reasonable time frame. [Evid. Code §§
9 996, 1016; Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 862, (physical injuries); In re Lifschutz (1970)
10 2 Cal. 3d 415, 431, 435, 85 Cal. Rptr. 829, 467 P.2d 557 (psychological injuries)]. In Britt v. Superior
11 Court, supra, 20 Cal.3d 844, the California Supreme Court held that “an implicit waiver of a party’s
12 constitutional rights encompasses only discovery directly relevant to the Plaintiff’s claim and essential
13 to the fair resolution of the lawsuit.” Id. at 859. Thus, “Plaintiffs are ‘not obligated to sacrifice all
14 privacy to seek redress for specific [physical,] mental or emotional injury,’” but “they are entitled to
15 retain the confidentiality of all unrelated medical or psychological treatment.” Id. The Britt court
16 provided a clarifying example of what it meant by “information relating to the medical condition in
17 question.” It explained that a Plaintiff who claims that airport operations have damaged to his
18 respiratory system must disclose only medical information relating to his respiratory condition.
19 However, Plaintiff could not limit discovery of his respiratory condition information to those airport-
20 related incidents that have allegedly impaired his respiratory condition. [Id. at 864, fn. 9].
21 Alleging general damages does not tender a Plaintiff’s mental state at issue. San Diego Trolley,
22 Inc. v. Superior Court (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1083, 1093(“The patient/litigant exception is narrowly
23 construed so that patients are not deterred from instituting any general claim for mental suffering and
24 damage out of fear of opening up all past communications to discovery.” ) (emphasis added); Vinson v.
25 Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal. 3d 833, 840-42 (“We cannot agree that the mere initiation of a sexual
26 harassment suit, even with the rather extreme mental and emotional damage Plaintiff claims to have
27
28
1 suffered, functions to waive all her privacy interests…Plaintiff is not compelled, as a condition to
2 entering the courtroom to discard entirely her mantle of privacy.”).
3 Nor are fishing trips for other potential stressors that may have contributed to a Plaintiff’s
4 emotional distress permitted. Tylo v. Superior Court (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1388; Roberts v.
5 Superior Court of Butte County (West) (1973) 9 Cal. 3d 330, 340, 508 P.2d 309, 107 Cal. Rptr. 309, 340
6 (“in every lawsuit involving personal injuries, a mental component may be said to be at issue, in that
7 limited sense at least. However, to allow discovery of past psychiatric treatment merely to ascertain
8 whether the patient’s past condition may have decreased his tolerance to pain or whether the patient may
9 have discussed with his psychotherapist complaints similar to those to be litigated, would defeat the
10 purpose of the privilege.”).
11 California courts recognize that the right of privacy is especially important when dealing with an
12 individual’s personal thoughts and psychological composition: “If there is a quintessential zone of
13 human privacy it is the mind. Our ability to exclude others from our mental processes is intrinsic to the
14 human personality.” Long Beach City Employees Assn. v. City of Long Beach (1986) 41 Cal.3d 937,
15 944. When a Plaintiff does tender part of his mental state at issue, disclosure of those aspects of a
16 Plaintiff’s personality that are not “directly relevant” is barred “even though they may, in some sense, be
17 “relevant” to the substantive issues of litigation.” In Re Lifshutz, supra, 2 Cal. 3d at 435; see also Lantz
18 v. Superior Court (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1839, 1855 (“if an intrusion on the right of privacy is deemed
19 necessary under the circumstances of a particular case, any such intrusion should be the minimum
20 intrusion necessary to achieve its objective.”). Just as alleging an injury to a knee does not tender all of
21 Plaintiff’s body parts at issue, so tendering a personality disorder does not place all of Plaintiff’s mental
22 condition at issue. In Re Lifshutz, supra, 2 Cal. 3d at 435 (“Under section 1016 disclosure can be
23 compelled only with respect to those mental conditions the patient-litigant has “disclose[d] ... by
24 bringing an action in which they are in issue” (City & County of San Francisco v. Superior Court, supra,
25 37 Cal.2d 227, 232); communications which are not directly relevant to those specific conditions do not
26 fall within the terms of section 1016’s exception and therefore remain privileged. Disclosure cannot be
27
28
1 compelled with respect to other aspects of the patient-litigant’s personality even though they may, in
2 some sense, be “relevant” to the substantive issues of litigation.”); see also Davis v. Superior Court of
3 Kern County (Williams) (1992) 7 Cal. App. 4th 1008. 9 Cal. Rptr. 2d 331]. As the Lifschulz Court
4 illustrated, a Plaintiff’s aggressive tendencies are not “directly relevant” in an assault claim, although,
5 they are arguably “relevant” under section 210 of the Evidence Code. [Id., Evid. Code § 210].
6
D. THE COURT SHOULD ENFORCE THE STIPULATION AND ORDER RE
7 EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF AND DENY DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR
AN 6 HOURS OF EXAMINATION ON JUNE 2, 2008.
8
The Stipulation and Order regarding the defense mental examination issued by this Court states:
9
PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF THE COURT, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by
10 and between the parties through their respective counsel that Plaintiff, David F. Jadwin,
shall submit to a mental and psychiatric examination by Dr. Robert Burchuk on Monday,
11 May 19, 2008 from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. and Thursday, May 29 from 1:00 p.m. to
5:00 p.m. in Dr. Burchuk’s office at 23522 Califa Street, Woodland Hills, California.
12 (Doc. 135)
13 Plaintiff fully complied with the Order. He arrived at Dr. Burchuk’s office at 23522 Califa Street,
14 Woodland Hills, California, at 10 a.m. on May 19, 2008. He waited for 40 minutes waiting to be let into
15 the gate. As it turns out, defense counsel had provided Plaintiff with the wrong address. Plaintiff, under
16 instructions not to contact his attorneys at any time during the defense mental examination, finally called
17 his attorneys at 10:40 a.m. to inform them of the situation. Plaintiff’s counsel then called defense
18 counsel but defense counsel was unavailable. At 10:43 a.m., Plaintiff’s counsel sent an email to defense
19 counsel informing him of the situation. At 10:58 a.m., defense counsel emailed Plaintiff’s counsel with
20 the correct address. They then had a phone call where defense counsel explained that he had given
21 Plaintiff’s counsel the wrong address and then provided him with the correct address. After repeated
22 attempts, Plaintiff’s counsel finally reached Plaintiff, who was in his car on the freeway driving home.
23 He told Plaintiff to immediately turn his car around to proceed to the new address. Plaintiff did so,
24 arriving at the new address at around noon. Plaintiff’s counsel emailed defense counsel informing him
25 that Plaintiff was on his way to the new address. The defense medical examination promptly began at
26 noon and ended at 2 p.m., lasting 2 hours.
27
28
1 Defendants now request that the second day of the examination be moved from May 29 to June 2
2 and be increased from 4 hours to 6 hours in order to accommodate Defendants’ error.
3 There are several incontrovertible facts which Plaintiff submits for the Court’s consideration.
4 1. Plaintiff arrived at the appointed place at the appointed time and fully complied with the
5 Court’s Order.
6 2. Defendants, not Plaintiff, are responsible for the address error and the loss of 2 hours.
7 3. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel acted expediently to remedy the situation and minimize the
8 time loss due to the address error. Plaintiff spent 40 minutes waiting outside a gate at the
9 wrong address and then 80 minutes on the freeway driving to and then back from his house
10 and finding his way to the new address.
11 4. Defendants already have the unfair advantage of having all of Plaintiff’s Rule 26(a)(2)(b)
12 reports, including the report issued by Plaintiff’s forensic psychologist, prior to conducting
13 their mental examination (Plaintiff is still waiting for Defendants’ reports). This militates in
14 favor of having a shorter, not longer, mental examination since Defendant’s examiner can
15 now skip almost all of the preliminary discussions already covered by Plaintiff’s expert
16 report.
17 5. Despite being busy and overburdened with the demands attendant to starting and running a
18 new business venture, Plaintiff rearranged his travel and business schedule in order to fully
19 accommodate Defendant’s request to have, not one, but two days of examination of 4 hours
20 each held 10 days apart, on the specific dates requested by Defendants. Plaintiff had
21 requested 1 day of 8 hours to minimize the impact on his schedule but Defendants refused.
22 6. After Defendants’ failed to conduct the defense mental examination before the original
23 expert disclosure deadline of May 5, 2008 – an examination which the parties had discussed
24 on multiple occasions since January 22, 2008 – and to timely submit any Rule 26(a)(2)(b)
25 reports, Defendants obtained a 45-day continuance of pre-trial dates that the Court granted
26 over Plaintiff’s objections.
27
28
1 7. This 45-day continuance is in addition to the 90-day continuance of pre-trial and trial dates
2 which Defendants previously requested and the Court granted.
3 Plaintiff is ready, willing and able to comply with the Court Order and attend the examination on
4 May 29 from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. Plaintiff opposes the grant to Defendants’ of yet another variance in a
5 Court Order due to yet another error by Defendants. Plaintiff has already been forced to accommodate
6 Defendants’ many requests and errors and been prejudiced in the process. As a matter of basic fairness,
7 Plaintiff asks that the Court accommodate his schedule and deny Defendants’ request.
8
III. CONCLUSION
9
For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant the following relief:
10
1. A protective order prohibiting Defendants, and their experts, from seeking discovery of
11
Plaintiff’s psychiatrist’s actual treating notes in violation of the Scheduling Order dated May
12
31, 2007;
13
2. An order quashing Defendants’ record subpoena for Plaintiff’s psychiatric records kept by
14
Paul Riskin, M.D.;
15
3. An order quashing Defendants’ record subpoena for Plaintiff’s psychiatric records kept by
16
Anoshiravan Taheri-Tafreshi, M.D.;
17
4. An order requiring Defendants to comply with this Court’s modified schedule regarding
18
Plaintiff’s Rule 35 examination;
19
Plaintiff further requests any other relief that the Court deems proper.
20
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED on May 22, 2008.
21
/s/ Eugene D. Lee
555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100
23 Los Angeles, CA 90013
Phone: (213) 992-3299
24 Fax: (213) 596-0487
email: elee@LOEL.com
25 Attorney for Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.
26
27
28
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 140-2 Filed 05/22/2008 Page 1 of 50
1 Eugene D. Lee SB#: 236812

3 Phone: (213) 992-3299
Fax: (213) 596-0487
5 Attorneys for Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.
6
10 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE re
v. MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER re
11 DEFENSE MENTAL EXAMINATION
COUNTY OF KERN, et al.,
12 Date: May 27, 2008
Defendants. Time: 9:30 a.m.
2500 Tulare St, Fresno, CA
14
Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007
15 Date Set for Trial: December 3, 2008
16
I, Eugene D. Lee, declare as follows:
17
1. I am counsel of record for Plaintiff. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth
18
below and I could and would competently testify thereto if called as a witness in this matter.
19
2. On May 31, 2007, the Court issued the Scheduling Order (Doc. 29). A true and correct
20
copy is attached as Exhibit 1. The Scheduling Order contained a stipulation of the parties stating as
21
follows:
22
The parties hereby agree that, in order to preserve the confidentiality required for
23 continued effective treatment of Plaintiff’s depression, anxiety, insomnia, and emotional
distress, Plaintiff’s treating psychiatrists/psychologists shall not be required to produce
24 their actual treatment notes, but instead shall produce a summary of their treatment of
Plaintiff’s depression and emotional distress, including their diagnoses and prognoses,
25 and the basis for their opinion, including raw data of any psychological testing.
(Exh. 1, 14:5-13).
26
3. On May 2, 2008, defense counsel issued records subpoenas, unsigned copies of which I
27
received for the first time on May 12, 2008. A true and correct copy is attached as Exhibit 2. The
28
DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE re MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER re DEFENSE
MENTAL EXAMINATION 1
1 subpoena were served on my office by regular U.S. mail. I received no prior notice of the records
2 subpoenas. The subpoena evidenced defense counsel’s intention to obtain “All patient records relating to
3 [Plaintiff], regardless of date” from two of Plaintiff’s treating psychiatrists, Dr. Paul M. Riskin and Dr.
4 Anoshiravan Taheri-Tafreshi. (Exh. 2, 2-5). They set the records production deadline as 10 a.m. on May
5 21, 2008.
6 4. On May 16, 2008, the parties entered into a stipulation pursuant to the order of this Court
7 whereby Plaintiff would submit to a mental and psychiatric examination by Dr. Robert Burchuk for 4
8 hours on May 19, 2008, from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., and again for 4 hours on May 29, 2008 from 1 p.m. to 5
9 p.m. in “Dr. Burchuk’s office at 23522 Califa Street, Woodland Hills, California.” A true and correct
10 copy of the stipulation is attached as Exhibit 3.
11 5. On May 19, 2008, at 10:40 a.m., Plaintiff phoned me to say that he had been waiting
12 since 10 a.m. outside the gate at Dr. Burchuk’s office at 23522 Califa Street, Woodland Hills, California,
13 as he had been required to do pursuant to the stipulation, but no one was letting him in.
14 6. At 10:43 a.m., I called defense counsel but he was unavailable, upon which I sent defense
15 counsel an email apprising him of the situation. A true and correct copy of the email is attached as
16 Exhibit 4. At 10:58 a.m., defense counsel emailed me to say that Plaintiff should go to a different
17 address instead. See Exhibit 4.
18 7. I attempted to call Plaintiff but was unable to get through to him. I later learned that he
19 was driving his car and was on his way home.
20 8. Defense counsel and I then spoke by phone. Defense counsel explained to me that there
21 had been a miscommunication between him and Ms. Karen Barnes, Chief Deputy County Counsel for
22 the County of Kern and apologized for giving me the wrong address for Dr. Burchuk’s office. He asked
23 me whether I would agree to extend the May 19 DME to make up for the missed time. I said Plaintiff
24 told me he had other appointments that day and must leave at 2 p.m. I then asked defense counsel to
25 email me additional proposals for making up the missed time and I would look at them.
26 9. After hanging up with defense counsel, I repeatedly called Plaintiff until I got through. I
27 told him to turn his car around and proceed to the new address which defense counsel had emailed me.
28 Plaintiff estimated he would arrive at the new address by 11:45 or so due to traffic.
1 10. At 11:47 a.m., I emailed defense counsel to notify him I had successfully gotten through
2 to Plaintiff and that he would be arriving at the new address shortly. See Exhibit 4.
3 11. At 4:17 p.m., I sent an email to defense counsel. A true and correct copy is attached as
4 Exhibit 5. In the email, I objected to the above-referenced records subpoena to be served on Plaintiff’s
5 treating psychiatrists as being in violation of the stipulation contained in the Scheduling Order. I
6 requested defense counsel meet and confer with me prior to my filing a motion to quash subpoena and
7 for protective order.
8 12. Defense counsel sent me an stating that he would comply with the Scheduling Order only
9 if Plaintiff were willing to agree to an additional 2 hours of defense mental examination on May 29,
10 2008. See Exhibit 5. I replied that the records subpoena and the DME missed time issues were separate
11 and distinct and that defense counsel had issued the records subpoena on May 2, 2008 in violation of the
12 Scheduling Order, long before the DME wrong address mixup had occurred. I stated that I refused to
13 “bargain” for Defendants’ compliance with the Scheduling Order.
14
15 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the United States
16 that the foregoing is true and correct.
17
18
Executed on: May 21, 2008
19
20
21 _________________________
22 EUGENE D. LEE
Declarant
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 EXHIBITS TO JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT

2
EXHIBIT 1. Scheduling Order (Doc. 29)
3
EXHIBIT 2. Defendants’ Records Subpoena
4
EXHIBIT 3. Stipulation & Order re Defense Mental Examination
5
EXHIBIT 4. Emails between Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ counsel, 5/19/08
6
EXHIBIT 5. Emails between Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ counsel, 5/19/08
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 EXHIBIT 1
28
1
2
3
4
5
8
9 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., ) 1:07-cv-0026 OWW TAG
)
10 Plaintiff, ) SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER
)
11 v. ) Discovery Cut-Off: 4/4/08
)
12 COUNTY OF KERN, et al., ) Non-Dispositive Motion
) Filing Deadline: 4/21/08
13 Defendants. )
) Dispositive Motion Filing
14 ) Deadline: 5/5/08
15 Settlement Conference Date:
2/6/08 10:00 Ctrm. 8
16
Pre-Trial Conference
17 Date: 7/14/08 11:00 Ctrm. 3
18 Trial Date: 8/26/08 9:00
Ctrm. 3 (JT-14 days)
19
20
21 I. Date of Scheduling Conference.
22 May 31, 2007.
23 II. Appearances Of Counsel.
24 Eugene D. Lee, Esq., and Joan Harrington, Esq., appeared on
25 behalf of Plaintiff.
26 Mark A. Wasser, Esq., appeared on behalf of Defendants
27 County of Kern, Peter Bryan, Irwin Harris, Eugene Kercher,
28 Jennifer Abraham, Scott Ragland, Toni Smith and William Roy.
1
1 III. Summary of Pleadings.

2 1. This is an individual action brought by Plaintiff David
3 F. Jadwin, D.O., a whistleblowing physician with disabilities,
4 against his employer, (i) the County of Kern (“Defendant County”
5 or “the County”), owner and operator of Kern Medical Center
6 (“KMC”) the health facility at which Plaintiff was employed; (ii)
7 individual Defendants Peter Bryan (“Bryan”), Chief Executive
8 Officer of Kern Medical Center (“KMC”); Eugene Kercher, M.D.,
9 President of Medical Staff at KMC (“Kercher”); Jennifer Abraham,
10 M.D., Immediate Past President of Medical Staff at KMC
11 (“Abraham”); Scott Ragland, M.D., President-Elect of Medical
12 Staff at KMC (“Ragland”); and Toni Smith, Chief Nurse Executive
13 of KMC, (“Smith”), both personally and in their official
14 capacities; and (iii) individual Defendants Irwin Harris, M.D.,
15 Chief Medical Officer of KMC (“Harris”); William Roy, M.D., Chief
16 of the Division of Gynecologic Oncology at KMC (“Roy)”; and Does
17 1 through 10.
18 2. Plaintiff’s claims against his employer, Defendant
19 County, allege violations of section 1278.5 of the Health &
20 Safety Code which prohibits retaliation against a health care
21 provider who reports suspected unsafe care and conditions of
22 patients in a health care facility; section 1102.5 of the Labor
23 Code which prohibits retaliation against an employee or reporting
24 or refusing to participate in suspected violations of the law;
25 the California Family Rights Act (sections 12945.1, et seq., of
26 the Government Code) (“CFRA”) and the Family and Medical Leave
27 Act (sections 2601, et seq. of the United States Code) (“FMLA”)
28 which prohibit interference with an employee’s right to medical
2
1 leave and retaliation for an employee’s exercise of the right to

2 medical leave; and the Fair Employment and Housing Act
3 [subdivisions (a), (m) & (n) of Section 12940 of the Government
4 Code] (“FEHA”) which prohibits discrimination against an employee
5 with a disability, failure to provide reasonable accommodation,
6 and failure to engage in an interactive process; and recovery of
7 wrongfully deducted wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (29
8 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq.) (“FLSA”).
9 3. Plaintiff sues Defendants County, Roy, Harris and Does
10 1 through 10, for defamation; and also sues each of the
11 individual Defendants except for Roy and Harris, both in their
12 personal capacity and in their official capacity as members of
13 the KMC Joint Conference Committee (“JCC”), for violation of
14 Plaintiff’s 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution
15 right to procedural due process pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
16 (“Due Process”).
17 4. Plaintiff brings this action for general, compensatory,
18 and punitive damages; prejudgment interest, costs and attorneys’
19 fees; injunctive and declaratory relief; and other appropriate
20 and just relief resulting from Defendants’ unlawful conduct.
21 5. Plaintiff is not a whistleblower and is not disabled.
22 He was employed by the County of Kern as a staff pathologist at
23 Kern Medical Center, pursuant to a written agreement, and
24 assigned to the position of Chair of the Pathology Department.
25 6. During his tenure at Kern Medical Center, Plaintiff’s
26 behavior caused several pathologists, technicians and support
27 personnel whom he criticized, intimidated, harassed and
28 retaliated against to quit and seek employment elsewhere. He
3
1 alienated many of the physicians at Kern Medical Center through

2 criticism, disruptive behavior, disrespect, anger, arrogance and
3 retaliation. Plaintiff complained about procedures and policies
4 at Kern Medical Center and interfered with patient care through
5 obstructionist behavior and secretive practices. His pathology
6 reports were characterized by frequent mistakes, changes in
7 opinion and untimely service, all of which compromised patient
8 care. Disagreements arose between Plaintiff and many of the
9 other physicians at Kern Medical Center regarding Plaintiff’s
10 behavior, his anger and confrontational personal style, his
11 inaccurate and untimely diagnoses, his disruptive behavior, his
12 complaints about medical procedures, his refusal to follow even
13 his own rules, his intimidation of staff and patient management.
14 7. As a result of the stresses and disagreements that
15 Plaintiff brought into the workplace, his injuries and illnesses,
16 family health issues and outside business interests, Plaintiff
17 requested and received a reduced work schedule and multiple
18 leaves of absence. He frequently worked only one or two days a
19 week and was absent from the hospital for long periods of time.
20 Because he was neither working full-time nor present in the
21 hospital, he was removed from the position of Chair of the
22 Pathology Department and his compensation was adjusted to that of
23 a staff pathologist without departmental administrative
24 responsibilities.
25 8. Management at Kern Medical Center counseled Plaintiff
26 about his anger and confrontational style but Plaintiff was not
27 receptive to the counseling and the work environment continued to
28 deteriorate. Plaintiff was finally placed on paid administrative
4
1 leave in an effort to allow the work environment to stabilize.

2 IV. Orders Re Amendments To Pleadings.
3 1. Plaintiff intends to file a Second Supplemental
4 Complaint to include allegations of continuing discrimination and
5 retaliation that occurred after April 24, 2007. Plaintiff will
6 insert the following: On May 1, 2007, Defendant County notified
7 Plaintiff that he will remain on paid administrative leave until
8 his contract expires on October 4, 2007; and that, contrary to
9 its prior and customary practice, Defendant County does not
10 intend to renew his employment contract. Although Plaintiff is
11 no longer restricted to the confines of his home during working
12 hours, he still may not enter KMC’s premises or access his office
13 without prior written permission. The numbering of the following
14 paragraphs will be adjusted accordingly. Plaintiff has already
15 provided Defendants with the draft Second Supplemental Complaint
16 in the form in which Plaintiff intends to file it for Defendants’
17 prior review. Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to file any
18 supplemental complaint on or before June 14, 2007.
19 2. Defendants intend to file an Amended Answer that (i)
20 with regard to the third affirmative defense, alleges the
21 specific privileges and immunities relied on with greater
22 particularity, (ii) with regard to the fourth affirmative
23 defense, alleges the specific provisions of Cal. Civ. Code § 47
24 relied on with greater particularity, and (iii) alleges the ninth
25 affirmative defense (qualified immunity) with greater
26 particularity, as well as additional non-material changes.
27 Defendants have already provided Plaintiff with the draft Amended
28 Answer in the form in which Defendants intend to file it for
5
1 Plaintiff’s prior review. Defendants are hereby ORDERED to file

2 their response to the supplemental complaint on or before June
3 24, 2007.
4 3. Based on the foregoing, each of the parties hereby
5 stipulates to the filing of the other’s supplemented/amended
6 pleadings and hereby respectfully request the order of the Court
7 granting the parties leave to file their respective
8 amended/supplemented pleadings.
9 4. It should be noted that Plaintiff intends to file a
10 motion to strike certain of Defendants’ affirmative defenses
11 contained in the Amended Answer proposed to be filed as having
12 insufficient bases in law. The parties have already met and
13 conferred regarding the affirmative defenses at issue but have
14 not been able to reach a resolution.
15 5. Defendants wish to assert, based upon a new Supreme
16 Court decision issued May 30, 2007, the defense of the statute of
17 limitations, if applicable.
18 V. Factual Summary.
19 A. Admitted Facts Which Are Deemed Proven Without Further
20 Proceedings.
21 1. At all material times, Defendant Kern County was a
22 local public entity within the meaning of sections 811.2 and
23 900.4 of the Government Code and is operating in Kern County,
24 California.
25 2. During the entire course of Plaintiff’s
26 employment, Defendant Kern County has continuously been an
27 employer within the meaning of FMLA [29 C.F.R. § 825.105(C)],
28 CFRA [Gov’t Code § 12945.2(b)(2)] FEHA (Gov’t Code § 12926(d)],
6
1 and FLSA [29 U.S.C. § 203] engaged in interstate commerce, and

2 regularly employing more than fifty employees within seventy-five
3 miles of Plaintiff’s workplace.
4 3. Defendant Bryan was Chief Executive Officer of KMC
5 and a resident of California during most of the time alleged in
6 the Complaint.
7 4. At all material times, Defendant Eugene Kercher
8 was a citizen of California, a resident of Kern County,
9 California, and President of KMC Medical Staff, and a member of
10 the KMC Joint Conference Committee (“JCC”).
11 5. At all material times, Defendant Irwin Harris was
12 a citizen of California, and a resident of Kern County,
13 California, and Chief Medical Officer at KMC, and a non-voting
14 member of the JCC.
15 6. At all material times, Defendant Jennifer Abraham
16 was a citizen of California, and a resident of Kern County,
17 California and Immediate Past President of KMC Medical Staff.
18 7. At all material times, Defendant Scott Ragland was
19 a citizen of California, and a resident of Kern County,
20 California, President-Elect of KMC Medical Staff, and a member of
21 the JCC.
22 8. At all material times, Defendant Toni Smith was a
23 citizen of California, and a resident of Kern County, California,
24 and Chief Nurse Executive of KMC, and a member of the JCC.
25 9. At all material times, Defendant William Roy was a
26 citizen of California, and a resident of Kern County, California
27 and Chief of the division of Gynecologic Oncology at KMC.
28 10. Plaintiff has continuously been an employee of
7
1 Defendant Kern County since October 24, 2000.

2 11. Plaintiff is a pathologist whom Defendant County
3 hired as a pathologist at KMC and appointed to the position of
4 Chair of the Pathology Department.
5 12. Plaintiff was compensated and provided with
6 certain benefits pursuant to a written employment agreement, the
7 terms of which speak for themselves.
8 13. Defendant Kern County placed Plaintiff’s initial
9 salary level at Step C.
10 14. Defendant expected Plaintiff to be an effective
11 member of the physicians’ staff at KMC and to contribute to the
12 overall improvement of the hospital.
13 15. Plaintiff requested and received leaves of absence
14 and reduced work schedules, the terms and conditions of and
15 reasons for which are memorialized in writings that speak for
16 themselves.
17 16. Plaintiff’s former attorney sent a letter to Kern
18 County Counsel Bernard Barmann and Mr. Barmann met with Plaintiff
19 on or about February 9, 2006.
20 17. Defendant Bryan and Plaintiff exchanged written
21 communications regarding Plaintiff’s reduced work schedule and
22 requests for leaves of absence. Plaintiff met with Defendant
23 Bryan and others to discuss those subjects.
24 18. Defendant Bryan and Plaintiff exchanged written
25 correspondence regarding Plaintiff’s tenure and performance as
26 Chair of the Pathology Department at KMC. All the writings speak
27 for themselves.
28 19. On or about July 10, 2006, the JCC voted to remove
8
1 Plaintiff from his position as Chair of the Pathology Department

2 at Kern Medical Center.
3 20. Plaintiff was removed from his position as Chair
4 of the Pathology Department in part because he was neither
5 working full-time nor present in the hospital.
6 21. Defendant County subsequently amended Plaintiff’s
7 employment agreement to reduce Plaintiff’s base compensation.
8 22. Defendant County appointed Dr. Philip Dutt Acting
9 Chair of the Pathology Department.
10 23. Plaintiff returned to work as a staff pathologist
11 at KMC on October 4, 2006.
12 24. Plaintiff exchanged written correspondence with
13 KMC Interim CEO David Culberson and those writings speak for
14 themselves.
15 25. Defendant Kern County placed Plaintiff on paid
16 administrative leave, which continues to this date.
17 26. Defendant County has provided Plaintiff with the
18 information he requested from the computer that had been
19 previously assigned to him.
20 27. Plaintiff filed a claim with Defendant Kern County
21 and the claim was rejected.
22 28. Any acts or omissions of the individual Defendants
23 were under color of law.
24 B. Contested Facts.
25 1. Defendants contest all allegations and averments
26 in the First Supplemented Complaint other than those enumerated
27 in Section A, Uncontested Facts.
28 2. Plaintiff contests Defendants’ averment that
9
1 Plaintiff disrupted the October, 2005, Monthly Oncology

2 Conference and prevented appropriate discussion of case
3 management and that other physicians at Kern Medical Center,
4 including some of the Defendants, were concerned about
5 Plaintiff’s conduct and with his interference with patient care.
6 3. Plaintiff contests all averments contained in the
7 Anser to the First Supplemented Complaint other than those stated
8 in Section A, Uncontested Facts.
9 VI. Legal Issues.
10 A. Uncontested.
11 1. Jurisdiction is disputed.
12 2. Venue, if jurisdiction exists, is proper under 28
13 U.S.C. § 1392.
14 3. If jurisdiction is present, the parties agree that
15 the substantive law of the State of California provides the rule
16 of decision for supplemental claims.
17 B. Contested.
18 1. Whether this Court has or should exercise
19 supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state claims pursuant
20 to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
21 2. Whether Defendant Kern County violated Cal. Health
22 & Safety Code § 1278.5, entitling Plaintiff to damages for
23 retaliation for reporting his concerns about the health and
24 safety of patients.
25 3. Whether Defendant Kern County violated Cal. Lab.
26 Code § 1102.5, entitling Plaintiff to damages for retaliation
27 against him for reporting suspected illegal acts.
28 4. Whether Defendant Kern County violated Cal. Gov’t
10
1 Code §§ 12945.1, et seq., and 2 C.C.R. § 7297.7(a), entitling

2 Plaintiff to damages for retaliation for exercising his right to
3 CFRA medical leave.
4 5. Whether Defendants Kern County and Bryan violated
5 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601, et seq., entitling Plaintiff to damages for
6 interference with his FMLA rights.
8 Code §§ 12945.1, et seq., entitling Plaintiff to damages for
9 violation of CFRA rights.
11 Code § 12940(a) entitling Plaintiff to damages for disability
12 discrimination.
14 Code § 12940(m) entitling Plaintiff to damages for failure to
15 provide reasonable accommodation, and an injunction requiring
16 compliance.
18 Code § 12940(n) entitling Plaintiff to damages and injunctive
19 relief for failure to engage in good faith in an interactive
20 process, and an injunction requiring compliance.
21 10. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, whether Defendants
22 Bryan, Kercher, Ragland, Abraham, and Smith, both personally and
23 in their respective official capacities, violated the 14th
24 Amendment of the U.S. Constitution entitling Plaintiff to damages
25 and injunctive relief for procedural due process violations.
26 11. Whether Defendants Kern County, Roy, and Harris
27 violated Cal. Civ. Code §§ 45-47 entitling Plaintiff for damages
28 for defamation.
11
1 12. Whether Defendant Kern County violated 29 U.S.C.

2 § 201 et seq., entitling Plaintiff to damages for wages lost
3 during periods when he was ready, willing, and able to work, but
4 was denied reduced scheduled medical leave, and forced to take
5 full time leave; and an injunction requiring compliance.
6 VII. Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction.
7 1. The parties have not consented to transfer the
8 case to the Magistrate Judge for all purposes, including trial.
9 VIII. Corporate Identification Statement.
10 1. Any nongovernmental corporate party to any action in
11 this court shall file a statement identifying all its parent
12 corporations and listing any entity that owns 10% or more of the
13 party's equity securities. A party shall file the statement with
14 its initial pleading filed in this court and shall supplement the
15 statement within a reasonable time of any change in the
16 information.
17 IX. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date.
18 1. The parties are ordered to file their Rule 26(a)(1)
19 initial disclosures on or before August 6, 2007.
20 2. The parties are ordered to complete all discovery on
21 or before April 4, 2008.
22 3. The parties are directed to disclose all expert
23 witnesses, in writing, on or before February 4, 2008. Any
24 rebuttal or supplemental expert disclosures will be made on or
25 before March 4, 2008. The parties will comply with the
26 provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) regarding
27 their expert designations. Local Rule 16-240(a) notwithstanding,
28 the written designation of experts shall be made pursuant to F.
12
1 R. Civ. P. Rule 26(a)(2), (A) and (B) and shall include all
2 information required thereunder. Failure to designate experts in
3 compliance with this order may result in the Court excluding the
4 testimony or other evidence offered through such experts that are
5 not disclosed pursuant to this order.
6 4. The provisions of F. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4) shall
7 apply to all discovery relating to experts and their opinions.
8 Experts may be fully prepared to be examined on all subjects and
9 opinions included in the designation. Failure to comply will
10 result in the imposition of sanctions.
11 5. Confidentiality Orders. Documents to be produced
12 include patient medical records that contain confidential patient
13 health care information, medical peer review records that are
14 confidential pursuant to California Evidence Code § 1157, some
15 documents that are protected by the attorney/client privilege and
16 some documents that include attorney work-product and trial
17 preparation materials. The Defendants are required to redact all
18 confidential patient information before producing any patient
19 records and will do so. The parties hereby agree that
20 Defendants’ production of certain specified peer review records
21 without redaction shall not be construed as a waiver of the peer
22 review privilege in general or a waiver with regard to any other
23 documents or person. The parties hereby agree that Defendants’
24 production of certain specified relevant memos and e-mails that
25 were sent to legal counsel for the County of Kern, as well as
26 other, non-lawyer, County employees, shall not be construed as a
27 waiver of the attorney/client privilege. The parties hereby
28 agree that Defendants’ production of certain specified documents
13
1 that include attorney work-product and trial preparation

2 materials shall not constitute a waiver of either the work-
3 product or trial preparation materials privileges as to any other
4 materials.
5 6. The parties hereby agree that, in order to preserve the
6 confidentiality required for continued effective treatment of
7 Plaintiff’s depression, anxiety, insomnia, and emotional
8 distress, Plaintiff’s treating psychiatrists/psychologists shall
9 not be required to produce their actual treatment notes, but
10 instead shall produce a summary of their treatment of Plaintiff’s
11 depression and emotional distress, including their diagnoses and
12 prognoses, and the basis for their opinion, including raw data of
13 any psychological testing. Plaintiff is willing to undergo
14 psychological examination by Defendants’ qualified expert
15 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 34 subject to a
16 stipulation regarding the timing and scope of the examination,
17 including the specific tests to be performed, and prompt
18 production of the subsequent report and raw data supporting the
19 report to all parties.
20 7. The parties are not presently aware of any other issues
21 relating to claims of privilege or of protection as trial-
22 preparation material.
23 8. Changes in Limitations on Discovery. Given the number
24 of Defendants and witnesses and the number and complexity of the
25 issues, Plaintiff anticipates needing relief from the discovery
26 limitations of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2)(A) (10
27 depositions per side) and Rule 33(a) (no more than 25
28 interrogatories per party). Defendants do not object to granting
14
1 Plaintiff relief from that limitation. Defendants anticipate

2 that the deposition of the Plaintiff will take up to 21 hours
3 because of the quantity of material that needs to be covered.
4 Defendants therefore request relief from FRCP 30(d)(2), (one day
5 of 7 hours per deposition). Plaintiff does not object to
6 Defendants’ request; provided, however, that no single day of
7 Plaintiff’s deposition shall exceed 7 hours. The parties are not
8 presently aware of a need to change any other limitations on
9 discovery.
10 X. Pre-Trial Motion Schedule.
11 1. All Non-Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions, including any
12 discovery motions, will be filed on or before April 21, 2008, and
13 heard on May 23, 2008, at 9:00 a.m. before Magistrate Judge
14 Theresa A. Goldner in Courtroom 8.
15 2. In scheduling such motions, the Magistrate
16 Judge may grant applications for an order shortening time
17 pursuant to Local Rule 142(d). However, if counsel does not
18 obtain an order shortening time, the notice of motion must comply
19 with Local Rule 251.
20 3. All Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions are to be
21 filed no later than May 5, 2008, and will be heard on June 9,
22 2008, at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United
23 States District Judge, in Courtroom 3, 7th Floor. In scheduling
24 such motions, counsel shall comply with Local Rule 230.
25 XI. Pre-Trial Conference Date.
26 1. July 14, 2008, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3, 7th Floor,
27 before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United States District
28 Judge.
15
1 2. The parties are ordered to file a Joint Pre-

2 Trial Statement pursuant to Local Rule 281(a)(2).
3 3. Counsel's attention is directed to Rules 281
4 and 282 of the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District
5 of California, as to the obligations of counsel in preparing for
6 the pre-trial conference. The Court will insist upon strict
7 compliance with those rules.
8 XII. Trial Date.
9 1. August 26, 2008, at the hour of 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom
10 3, 7th Floor, before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United
11 States District Judge.
12 2. This is a jury trial.
13 3. Counsels' Estimate Of Trial Time:
14 a. 14 days.
15 4. Counsels' attention is directed to Local Rules
16 of Practice for the Eastern District of California, Rule 285.
17 XIII. Settlement Conference.
18 1. A Settlement Conference is scheduled for February 6,
19 2008, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 8 before the Honorable Theresa
20 A. Goldner, United States Magistrate Judge.
21 2. Unless otherwise permitted in advance by the
22 Court, the attorneys who will try the case shall appear at the
23 Settlement Conference with the parties and the person or persons
24 having full authority to negotiate and settle the case on any
25 terms at the conference.
26 3. Permission for a party [not attorney] to attend
27 by telephone may be granted upon request, by letter, with a copy
28 to the other parties, if the party [not attorney] lives and works
16
1 outside the Eastern District of California, and attendance in

2 person would constitute a hardship. If telephone attendance is
3 allowed, the party must be immediately available throughout the
4 conference until excused regardless of time zone differences.
5 Any other special arrangements desired in cases where settlement
6 authority rests with a governing body, shall also be proposed in
7 advance by letter copied to all other parties.
8 4. Confidential Settlement Conference Statement.
9 At least five (5) days prior to the Settlement Conference the
10 parties shall submit, directly to the Magistrate Judge's
11 chambers, a confidential settlement conference statement. The
12 statement should not be filed with the Clerk of the Court nor
13 served on any other party. Each statement shall be clearly
14 marked "confidential" with the date and time of the Settlement
15 Conference indicated prominently thereon. Counsel are urged to
16 request the return of their statements if settlement is not
17 achieved and if such a request is not made the Court will dispose
18 of the statement.
19 5. The Confidential Settlement Conference
20 Statement shall include the following:
21 a. A brief statement of the facts of the
22 case.
23 b. A brief statement of the claims and
24 defenses, i.e., statutory or other grounds upon which the claims
25 are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties' likelihood
26 of prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of
27 the major issues in dispute.
28 c. A summary of the proceedings to date.
17
1 d. An estimate of the cost and time to be

2 expended for further discovery, pre-trial and trial.
3 e. The relief sought.
4 f. The parties' position on settlement,
5 including present demands and offers and a history of past
6 settlement discussions, offers and demands.
7 XIV. Request For Bifurcation, Appointment Of Special Master,
8 Or Other Techniques To Shorten Trial.
9 1. None.
10 XV. Related Matters Pending.
11 1. There are no related matters.
12 XVI. Compliance With Federal Procedure.
13 1. The Court requires compliance with the Federal
14 Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice for the
15 Eastern District of California. To aid the court in the
16 efficient administration of this case, all counsel are directed
17 to familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil
18 Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice of the Eastern District
19 of California, and keep abreast of any amendments thereto.
20 XVII. Effect Of This Order.
21 1. The foregoing order represents the best
22 estimate of the court and counsel as to the agenda most suitable
23 to bring this case to resolution. The trial date reserved is
24 specifically reserved for this case. If the parties determine at
25 any time that the schedule outlined in this order cannot be met,
26 counsel are ordered to notify the court immediately of that fact
27 so that adjustments may be made, either by stipulation or by
28 subsequent scheduling conference.
18
1 2. Stipulations extending the deadlines contained

2 herein will not be considered unless they are accompanied by
3 affidavits or declarations, and where appropriate attached
4 exhibits, which establish good cause for granting the relief
5 requested.
6 3. Failure to comply with this order may result in
7 the imposition of sanctions.
8
9 IT IS SO ORDERED.
10 Dated: May 31, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger
emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 EXHIBIT 2
28
CopyPage Records Retrieval
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Document 140-2 Systems
Filed 05/22/2008 Page 26 of 50
20809 Higgins Court
Torrance, CA 90501
Phone: 424-201-4440
Fax: 424-201-4358
Notification of Subpoenaed Records

Eugene D. Lee Records Subject: David F. Jadwin
Law Office of Eugene Lee Case Number: 1:07-cv00026-0WW-TAG
555 W. 5th St., Ste 3100 Case Name: David F. Jadwin, D.O. vs. County of Kern, et al.
To Whom It May Concern:
Copy Page Records Retrieval Systems is a Professional Photocopying Service and has been chosen by Mark A. Wasser of Law Offices
of Mark A. Wasser to obtain records pertaining to David F. Jadwin in the case of David F. Jadwin, D.O. vs. County of Kern, et al..
Any party to this action is entitled to these records. Please mark the box next to the location(s) of records from where you wish to receive a
duplicate set and sign your name in the designated space at the bottom of this page. If this form is returned with no boxes marked, it will be
assumed that you wish to receive records from all locations.
Sincerely,
CopyPage Records Retrieval Systems
Cecilia Kaesler, D.O., Verdugo

Paul M. Riskin, M.D. Anoshiravan Taheri-Tafreshi, M.D.
o Santa Monica, CA 90401 D Los Angeles, CA 90024
D Internal Medicine, Inc.
1 Glendale, CA 91208
I 85773 85774
l 85775
j
Vincent Fortanasce, M.D., Neurology Christopher J. Charbonnet, M.D., The Foothill
Ij o Consultants
Arcadia, CA 91007
D
Casa Colina Centers for Rehab
Pomona, CA 91767
D Center for Wellness & Pain Management
Glendale, CA 91206
85777 85778
85776
j
Michael Cann, M.D.
o Glendale, CA 91208
85779
Eugene D. Lee
Printed Name of Additional Party Signed Name of Attorney Date
A088 ~Rev. 12/07) Subpoena in a Civil Case
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAGIssued
Document
by the 140-2 Filed 05/22/2008 Page 27 of 50
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
_ _ _ _ _ _ _E_a_s_t_e_r_n DISTRICT OF C_a_l_l._·f_o_r_n_l._'_a _
David F. Jadwin, D.O.

SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE
1
CASE NUMBER: 1: 07-cv00026-0WW-TAG
v.
County of Kern, et al.
To Custodian of Records of: Paul M. Riskin, M.D.

530 Wilshire Blvd., Ste 306
Santa Monica, CA 90401
YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear in the United States District Court at the place. date, and time specified below to
D testify in the above case.
PLACE OF TESTIMONY COURTROOM
DATE AND TIME
D YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear at the place, date. and time specified below to testify at the taking of a deposition in
the above case
'L<C' 0' "'OSmoN I_DA_T_E_A_ND_T_IM_E _
Q YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce and permit inspection and copying of the following documents or objects at the
place, date, and time specified below (list documents or objects):
All patient records relating to the above named records subject, regardless of
date. Pertaining to David F. Jadwin
DATE AND TIME

PLACECopyPage Records Retrieval Systems
20809 Higgins Court 5/21/2008
Torrance, CA 90501 10:00 AM
D YOU ARE COMMANDED to permit inspection of the following premises at the date and time specified below.
"'""" IOA" '"0""

Any organization not a party to this suit that is SUbpoenaed for the taking of a deposition shall designate one or more officers,
directors, or managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf, and may set forth, for each person
designated, the matters on which the person will testify. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 30(b)(6)
ISSUING OFFICER SIGNATURE AND TITLE (INDICATE IF ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT) DATE
May 2, 2008
Attorney for Counsel for Defendant,

ISSUING OFFICER'S NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER
Law Offices of Mark A. Wasser / Attention: Mark A. (916) 444-6400
Wasser
400 Capitol Mall, Ste. 1100, Sacramento, CA 95814
(See Rule 45. Federel Rules of Civil Procedure 45 (C), (d), & (e) on Next Pege)
Waction is pending in district other than district of issuance, state district under case number. Ref#: 85773
A088 (Rev. 12107) Subpoena in a Civil Case (page 2)
PROOF OF SERVICE
DATE PLACE
SERVED
Personal Service
SERVED ON (PRINT NAME) MANNER OF SERVICE
Process Server
SERVED BY (PRINT NAME) TITLE
DECLARATION OF SERVER
I declare under penalty of pe~ury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing information contained in the Proof
of Service is true and correct.
Executed on
-------------- Date Signature of Server
20809 Higgins Court

Address of Server
Torrance, CA 90501
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (c), (d), and (e), as amended on December 1, 2007:
(cl PROTECTING A PERSON SUBJECT TO A SUBPOENA. (C) Specifying Corid~ions as an Alternative. In the circumstances described in Rule 45(c)(3)(B),
(1) Avoiding Undue BUfden or Expenlle; Sanctions. A party or attornay the courl may, insteed of quashing or modifying a subpoena, order appearance or production under
rasponsible for issuing and sarving a subpoena must taka raasonable staps to avoid specified conditions if the serving party:
imposing undue burden or expensa on a person subject to the subpoena. The issuing court (i) shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met w~hout
must enforce this duly and impose an appropriate sanction -which may include lost undue hardship; and
earnings and reasonable attorney's fees - on a party or attorney who fails to comply. ii) ensures thet the sUbpoeneed person will be raasonably compensated.
l 2) Command to Produce Materials or Parm~ Inspection.
A) Appea,ance Not ReqUired. A person commanded to produce documents,
electronically stored information, or tangible things, or to perm~ the inspection of premises,
need not appear in person at the place of production or inspection unless also commanded
lII
d DUTIES IN RESPONDING TO A SUBPOENA.
(A)
Producing Documents or Electronically Stored Information. These procedures apply to
producing documents or electronically stored information:
Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents must produce
to appear for a depos~ion, hearing, or trial. tham as they are kept in the ordinary coursa ofbusiness or must organize and label them to
(B) Objections. A person commanded to produce documents or tangible correspond to the categories in the demand.
things or to perm~ inspection may serve on the party or Btlorney designated in the (B) Form for Producing Electronically Stored Information Not Specified. If a subpoena
subpoena a written objection to inspecting, copying, testing or sampling any or all of the does not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, the person responding must
materials or to inspecting the premISes - or to producing electronically stored information in produce ~ in a form or forms in which ~ is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usabla form or
tile form or forms requested. The objection must be served before the earlier of the time forms.
specified for compliance or 14 days alter the subpoena is served. If an objection is mede, (C) Electronically Stored Information Produced in Only One Form. The person responding need
the following rules apply: not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form.
(i) At any lime, on notice to the commanded person, the serving party may move the issuing (D) Inaccessible Electronically Stored Information. The person responding need not provide
court for an order compelling production or inspection. discovery. of electronicelly stored information from sources that the person identifieS as not
(ii) These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and the order must protect a reasonably accassible because of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or for a
person who is neither a party nor a party's officer from signifICant expense resulting from protective order, the person responding must show that the information is not reasonably
compliance. accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless
(3) QuaShing or Modifying a SUbpoena. order discovery from such sources if the requestirlQ party shows good cause, considering the
(A) When Required. On timely motion, the issuing court must quash or modify limitations of Rule 26(b)(2)(C). The court may specify cond~ions for tha discovery.
a subpoena that: (2) Claiming PriVilege or Protection.
(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply; (A) Information Withheld, A person w~hholding subpoenaed information under a claim
(il) requires a person who is ne~her a party nor a party's officer to travel more than 100 that ~ is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation material must:
miles from where that person resides, is employed, or regUlarly transacts business in person (i) expressly make the claim; and
- except that, subject to Rule 45(c)(3)(B)(iii), tha person may be commanded to attend a (il) describe the nature of the withheld documents, communications, or tangible things in a manner
trial by traveling from any such placa wtlhin the stale where the trial is held; that, without revealing information itseW privileged or protected, will enable the parties to assess the
(iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver claim.
applies; or (B) Information Produced. If information produced in response to a subpoena is subject to
(iv) subjects a person to undue bUrden. a claim of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation material, the person making the claim may
(B) Vvhen Permitted. To protect a person SUbject to or affected by a notify any party that received the information of the claim arid the basis for it. After being notified, a
subpoena, the iaauing court may, on motion, quash or modify the sUbpoena if ~ requires: party must promptly retum, sequester, or destroy the specified information and any copies ~ has;
(i) disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial must not use or disclose the information until the claim is resolved; must take reasonable steps to
information; retrleva the information if the party disclosed ~ before being notified; and may promptly present the
(ii) disclosing an unretained expert's opinion or information that doss not describe specifIC information to the court under seal for a determination of the claim. The person who produced the
occurrences in dispute and results from the axpert's study that was not requested by a information must preserve the information until the claim is resolved.
party; or (e) CONTEMPT.
(iii) a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer to incur substantial expense to travel The Issuing court may hold in contemp~a rson who, having been served, fails w~out adequate
more than 100 miles to attend trial excuse to obey the subpoena. A nonpa s failure to obey must be excused if the SUbpoena
purports to reqUire the nonparty to atle or produce at a place outside the Iim~s of Rule 45(c)(3)
(A)(ii).
A088 (Rev. 12/07) Subpoena in a Civil Case
Document
_______E_a_s_t_e_r_n DISTRICT OF C_a_l_i_f_o_r_n_l_·a _

1
V.
To Custodian of Records of: Anoshiravan Taheri-Tafreshi, M.D.

921 Westwood Blvd., Ste 232
YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear in the United States District Court at the place, date, and time specified below to
DATE AND TIME
D YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear at the place, date, and time specified below to testify at the taking of a deposition in
the above case
"'" '"""""m,," I"'' ' NID "'"
~ YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce and permit inspection and copying of the following documents or objects at the
PLACECopyPage Records Retrieval Systems DATE AND TIME

D
, ,", ., I"'' '
YOU ARE COMMANDED to permit inspection of the following premises at the date and time specified below.
NID "'"
Any organization not a party to this suit that is subpoenaed for the taking of a deposition shall designate one or more officers,
designated, the matters on which the person will testify. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 30{b){6)
ISSUING OFFICER SIGNATURE AND TITLE (INDICATE IF ATIORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT) DATE
I
May 2, 2008

Wasser
(See Rule 45. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 45 (e), (d), & (e) on Next Page)
~ action is pending in district other than district of issuance, state district under case number. Ref#: 85774
A088 (Rev. 12/(7) Subpoena in a Civil Case (page 2)
PROOF OF SERVICE
DATE PLACE
SERVED
Personal Service
Process Server
Executed on
20809 Higgins Court

Address of Server
Torrance, CA 90501
(c) PROTECTING A PERSON SUBJECT TO A SUBPOENA. (C) Specifying Cond~ions as an AKernative. In the circumstances described in Rule 45{c)(3)(B),
(1) Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions. A perty or attomey the court may, instead of quashing or modifying a subpoena, order appearance or production under
responsible for Issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid specified conditions If the serving party:
imposing undue burden or axpense on a parson subject to the subpoena. The issuing court (i) shows a substantial need for the testimony or material thet cannot be otherwise met w~hout
must anforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanction ~ich may include lost undue hardship; and
!
eamings and reasonable attorney's fees - on a party or attorney who fails to comply. ii~ ensures that the subpoeneed person will be reasonably compensated.
(2) Command to Produce Materials or Perm~ Inspection. d DUTIES IN RESPONDING TO A SUBPOENA.
(A) Ap~arence Not Required. A person commanded to produce documents. 1 Producing Oocuments or Electronically Stored Information. These procedures apply to
electronically stored Information, or tengible things, or to perm~ the inspection of premises, producing documents or electronically stored information:
need not appear in person at the place of production or inspection unless also commanded (A) Documents. A person responding to e subpoena to produce documents must produce
to appear for a depos~ion, hearing, or trial. them es they are kept in the ordinary course of business or must organize and label them to
things or to perm~ inspection may serve on the party or attorney designated in the (B) Form for Producing Electronically Stored Information Not Specified. If a subpoene
subpoena a written objection to inspecting, copying, testing or sampling any or all of the does not specify a form for producing electronically stored informetion, the person responding must
materials or to inspecting the premIses - or to producing alectronically stored information in produce ~ In a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or
tile form or forms requested. The objection must be served befora the earlier of the tima forms.
specified for compliance or 14 deys aKer the subpoena is served. If an objection is made, (C) Electronically Stored Information Produced in Only One Form. The person responding need
the following rules apply: not produce the same alectronically stored information in more than one form.
(i) At any lime, on notica to the commanded person, the serving party may move the issuing (0) Inaccessible Electronically Stored Information. The person responding naad not provide
court for an order compelling production or inspection. discovery of electronically stored information from sources that the person identifies as not
(Ii) These acts may be required only as directed in the ordet, and the order must protect a reasonably accessible bacause of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or for a
person who is neither a party nor a party's offICer from signiflC8nt expense resuKing from protective ordet, the person responding must show that the information is not reasonably
compliance. accessible bacause of undue burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless
(3) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena. order discovery from such sources If the requestillQ party shows good cause, considering the
(A) When ReqUired. On timaly motion, the issuing court must quash or modify Iim~ations of Rule 26{b)(2)(C). The court may specify cond~ions for the discovery.
a subpoena that: (2) Claiming Privilege or Protection.
il feils to allow a reasonable time to comply; (A) Informalion Vv1Ihheld, A person withholding subpoeneed information under a claim
l iI) requires a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer to traval more than 100
miles from where that person resides, is employed, or regUlarly transacts business in person
that ~ is privilegad or subject to protection as trial-pteparation material must:
(il expressly make the claim; and
- except thet, subject to Rule 45{c){3)(B)(iil), the person may be commanded to attend a (iI) describe the nature of the w~hheld documants, communications, or tangible things in a manner
trial by traveling from any such placa within the stale where the trial is held; that, without revaaling information "self privileged or protected, will enable the parties to assess the
(iii) requires disclosure of privilegad or other protected matter, If no exception or waiver claim.
(iv) subjects a person to undue burden. a claim of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation material, the person making the claim may
(B) When Permitted. To protect a person subject to or affected by a notify any party that received the information of the claim and the basis for~. After being notified, a
subpoena, the issuing court may, on motion, quash or modify the subpoena If ~ requires: party must promptly retum, sequestar, or destroy the specified information and any copies ~ has;
(i) disclosing a trede secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial must not use or disclose the information until the claim is resolved; must take reasonable steps to
information; retrieve the Information If the party disclosed ~ before being notified; and may promptly prasentthe
(iiI disclosing an unretainad expert's opinion or information that does not describe specific information to the court under seal for a determination of the claim. The person who produced the
occurrences in dispute and resuKs from the expert's study that was not requested by a information must preserve the information until the claim is rasolved.
(iii) a person who is neither e party nor a party's officer to incur substantial expense to travel tlie issuing court may hold in contempt~rson who, having been served, fails without adequate
more than 100 miles to attend trial excuse to obey the subpoena. A nonpa s failure to obey must be excused If the subpoena
purports to require the nonparty to atten or produce at a piece outside the Iim~s of Rule 45(c)(3)
(A)(i1).
Document
_______E_a_s_t_e_r_n DISTRICT OF C_a_l_~_·f_o_r_n_i_a _

1
v.
To Custodian of Records of: Cecilia Kaesler, D.O., Verdugo Internal Medicine, Inc.
1890 Verdugo Blvd., Ste 200
Glendale, CA 91208
DATE AND TIME
the above case
,CAl:, O,""OSmoN I,."",,,,..,

May 2, 2008

Wasser
(See Rule 45. Federal Rules of Civil Procedura 45 (c). (d), & (e) on Next Page)
~ action is pending in district other then district of issuance, state district undar casa number. Ref#: 85775
A088 (Rev. 12/07) Subpoena in a Civil Case (page 2)
PROOF OF SERVICE
DATE PLACE
SERVED
Personal Service
Process Server
Executed on
- - - - - -Date
------ Signature of Server
20809 Higgins Court

Address of Server
Torrance, CA 90501
(c) PROTECTING A PERSON SUBJECT TO A SUBPOENA. (C) Specifying Cond"ions es an Allemetive. In the circumstances described in Rule 45(c)(3)(B),
(1' Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions. A party or attorney the court may, insteed of quashing or modifying a subpoena, order appearance or productIOn under
responsible for Issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps to evoid specified cond"ions If the serving party:
imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena. The iSluing court (i) shows a sUbslantial need for the testimony or materielthet cannot be otherwise met without
must enforce this duty and impose an eppropriate sanction ~ich may include lost undue hardship; and
eamings and reasonable attomey's fees - on a party or attorney who feils to comply. ii) ensures that the subpoeneed person will be reasonably compensated.
(2) Command to Produce Materials or Perm" Inspection.
(A) Appearence Not Required. A person commended to produce documents,
electronicelly stored information, or tangible things, or to permit the inspection of premises,
need not appeer in person at the piece of production or inspection unless also commanded
Idl DUTIES IN RESPONDING TO A SUBPOENA.
1l Producing Documents or Electronically Stored Information. These procedures apply to
(A) Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents must produce
to eppear for a depos"ion. hearing, or trial. them as they are kept in the ordinary course of business or must organize and label them to
(B) Objections. A person commanded to produce documents or tangible correspond to the cetegories in the demand.
things or to perm" inspection mey serve on the party or attorney designated in the (B) Form for Producing Electronicelly Stored Information Not Specified. If a subpoena
subpoena a written objection to inspecting. copying, testing or sampling any or all of the does not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, the person responding must
materials or to inspecting the premISes - or to producing electronically stored information in produce it 'in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or
specified for compliance or 14 days aller the sUbpoene is served. If an objection is mede, (C) Electronically Stored Information Produced in Only One Form. The person responding need
(i) At any lime, on notice to the commended person, the serving party mey move the issuing (D) InecceSlible Electronically Stored Information. The person responding need not provide
court for an order compelling production or inspection. discovery of electronically stored information from sources that the person identiftes as not
(ii) These scts may be required only as directed in the order, and the order must protect a reasonably eccessible because of undue burden or cosl. On motion to compel discovery or for a
person who is ne"her a party nor a party's officer from signiflC8nt expense resulling from protective order, the person responding must show that the information is not reasonably
compliance. accessible because of undue burden or cosl. If that showing is mede, the court may nonetheless
(3) Quashing or Modifying s Subpoena. order discovery from such sources If the requesting party shows good ceuse, considering the
(A) When Required. On timely motion, the issuing court must quash or modify Iimllations of Rule 26(b)(2)(C). The court may specify cond"ions for the discovery.
a subpoena that: 2) Claiming Privilege or Protection.
(i) fails to allow a raasonable time to comply;
(ii) requires a person who is ne"her a party nor e party's offlC8r to trevel more than 100
1A) Information Withheld, A person w"hholding subpoenaed information under a claim
thet " is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparetion material must:
miles from where that person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person i, expressly make the claim; and
- except that, subject to Rule 45(c)(3)(B)(iil), the person may be commanded to attend e
trial by traveling from any such place w"hin the stale where the trial is held;
Ii1) describe the nature of the w"hheld documents, communications, or tangible things in a manner
that, wnhoul revealing information "self privileged or protected, will enable the parties to assess the
(iii) requires disclosura of privileged or other protected matter, If no exception or waiver cleim.
applies; or (B) Information Produced. If information produced in response to e SUbpoena is subject to
(iv) subjects a person to undue burden. a claim of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation material, the person meking the claim may
(B) When Permitted. To protect a person SUbject to or affected by a notify any party that received the information of the claim and the basis for il. Aller being notified, a
subpoene, the issuing court may, on motion, quash or modify the subpoena If it requires: party must promptly retum, sequester, or destroy the specified information and any copies it has;
(i) disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial must not use or disclose the information until the claim is resolved; must take reasonable steps to
information; retrieve the informetion If the party disclosed it before being notified; and may promptly present the
(ii) disclosing en unretained expert's opinion or informetion thet does not describe specific information to the court under seal for e determinetion of the claim. The person who produced the
occurrences in dispute and resulls from the expert's study thet was not requested by a information must preserve the information until the claim is resolved.
perty; or (e) CONTEMPT.
(iii) e person who is ne"her s party nor a party's offlC8r to incur substantial expense to travel the issuing court may hold in contempt ~rson who, having been served, fails without adequate
more than 100 miles to attend trial excuse to obey the subpoena. A nonpart s failure to obey must be excused If the SUbpoena
purports to require the nonparty to attan or produce at a piece outside the limits of Rule 45(c)(3)
(A)(ii).
Document
_______E_a_s_t_e_r_n DISTRICT OF C_a_l_i_f_o_r_n_l_'a _

1
v.
To Custodian of Records of: Vincent Fortanasce, M.D., Neurology Consultants

655 W. Naomi Ave., Ste 201
Arcadia, CA 91007
DATE AND TIME
the above case

D
",."" I"",, ,.,
YOU ARE COMMANDED to permit inspection of the following premises at the date and time specified below.
TIM'
May 2, 2008

Wasser
(See Rule 45. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 45 (e), (d), & (e) on Next Page)
If action is pending in district other than district of issuance, state district under case number. Ref#: 85776
PROOF OF SERVICE
DATE PLACE
SERVED
Personal Service
Process Server
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing information contained in the Proof
Executed on
Date Signature of Server
20809 Higgins Court

Address of Server
Torrance, CA 90501
(c) PROTECTING A PERSON SUBJECT TO A SUBPOENA. (C) Specifying Condllions as an Allemative. In the circumstances described in Rule 45(c)(3)(B),
(1) Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions, A party or attomey the court may, instead of queshing or modifying a subpoena, order appearance or production under
responsible for ISsuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid spacifled cond"ions Wthe serving party:
imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena, The illuing court (i) shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met without
must enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanction _hich may include lost undue hardship; and
eamings and reasonable attomey's fees - on a party or attorney who fails to comply. ii) ensures that the subpoeneed person will be reasonably compensated.
l 2) Command to Produce Materials or Perm" Inspection.

A) Appearance Not Required. A person commanded to produce documants,
electronically stored information, or tangible things, or to perm" the inspection of premises,
need not appear in person at the place of production or inspection unlell also commanded
I1l
d DUTIES IN RESPONDING TO A SUBPOENA.
(A)
Producing Documents or Electronically Stored Information. These procedures apply to
Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents must produce
to appear for a depos"ion, heering, or trial. them as they are kept in the ordinary course of buSinell or must organize and label them to
things or to permit inspection may serve on the party or attomey designated in the (B) Form for Producing Electronically Stored Information Not Specified. If e subpoena
subpoena a wrillan objection to inspecting, copying, testing or sampling any or all of the does not specify e form for producing electronically stored information, the person responding must
materials or to inspecting the premISes - or to producing alectronically stored information in produce II in e form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or
tile form or forms requested. The objection must be served before the earliet of the time forms.
specified for compliance or 14 days aller the subpoena is served. If an objection is made, (C) Electronically Stored Information Produced in Only One Form. The person responding need
the following rules apply: not produce the seme electronically stored information in more than one form.
(i) At any lime, on notice to the commanded person, the serving perty may move the illulng (D) Ineccellible Electronically Stored Information. The person responding need not provide
court for an order compelling production or inspection. discovery of electronically stored information from sourcas that the person identifies as not
(ii) These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and the order must protect a reasonably accanible because of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or for a
person who is neither a party nor a party's officer from significant expense resulting from protective order, the person responding must show that the information is not reasonably
(3) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena. order discovery from such sources Wthe requesti"l! party shows good cause, considering the
(A) When Required. On timely motion, the illuing court must quash or modify IIm"ations of Rule 26(b)(2)(C). The court may specify condllions for the discovery.
a subpoena that: 2) Claiming l'irivllege or Protection.
(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply:
(ii) requires a person who is nellher a party nor a party's officer to travel more than 100
lA) Information Withheld, A person wllhholding subpoenaed information under a claim
that" is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation material must:
miles from where that person resides, is emp.loyed, or regularly transac18 businell in person i1expressly make the claim; and
- except that, subject to Rule 45(c)(3)(B)(iil), the person may be commanded to attend a
trial by traveling from any such place Within the stale where the triel is held;
li1) describe the nature of the wllhheld documents, communications, or tangible things in a manner
that, wllhout revealing information "self privileged or protected, will enable the parties to assell the
(iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected metter, Wno exception or waiver claim.
(B) When Permilled. To protect a person sui?ject to or effected by a notify any party thet received the information of the claim and the basis for it. After being notified, a
SUbpoena, the illuing court may, on motion, quash or modify the subpoene if II requires: party must promptly retum, sequester, or destroy the specified information and any copies" has;
(i) disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commarcial must not use or disclose the information until the claim is resolved; must take reasonable steps to
information; retrieve the information Wthe party disclosed" before being notified; and may promptly present the
(ii) disclosing an unratained expert's opinion or information thet does not describe specific information to the court under seal for a determination of the claim. The person who produced the
occurrences in dispute and resulls from the expert's stUdy that was not requested by a information must preserve the information until the claim is resolved.
(iii) a person who is nellher a party nor a party's officer to incur substantial expense to travel the illuing court may hold in contemPt~son who, having been served, fails w"hout adequate
more than 100 miles to attend trial excuse to obey the subpoena. A nonpa s failure to obey must be excused Wthe subpoena
purports to require the nonparty to atten or produce at a place outside the limlis of Rule 45(c)(3)
(A)(ii).
A088 ~Rev. 12/07) Subpoena in a Civil Case
Document
_______E_a_s_t_e_r_n DISTRICT OF C_a_l_i_f_o_r_n_l_'_a _

1
v.
To Custodian of Records of: Casa Colina Centers for Rehab

255 E. Bonita Ave.
Pomona, CA 91767
D testify in the above case,
DATE AND TIME
the above case
''''''' O""O"TION I,.. ",.,"'"
YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce and permit inspection and copying of the following documents or objects at the

designated, the matters on which the person will testify, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 30(b)(6)
May 2, 2008

Wasser
(See Rule 45. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 45 (c), (d), & <e) on Next Page)
If action is pending in district other than district of issuance, state district under case number. Ref#: 85777
PROOF OF SERVICE
DATE PLACE
SERVED
Personal Service
Process Server
Executed on
Date Signature of Server
20809 Higgins Court

Address of Server
Torrance, CA 90501
(c) PROTECTING A PERSON SUBJECT TO A SUBPOENA. (C) Specifying Condilions as an Ailemative. In the circumstances described in Rule 45(c)(3)(B),
(1) Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions. A party or attorney the court may, instead of quashing or modifying a subpoena, order appearance or production under
responsible for Issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid specifIed condilions If the lerving party:
imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena. The issuing court (i) shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met wilhout
must enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanction -which may include lost undue hardship; and
earnings and reasonable attorney's fees - on a party or attorney who fails to comply. ii) enlures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably compensated.
l 2) Command to Produce Materials or Permit Inspection.

A) Appearance Not Required. A person commanded to produce documents,
electronically stored information, or tangible things, or to permil the inspection of premises,
need not appear in person at the place of production or inspection unless also commanded
Idl DUTIES IN RESPONDING TO A SUBPOENA.
11 Producing Documents or Electronically Stored Information. These procedures apply to
producing documents or electronically Itored information:
(A) Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents must produce
to appear for a deposilion, hearing, or trial. them as they are kept in the ordinary course of business or must organize and label them to
things or to permit inspection may serve on the party or attorney designated in the (B) Form for Producing Electronically Stored Information Not Specified. If a subpoena
subpoena a written objection to inspecting, copying, testing or sampling any or all of the does not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, tha person responding must
materials or to inspecting the premises - or to producing electronically stored information in produce it In a form or forml in which iI is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or
specified for compliance or 14 days ailer the subpoena is served. If an objection is made, (C) Electronically Stored Information Produced in Only One Form. The person responding need
(i) At any lime, on notice to the commanded person, the serving party may move the issuing (D) Inaccessible Electronically Stored Information. The person responding need not prOVide
court for an order compellinll production or inspection. dilcovery of electronically stored information from lources that the person identifies as not
(ii) These acts may be required only ss directed in the order, and the order must protect a reasonably acceslible becaule of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or for a
person who is neither a party nor a party's officer from significant expense resuiling from protective order, the person responding must show that the information il not reasonably
(3) Quashing or Modifying a SUbpoena. ordar discovery from such sources If the requestinll party shows good cause, considering the
(A) When Required. On timely motion, the issuing court must quash or modify Iimilations of Rule 26(b)(2)(C). The court may specify condilions for tha discovery.
a SUbpoena thal: (2) Claiming PriVilege or Protection.
i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply; (A) Information \lVithheld, A person wilhholding subpoenaed information under a claim
I il) requires a person who is neilher a party nor a party's officer to travel more than 100
miles from where that person resides, is employed, or regularty transacts business in person
that iI is privileged or subject to protection as trial-praparation material musl:
(i) expressly make the claim; and
- except that, subject to Rule 45(c)(3)(B)(iil), the person may be commanded to attend a (iI) deacribe the nature of tha withheld documants, communications, or tangible things in a manner
trial by traveling from any such place wilhin the stale where the trial is held; that, wilhout revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable the parties to assess the
(iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, If no exception or waiver claim.
epplies; or (B) Information Produced. If information produced in response to a subpoena is SUbject to
(B) When Permitted. To protect a person subject to or affected by a notify any party that received the information of the claim and the basis for it. After being notified, a
subpoena, the issuing court may, on motion, quash or modify the subpoena If iI requires: party must promptly retum, sequester, or destroy the specifl8d information and any copies iI has;
(i) disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial must not usa or disclose the information until the claim is resolved; must take reasonable steps to
information; retrieve the information If the party disclosed it before being notified; and may promptly present the
(ii) disclosing an unretained expert's opinion or information thet does not describe specific information to the court under seal for a determination of the claim. The person who produced the
occurrences in dispute and resuils from the expert's study that was not requested by a information must presarve the information until the claim is resolved.
(iii) a person who is neilher a perty nor a party's officer to incur substantial expense to travel the issuing court may hold in contemPt~rson who, having been served, feils wilhout adequate
more than 100 miles to attend trial excule to obey the subpoene. A nonpa s failure to obey must be excused If the subpoene
purports to require the nonparty to atten or produce at a place outside the limils of Rule 45(c)(3)
(A)(ii).
A088 (Rev, 12/07) Subpoena in a Civil Case
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document

Issued by the 140-2 Filed 05/22/2008 Page 37 of 50
_______E_a_s_t_e_r_n DISTRICT OF C_a_l_i_f_o_r_n_l_'a _

1
v.
To Custodian of Records of: Christopher J. Charbonnet, M.D., The Foothill Center for Wellness & Pain Management
1505 Wilson Terrace, Ste 240
Glendale, CA 91206
D YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear in the United States District Court at the place, date, and time specified below to
testify in the above case.
DATE AND TIME
the above case

'""''''' I-DA-T-E-AN-D-T-IM-E-----------
May 2, 2008

Wasser
(See Rule 45, Federal Rules of Civil Prooedure 45 (e), (d), & (e) on Next Page)
~ action is pending in district other than district of issuance, state district under case number, Ref#: 85778
PROOF OF SERVICE
DATE PLACE
SERVED
Personal Service
Process Server
Executed on
20809 Higgins Court

Address of Server
Torrance, CA 90501
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (c), (d), and (e), as amended on December 1,2007:
(c) PROTECTING A PERSON SUBJECT TO A SUBPOENA. (C) Specifying Condijions as an Allemative. In the circumstances described in Rule 45(c)(3)(B),
(1 ) Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions. A perty or attorney the court may, instead of quashing or modifying a subpoena, order appearance or production under
responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must laka raasonable steps to avoid specified conditions if the serving party;
imposing undue burden or expense on a person subjac:t to the subpoena. The issuing court (i) shows a substantial need for the tastimony or material that cannot be otherwise met without
earnings and reasonable attorney's fees - on a party or attorney who fails to comply. (Ii) ensures thet the subpoeneed person will be raasonably compensated.
(2) Command to Produce Materials or Permij Inspac:tion. (d) DUTIES IN RESPONDING TO A SUBPOENA.
(A) Appearance Not Required. A person commanded to produce documents, (1) Producing Documents or Elec:tronic:ally Stored Information. These procedures apply to
electronically stored information, or tangible things, or to permit the inspac:tion of premises, producing documents or elec:tronic:ally stored information;
need not appear in person at the place of production or inspac:tion unless also commanded (A) Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents must produce
to appear for a deposition, hearing, or trial. them as they are kept in the ordinary course ofbusinass or must organize and label them to
things or to permit inspection may serve on the party or attorney designated in the (B) Form for Producing EIec:tronic:a11y Stored Information Not Spec:ifl9d. If a subpoena
subpoena a written objac:tion to inspec:ling, copying, testing or sampling any or all of the does not specify a form for producing elec:tronic:ally stored information, the person responding must
materials or to inspac:tlng the premises - or to producing elec:lronically stored information in produce it in a (orm or forms in which" is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or
tile form or forms requested. The objac:tion must be served before the eartiar of the tima forms.
specified for compliance or 14 days aller the subpoena is served. If an objac:tion is made, (C) Elec:lronically Stored Information Produced in Only One Form. The person responding need
the following rules epply; not produce the same elec:tronically stored information in more then one form.
(i) At any lime. on notic:a to the commanded person, the serving party may move the issuing (D) Inecc:essible Elec:tronic:ally Stored Information. The person responding need not provide
court for an order compelling production or inspac:tion. discovery of elec:tronically stored information from sources that the person identifies as not
(ii) These acts may be required only as dirac:ted in the order, and the order must protect a reasonably eccessible because of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel diac:overy or for a
person who is neijher a party nor a party's otrJC8f' from signiflC8nt expense resulling from protective order, the person responding must show thet the information is not reasonably
compliance. accessible because of undue burden or cost. If thet showing il made, the court may nonetheless
3) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena. order dilcovery from luch SOUrcel if the requestinq party shows good cause, considering the
1
a subpoena that
A) 'MIen Required. On timely motion, the issuing court must quash or modify IImijations of Rule 26(b)(2)(C). The court may specify condijions (or the dilcovery.
(2) Cleiming Privilege or Protac:tion.
(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply; (A) Information Withheld, A person withholding subpoenaed information under a claim
(i1) requires a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer to travel more than 100 that it is privileged or subject to protection al trial..preperation material must
miles from whare that person resides. is amployed, or regularty transac:ts business in person (il expressly make the claim; and
- except that, subjec:l to Rule 45(c)(3)(B)(iil), the person may be commanded to attend a (il) deacribe the nature of the withheld documents, communications, or tangible things in a manner
trial by traveling from any such place Within the stala where the trial is held; that, w"hout revealing information ijself privileged or protec:led, will enable the parties to assess the
(iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protacted matter, if no exception or waiver claim.
applias; or (B) Information Produced. If information produced in relponse to a subpoena is subject to
(iv) subjects a person to undue burden. a claim of privilege or of protection al trial-preparation material, the person making the claim may
(B) 'MIan Permitted. To protect a person subject to or affected by a notify any party that received the information of the claim and the basis for it. After being notifl9d, a
subpoena, the issuing court may, on motion, quash or modify the subpoena if it requires: party mUlt promptly return, sequelter, or destroy the lpecified information and any copies it has;
(i) disclosing a trade secret or other confidantial research, development, or commercial must not use or diaclose the informetion until the claim is relolved; must take reasonable stepl to
information; retrieve tha informetion if the party dilcloled ij before being notified; and may promptly present the
(ii) disclosing an unretained expert's opinion or information that does not describe specific information to the court under seal for a determination of the claim. The person who produced the
oc:c:urrances in dispute and results from the expert's study that was not requested by a information must preserve the information until the claim il relolved.
(iii) a person who is neijher a party nor a party's officer to incur substantial expense to travel TIie ilsuing court mey hold in contemPt~rson who, having been served, fails w~out adequate
more than 100 miles to attand trial excuse to obey the subpoena. A nonpa s failure to obey must be excused if the subpoena
purports to require the nonparty to atten or produce at a place outside the limits of Rule 45(c)(3)
(A)(ii).
Document
_______E_a_s_t_e_r_n DISTRICT OF C_a_l_i_f_o_r_n_l_·a _

1
v.
To Custodian of Records of: Michael Cann, M.D.

1818 Verdugo Blvd., Ste 201
Glendale, CA 91208
D YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear in the United States District Court at the place, date, and time specified below to
testify in the above case.
DATE AND TIME
the above case
""''' 0' ",o,mo,

"'o,mo' I_DA_T_E_A_ND_T_IM_E _

"'''"'''' ;-DA-T-E-A-ND-T-IM-E-----------
May 2, 2008

Wasser
(See Rule 45. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 45 (e), (d), & (e) on Neld Page)
If action is pending in district other than district of issuance, stete district under case number. Ref#: 85779
• Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 140-2 Filed 05/22/2008 Page 40 of 50
PROOF OF SERVICE
DATE PLACE
SERVED
Personal Service
Process Server
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing information contained in the Proof
Executed on
20809 Higgins Court

Address of Server
Torrance, CA 90501
(c) PROTECTING A PERSON SUBJECT TO A SUBPOENA. (C) Specifying Condilions as an AAemative. In the circumstances described in Rule 45(c)(3)(B),
(1) Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions. A party or attomey the court mey, insteed of quashing or modifying a subpoena, order appearance or production under
responsible for Issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable staps to avoid specified condilions nthe serving party:
imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena. The issuing court (i) shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met wilhout
eamings and reasonable attorney's fees - on a party or attorney who fails to comply. (i1) ensures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably compensated.
(2) Command to Produce Materials or Permillnspection. (d) DUTIES IN RESPONDING TO A SUBPOENA.
(A) Appearance Not Required. A person commanded to produce documents, (1) Producing Documants or Electronically Stored Information. These procedures apply to
electronicelly stored information, or tangible things, or to permil the inspection of premises. producing documents or electronically stored information:
need not appear in person at the place of production or inspection unless also commanded (A) Documents. A person responding to a subpoene to produce documents must produce
to appear for a deposition, hearing, or trial. them es they are kapt in the ordinary course of business or must organize and label them to
(B) Objections. A person commended to produce documents or tangible correspond to the categories in the demand.
things or to permit inspection may serve on the party or attorney designated in the (B) Form for Producing Electronically Stored Information Not Specified. Wa subpoena
subpoena a wrillen objection to inspecting, copying, testing or sampling any or all of the does not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, the person responding must
materials or to inspecting the premises - or to producing electronically stored information in produce i1,n a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or
specified for compliance or 14 days atter the subpoena is served. Wan objection is made, (C) Electronically Stored Information Produced in Only One Form. The person responding need
(i) At any lime. on notice to the commanded person. the serving perty may move the issuing (D) Inaccessible Electronically Stored Information. The person responding need not provide
court for an order compellinp production or inspection. discovery of electronically stored information from sources that the person identifl8s as not
(ii) These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and the order must protect a reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or for a
person who is neilher a party nor a party's offlC8r from signifICant expense resutting from protective order, the person responding must show that the information is not reasonably
compliance. accessible because of undue burden or cost. Wthat showing is made, the court may nonetheless
3) Quashing or Modifying a SUbpoena. order discovery from such sources nthe requestinll party shows good cause, considering the
l
a subpoena that:
A) When Required. On timely motion, the issuing court must quash or modify limitations of Rule 26(b)(2)(C). The court may specify conditions for the discovery.
2) Claiming Privilege or Protection.
(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply;
(ii) requires a person who is neilher a party nor a party's officer to travel more than 100
1A) Information Withheld, A person wilhholding subpoenaed information under a claim
that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation material must:
miles from where that person resides, is employed, or regularty transacts business in person (i) expressly make the claim; and
- except that, subject to Rule 45(c)(3)(B)(ii'), the person may be commanded to attend a (i1) describe the nature of the wilhheld documents, communications, or tangible things in a manner
trial by traveling from any such place Within the stale where the trial is held; that, without revealing information itaeW privileged or protected. will enable the parties to assess the
(iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, ~ no exception or waiver claim.
applies; or (B) Information Produced. Winformation produced in response to a subpoena is subject to
(B) When Permitted. To protect a person subject to or affected by a notify any party that received the information of the claim and the basis for it. After being notified, a
subpoena, the issuing court may, on motion, quash or modify the subpoena ~ it requires: party must promptly retum, sequester, or destroy the specified information and any copies it has;
(i) disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commerciel must not use or disclose the information until the claim is resolved; must take reasonable steps to
informetion; retrieve the information nthe party disclosed iI before being notified; end may promptly present the
(ii) disclosing an unretained expert's opinion Or information that does not describe specific information to the court under seal for e determination of the claim. The person who produced the
occurrences in dispute and resutts from the expert's study that was not requested by a information must preserve the information until the claim is resolved.
(iii) a person who is neither a perty nor e party's officer to incur substential expense to travel The issuing court may hold in contempt a n Who, having been served, fails wilhout adequete
more than 100 miles to attend trial excuse to obey the subpoena. A nonpa • failure to obey must be excused ~ the subpoene
purport. to require the nonparty to alten or produce et a place outside the limils of Rule 45(c)(3)
(A)(ii).
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 EXHIBIT 3
28
Case
Case
1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document
Document
140-2
132 Filed
Filed 05/22/2008
05/16/2008 Page
Page 42
1 ofof350
Mark A. Wasser CA SB #060160

LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. WASSER
2 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100
Sacramento, CA 95814
3 Phone: 16) 444-6400
444-6405
PLAINTIFF AND ORDER

21 vs.
22 COUNTY OF KERN, et aI.,
Complaint Filed: January 5, 2007
23 Defendants. Trial Date: December 3,2008
24
25 PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF THE COURT, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by
26 and between the parties through their respective counsel that Plaintiff, David F. Jadwin, shall
27 submit to a mental and psychiatric examination by Dr. Robert Burchuk on Monday, May 19,
28 2008 from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. and Thursday, May 29 from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. in Dr.
1
STIPULATION RE EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF AND ORDER
Case
Case
1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Document
140-2
132 Filed
Filed 05/22/2008
05/16/2008 Page
Page 43
2 ofof350
1 Burchuk's office at 23522 Califa Street, Woodland Hills, California. Dr. Burchuk's telephone is
2 818-922-4900. The examination shall consist of an oral interview and evaluation and the
3 one Memory Mallmgermg test orocedlure
4
raw test scores, dIsclosed to PlaJllltltt
evalua1:ion to be conldm;ted Rick ~arKaslan, on Wednesday, May 28, 2008 at 1 a.m.
Mark A. Wasser
21 Attorney for Defendants, County of Kern, et al.
22
23 Dated: May 16, 2008 LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE
24 By: lsi Eugene D. Lee (as authorized on 5/16/08)

Eugene D. Lee
25 Attorney for Plaintiff, David F. Jadwin, D.O.
26
27
28
2
Case
Case
1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
Document
140-2
132 Filed
Filed 05/22/2008
05/16/2008 Page
Page 44
3 ofof350
1 ORDER
2 The parties having stipulated as hereinabove set forth and good cause appearing
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 EXHIBIT 4
28
Eugene D. Lee
From: Eugene D. Lee [elee@LOEL.com]
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 11:47 AM
To: 'mwasser@markwasser.com'
Subject: RE: DME
I got through to Dr. Jadwin. He was on his way home. He turned his car around and he should be arriving at Dr.
Burchuk’s office right about now.

You mentioned on the phone that the wrong address was due to a miscommunication between you and Karen Barnes
and that you would email me some kind of proposal for making up the lost time. I’ll be happy to take a look at it.

Sincerely,
Gene Lee

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

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

From: Mark Wasser [mailto:mwasser@markwasser.com]
To: elee@LOEL.com
Subject: RE: DME

Gene,
Dr. Jadwin should be at 6320 Canoga Ave, Suite 1500, Woodland Hills.
Mark
From: Eugene D. Lee [mailto:elee@LOEL.com]

To: mwasser@markwasser.com
Subject: DME

Mark,
1

I just tried calling you but you weren’t available.

Dr. Jadwin called to tell me that he is at Dr. Burchuk’s office at 23522 Califa St., Woodland Hills, California. He’s been
waiting outside the gate for over 30 minutes now but no one seems to be letting him in. Please advise.

Sincerely,
Gene Lee

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

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

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 EXHIBIT 5
28
Eugene D. Lee
From: Eugene D. Lee [elee@LOEL.com]
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 4:17 PM
To: 'mwasser@markwasser.com'
Subject: RE: Subpoena of Drs. Taheri/Riskin
Mark,

You served the subpoenas (in violation of the Court’s Scheduling Order) prior to the mishap at today’s DME. That is
separate and distinct from the fact that the DME was only 2 hours long today because defendants mistakenly gave
plaintiff the wrong address for the DME. Plaintiff will not bargain to gain your compliance with the Order of the Court.
We will be filing a motion to quash and for protective order.

I also note that Dr. Burchuk had Dr. Jadwin execute HIPAA releases at the DME authorizing his treating therapists to
disclose all patient information to him. Because his attorneys were not present and he was not allowed to contact his
attorneys during the DME, Dr. Jadwin signed the authorizations without the advice of counsel. I have since informed Dr.
Jadwin of the existence of the Scheduling Order (prohibiting disclosure of treater psychotherapy notes, etc.) and he has
revoked the HIPAA releases. It is precisely this kind of conduct that plaintiff sought to prevent in requesting Dr. Jadwin
be permitted to ask his attorneys questions during the DME.

Sincerely,
Gene Lee

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

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

From: Mark Wasser [mailto:mwasser@markwasser.com]
To: elee@LOEL.com
Subject: RE: Subpoena of Drs. Taheri/Riskin

Gene,
Dr. Jadwin saw Dr. Burchuk, I understand, for about 2 hours today. We propose the May 29 session be moved to June 2
and expanded to 6 hours. That will limit the exam to two sessions and allow Dr. Burchuk to complete it. If we can do that,
1
then the language in the Scheduling Order that you quote in this e-mail will be satisfied and the subpoenas can be limited
accordingly.
Let me know.
Mark
From: Eugene D. Lee [mailto:elee@LOEL.com]

To: mwasser@markwasser.com
Subject: Subpoena of Drs. Taheri/Riskin
Importance: High

Mark,

I’ve received your subpoena of medical records from Drs. Taheri and Riskin (plaintiff’s therapists).

I am writing to object to your subpoena. As you recall, in the Scheduling Order (Doc. 29), the parties stipulated as
follows:

“The parties hereby agree that, in order to preserve the confidentiality required for continued effective treatment of
Plaintiff’s depression, anxiety, insomnia, and emotional distress, Plaintiff’s treating psychiatrists/psychologists shall not
be required to produce their actual treatment notes, but instead shall produce a summary of their treatment of
Plaintiff’s depression and emotional distress, including their diagnoses and prognoses, and the basis for their opinion,
including raw data of any psychological testing. Plaintiff is willing to undergo psychological examination by Defendants’
qualified expert pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 34 subject to a stipulation regarding the timing and
scope of the examination, including the specific tests to be performed, and prompt production of the subsequent report
and raw data supporting the report to all parties.” (Scheduling Order, 14:5‐19).

I understand that the subpoena asks for production by 5/21/08. We intend to file a motion to quash subpoena. If you
wish to meet and confer, please let me know.

Sincerely,
Gene Lee

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

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

2
1 Eugene D. Lee SB#: 236812

3 Phone: (213) 992-3299
Fax: (213) 596-0487
5 Attorneys for Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.
6
10 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF DAVID F. JADWIN,
v. D.O. re MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE
11 ORDER re DEFENSE MENTAL
COUNTY OF KERN, et al., EXAMINATION
12
Defendants. Date: April 28, 2008
13 Time: 9:30 a.m.
Place: U.S. District Court, Crtrm. 3
14 2500 Tulare St, Fresno, CA
15 Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007
Date Set for Trial: December 3, 2008
16
17 I, David F. Jadwin, D.O., declare and say as follows:
18 1. I am the Plaintiff in the above-captioned action.
19 2. I am making this declaration in support of Plaintiff’s motion for protective order re
20 defense mental examination. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth below and I could and
21 would competently testify thereto if called as a witness in this matter.
22 3. On May 19, 2008, I drove the address provided to me by my attorney, Eugene Lee, and
23 arrived at 10 a.m. I waited outside a gate at the address until 10:40 a.m., but no one let me in.
24 4. At 10:40 a.m., I called Mr. Lee to tell him of the situation and ask for further instructions.
25 5. After hanging up the phone, I got back into my car and proceeded to drive home.
26 6. When I had nearly arrived home, I received a call from Mr. Lee informing me that
27 defense counsel had provided the incorrect address. He instructed me to turn around and drive to a new
28 address. I estimated I would arrive there by 11:45 a.m. or so due to traffic.
DECLARATION OF DAVID F. JADWIN re MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER re DEFENSE
OS/21/2008 04.55 FAX 141 00 1/00 1
7. I arrived at the new address at approximately 12 p.m. upon which Dr. Burchuk began the
2 defense mental examination.
3 8. Around 2 p.m., as the examination
exwnination was concluding, Dr. Burchuk presented me with two
4 HIPAA authorization and release [OImS

[onns permitting Dr. Burchuk to speak with and obtain medical
5 records [rom
from my treating psych iatrists, Dr. Paul Riskin and Dr. Anosh Taheri-Tafresh
psychiatrists, i. A true and
Taheri-Tafreshi.
6 correct copy ofthe fOIms

fonns which Dr. Burchuk gave to me are attached as Exhibit A. I had been instructed
7 that I was not to call my attorneys at any time during the examination. IJtherefore complied with Dr.
8 Burohuk's request and signed the releases.

Burchuk's
9 9. ITtape recorded the examination. A true and correct written transcript of a portion of the
ofthe
10 ex.amination and the oral statements made by me and by Dr. Burehuk

oral examination Burchuk is attached hereto as Exhibit
1)J
1 B.
12 10. After the examination concluded, I spoke with my attorneys and was infonned that I
13 should not have signed the HIPAA releases because there was an agreement among the attorneys that
14 my treating psychiatrists were not to produce any documents to Defendants other than written summary
15 reports, which had already been provided to Defendants. Upon the advice of my attorneys, I then
16 immediately revoked the HIPAA releases by calling and cmailing
emailing Dr. Burchuk, Dr. Riskin and Dr.
17 Taheri-Tafreshi.
18
19 ofthe
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of California and the United States
the State of Califomia
20 that the foregoing is true and correct.
21
Executed on: May 21,2008
21, 2008
22
23
24
25 DAVID F. JADVIIN.
JADWIN, D.o.
D.O.
Declarant .
26
27
28
1 EXHIBITS TO JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT

2
EXHIBIT A. HIPAA Releases
3
EXHIBIT B. DME Transcript Excerpt
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
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 EXHIBIT A
28
Robert Burchuk, MD Diplomate, American Board of

Psychiatry and Neurology
6320 Canoga Avenue

Suite 1500
Woodland Hills, California 91367
(818) 340-0821
Request for Release of Outpatient Psychotherapy Medical Information
Requesting Individual or Entity: Robert Burchuk, MD

I hereby request that ();. 1I..,'ski '"?
(Name of the provider of healthcare, the heath care service plan, or contractor)
furnish written and/or verbal out-patient psychotherapy medical information concerning:
David Jadwin, MD to the Requesting Individual or Entity.
(Patient's name)
This Request includes the release of any and all information pertaining to: _
Past psychiatric treatment including diagnosis(es), nature and frequency of treatment.
knowledge of additional past psychiatric treatment.
The information requested will be used for the limited purpose of:
Preparation of Forensic Psychiatry Report
Check one: ! A copy of this Request was provided to the patient on May 19,
2008
o A copy of this Request was NOT sent to the patient, because

he/she has signed a written waiver of the form in a signed letter to
the Requesting Individual or Entity.
Date: _
I Signed:
Print Name:
_
_
Robert Burchuk, MD Diplomate, American Board of

Psychiatry and Neurology
6320 Canoga Avenue

Suite 1500
Woodland Hills, California 91367
(818) 340-0821
Request for Release of Outpatient Psychotherapy Medical Information
Requesting Individual or Enti:t{0bert Burchuk, MD

I hereby request that ,n t&1 .
(Name of the provider of healthcare, the heath care service plan, or contractor)
furnish written and/or verbal out-patient psychotherapy medical information concerning:
David Jadwin, MD to the Requesting Individual or Entity.
(Patient's name)
This Request includes the release of any and all information pertaining to: _
Past psychiatric treatment including diagnosis(es), nature and frequency of treatment.
knowledge of additional past psychiatric treatment.
The information requested will be used for the limited purpose of:
Preparation of Forensic Psychiatry Report
Check one: ! A copy of this Request was provided to the patient on May 19,
2008
o A copy of this Request was NOT sent to the patient, because

he/she has signed a written waiver of the form in a signed letter to
the Requesting Individual or Entity.
Date: _
Signed: _
Print Name: _
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 EXHIBIT B
28
1
DR. BURCHUCK: Okay.
2
EXAMINEE: But yes I was very depressed and the same type of symptoms only it was, you know,
3 there, there just didn’t seem to be anyone around that seemed to care about any of these issues.
4 DR. BURCHUCK: Okay. I want to get your permission to contact Dr. Taheri?
5 EXAMINEE: Taheri, yeah.
6 DR. BURCHUCK: Taheri. And I, and I know Dr. Riskin has retired.
7 EXAMINEE: No, no he’s –
8 DR. BURCHUCK: Or he’s, is he, well he had closed his office?
9 EXAMINEE: He’s a young man, no he’s a young man. He at the University or the VA and he had a
small practice on the side.
10
DR. BURCHUCK: I see.
11
EXAMINEE: And his father became quite ill.
12
DR. BURCHUCK: Uh huh.
13
EXAMINEE: And he said he had to close his practice –
14
DR. BURCHUCK: Okay.
15
EXAMINEE: – to take care of his father. So I, I know that he’s working, he’s just not working in
16 private practice.
17 DR. BURCHUCK: I see.
18 EXAMINEE: Dr. Taheri had mentioned that he had seen him. He, he’s gotta be like 40 or something
like that –
19
DR. BURCHUCK: Oh, okay.
20
EXAMINEE: – so he’s really ****.
21
DR. BURCHUCK: So these are release of information forms and I’m gonna just give you –
22
EXAMINEE: And what’s the date today, I’m sorry?
23
DR. BURCHUCK: – copies of the forms. Today’s the 19th.
24
EXAMINEE: 19th? Oh.
25
DR. BURCHUCK: Yeah.
26
EXAMINEE: Do you know how to get a hold of Dr. Taheri?
27
DR. BURCHUCK: If you have phone numbers, that’d be great.
28
DEFENSE MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O. 46

140 DFJ Mpo Dme

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

140 DFJ Mpo Dme

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 140 Filed 05/22/2008 Page 1 of 15

1 LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE

1 (Phone: (559) 499-5600), Courtroom 3, for the following:

1 LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE

1 Decl., Exh. 4).

1 the Scheduling Order. (Lee Decl., Exh. 5).

1 Defendants’ request for an additional 2 hours of mental examination on June 2.

1 was expressly denied however.

1 Eugene D. Lee SB#: 236812

1 EXHIBITS TO JOINT STATEMENT re: DISCOVERY DISAGREEMENT

1 III. Summary of Pleadings.

1 leave and retaliation for an employee’s exercise of the right to

1 alienated many of the physicians at Kern Medical Center through

1 leave in an effort to allow the work environment to stabilize.

1 Plaintiff’s prior review. Defendants are hereby ORDERED to file

1 and FLSA [29 U.S.C. § 203] engaged in interstate commerce, and

1 Defendant Kern County since October 24, 2000.

1 Plaintiff from his position as Chair of the Pathology Department

1 Plaintiff disrupted the October, 2005, Monthly Oncology

1 Code §§ 12945.1, et seq., and 2 C.C.R. § 7297.7(a), entitling

1 12. Whether Defendant Kern County violated 29 U.S.C.

1 that include attorney work-product and trial preparation

1 Plaintiff relief from that limitation. Defendants anticipate

1 2. The parties are ordered to file a Joint Pre-

1 outside the Eastern District of California, and attendance in

1 d. An estimate of the cost and time to be

1 2. Stipulations extending the deadlines contained

Notification of Subpoenaed Records

To Whom It May Concern:

CopyPage Records Retrieval Systems

Cecilia Kaesler, D.O., Verdugo

David F. Jadwin, D.O.

To Custodian of Records of: Paul M. Riskin, M.D.

DATE AND TIME

'L<C' 0' "'OSmoN I_DA_T_E_A_ND_T_IM_E _

DATE AND TIME

Torrance, CA 90501 10:00 AM

"'""" IOA" '"0""

Attorney for Counsel for Defendant,

A088 (Rev. 12107) Subpoena in a Civil Case (page 2)

20809 Higgins Court

David F. Jadwin, D.O.

To Custodian of Records of: Anoshiravan Taheri-Tafreshi, M.D.

DATE AND TIME

"'" '"""""m,," I"'' ' NID "'"

PLACECopyPage Records Retrieval Systems DATE AND TIME

Attorney for Counsel for Defendant,

A088 (Rev. 12/(7) Subpoena in a Civil Case (page 2)

20809 Higgins Court

David F. Jadwin, D.O.

DATE AND TIME

PLACECopyPage Records Retrieval Systems DATE AND TIME

Attorney for Counsel for Defendant,

A088 (Rev. 12/07) Subpoena in a Civil Case (page 2)

20809 Higgins Court

David F. Jadwin, D.O.

To Custodian of Records of: Vincent Fortanasce, M.D., Neurology Consultants

DATE AND TIME

PLACECopyPage Records Retrieval Systems DATE AND TIME

Attorney for Counsel for Defendant,

A088 (Rev. 12/07) Subpoena in a Civil Case (page 2)

20809 Higgins Court