Preview
NAILAH K. BYRD
CUYAHOGA COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
Court of Common Pleas
REPEY BRIEF
October 24,2023 15:45
By: LIZ ROCHELLE PHILLIPS 0097953
Confirmation Nbr. 2999282
CARISSA THANGATHURAI, ET AL CV 22 970590
vs.
Judge: MAUREEN CLANCY
BRIMMAN J. FRAZER, ET AL
Pages Filed: 48
Electronically Filed 10/24/2023 15:45 / BRIEF / CV 22 970590 / Confirmation Nbr. 2999282 / BATCH
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO
CARISSA THANGATHURAI, et al. ) CASE NO. CV-22-970590
)
Plaintiffs, ) JUDGE MAUREEN CLANCY
)
v. )
) DEFENDANT BRIMMAN J. FRAZER’S
BRIMMAN FRAZER, et al. ) REPLY IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION
) TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
Defendants. )
)
Defendant Brimman J. Frazer, by and through counsel, hereby submits his Reply Brief in
support of his Motion to Compel Discovery1. Defendant Frazer respectfully reiterates his
request for an Order compelling Plaintiffs to supplement and/or respond to Defendant’s
discovery requests in full.
I. Significant discovery and supplemental discovery responses remain outstanding.
A. Defendant Frazer’s First Set of Discovery Requests to Plaintiff Carissa
Thangathurai
As discussed in Defendant’s initial Motion to Compel, Defendant served discovery on all
three Plaintiffs on January 30, 2023. Now, nearly ten (10) months later, Defendant still awaits
numerous items, including the following from Plaintiff Carissa Thangathurai:
- Plaintiff s state and local tax returns (First Set of Requests for Production Nos. 11, 21);
- Plaintiff s correspondence with Defendant Frazer (First Set of Requests for Production
No. 25);
- Rental information for the vehicle involved in the subject accident (First Set of Requests
for Production Nos. 27, 28);
- Complete medical records/bills of Plaintiff (First Set of Requests for Production Nos. 1,
2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 12, 13, and 14; see also Exhibit A - updated list of medical authorizations
requested and received); and
1 Defendant incorporates the arguments in his initial Motion to Compel as if fully rewritten herein.
Electronically Filed 10/24/2023 15:45 / BRIEF / CV 22 970590 / Confirmation Nbr. 2999282 / BATCH
- Complete lost wage/disability/military benefits documentation (First Set of Requests for
Production Nos. 11, 21, 22, 33, and 35).
Plaintiff's Brief in Opposition provides no explanation for delays in production of her tax
information, correspondence with Defendant Frazer, or rental information for the subject vehicle.
The alleged complexity of this case and wide range of medical records do not justify the lack of
production of these items.
Additionally, numerous and significant medical records and bills of Plaintiff Carissa
Thangathurai remain outstanding. Exhibit A is an updated list of medical authorizations
requested and received by Defendant2. There are still various issues outstanding with the
production of medical records:
- Numerous authorizations have yet to be returned to Defendant’s counsel:
o CMH Ventura Community Memorial Hospital, initial authorization sent May 17,
2023 (see Exhibit A, p. 5);
o Cedars Sinai LA, initial authorization sent May 17, 2023 (see Exhibit A, p. 5);
o Jackson Surgical Center, initial authorization sent May 17, 2023 (see Exhibit A,
p. 5);
o Thousand Oaks, Dr. Assil, initial authorization sent May 17, 2023 (see Exhibit A,
p. 5);
o Dr. Joseph Khairi, initial authorization sent May 17, 2023 (see Exhibit A, p. 6);
o Loma Vista Psychology, initial authorization sent May 17, 2023 (see Exhibit A,
p. 5).
- Numerous productions by Plaintiff have not included complete medical records, nor
medical records dating prior to the accident at issue, without justification:
o Dr. Jason Snibbe (see Exhibit A, p. 1);
o Dr. Brian Adams (See Exhibit A, p. 3);
o Dr. Adam Darby (see Exhibit A, p. 3);
o Dr. Michael Dorsi (see Exhibit A, p. 3);
o Dr. Lee Mendiola (see Exhibit A, p. 4);
o Dr. Mojgan Sadeghi (see Exhibit A, p. 4);
o Dr. Matthew Thomas Siedhoff (see Exhibit A, p. 4);
o Cedars Sinai LA (see Exhibit A, p. 5);
o Thousand Oaks, Dr. Assil (see Exhibit A, p. 5).
2 Defendant’s office prepared this document initially, and attached the original to its Motion to Compel. Exhibit A
includes Plaintiff’s counsel’s comments in blue text. Defendant’s counsel’s office added further comments in red
text on 10/23/2023.
Electronically Filed 10/24/2023 15:45 / BRIEF / CV 22 970590 / Confirmation Nbr. 2999282 / BATCH
Plaintiff also claims that Defendant’s requests for medical records are overly broad,
supporting this argument by citing to Dineen v. Pelfrey, in which a plaintiff alleged a neck injury
as a result of a motor vehicle accident. (Brief in Opposition, p. 3). However, Dineen differs
significantly from this matter. In Dineen, the parties concurred that the only injury at issue was
the plaintiff’s claim of a neck injury resulting from the motor vehicle accident. Dineen v.
Pelfrey, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 21AP-547, 2002-Ohio-2035, 31. . Therefore, the court found
that broad access to the plaintiff’s medical history was improper without appropriate limits on
the timeframe or content of the information sought, stating that “[w]hile appellant waived the
physician-patient relationship by filing his civil action, he only did so as to communications that
are causally or historically related to the injuries presented in the civil action.” Id.
Unlike in Dineen, and despite what Plaintiffs have claimed in their Brief in Opposition,
Defendant has not requested broad-based access to Plaintiff Carissa Thangathurai’s medical
records and history. Plaintiff’s own Brief in Opposition states that this case involves
“complicated injuries with multiple surgeries, out of state providers and multiple medical
experts, along with medical treatments, disability, and medical retirement from the military.”
(Brief in Opposition, p. 1). Plaintiff cannot claim wide ranging injuries and damages, including
multiple surgeries for neck pain, shoulder pain and potential additional surgeries, multiple partial
hip replacements, ankle pain and resulting surgical procedures, tendon/ligament damage, hearing
loss, and numerous falls, admit that some or all of these injuries/conditions predated the accident,
and then allege that Defendant’s discovery requests seeking complete information on the nature,
treatment, causation, and history of these injuries is overly broad. (Plaintiff’s Responses to First
Set of Discovery, Interrogatory No. 17). Further, if Plaintiff believes limits are necessary, she
bears the burden of establishing this, which she has not done through the submission of a
Electronically Filed 10/24/2023 15:45 / BRIEF / CV 22 970590 / Confirmation Nbr. 2999282 / BATCH
privilege log or motion for protective order. See Pietrangelo v. Hudson, 2019-Ohio-1988, 136
N.E.3d 867, 15 (8th Dist.) (holding that “[t]he party opposing a discovery request bears the
burden of establishing that the information requested would not reasonably lead to discovery of
admissible evidence”).
Lastly, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant merely seeks supplementary responses from
Defendant because he “did not like” the responses provided. (Brief in Opposition, p. 2). To the
contrary, Defendant sent Plaintiff multiple letters detailing the deficiencies in Plaintiff's
responses, many of which remain unaddressed. (See Exhibits D and E to Defendant’s Motion to
Compel). According to Civ.R. 37(A)(4), an evasive or incomplete answer or response
constitutes a failure to answer or respond. Thus, Defendant renews his Motion to Compel
complete responses to discovery.
B. Defendant Frazer’s First Set of Discovery Requests to Plaintiffs Riley and
Cameron Frame
Plaintiffs Cameron and Riley Frame did not provide any responses to the January 30,
2023 discovery requests until October 5, 2023 and October 10, 2023, respectively. Again, no
justification was provided for this lengthy delay. Further, these responses are likewise deficient.
Plaintiffs Cameron and Riley Frame are Plaintiff Carissa Thangathurai’s minor children. In
Plaintiffs’ responses to discovery, it is alleged that Plaintiffs are “experiencing developmental
delays which may be related. Will supplement if appropriate.” (See Exhibit B, Riley Frame
Discovery Responses, Interrogatory No. 9; Exhibit C, Cameron Frame Discovery Responses,
Interrogatory No. 9). It is improper for Plaintiffs to allege potential injuries as a result of this
incident yet provide no justification, documentation, or supporting evidence whatsoever. As
stated by the Eighth District:
“The plaintiff bears the burden of proving damages. Damages cannot be awarded if
the plaintiff fails to meet this burden by presenting adequate proof. Evidence of
Electronically Filed 10/24/2023 15:45 / BRIEF / CV 22 970590 / Confirmation Nbr. 2999282 / BATCH
damages must be shown with a reasonable degree of certainty. A plaintiff may not
recover speculative damages. A plaintiff must prove the extent of his damages to be
entitled to compensation.
Broadvue Motors, Inc. v. Maple Hts. Police, 135 Ohio App.3d 405, 410, 734 N.E.2d 417 (8th
Dist. 1999), citations omitted. As such, Plaintiffs’ response that they “may” have experienced
developmental delays, and that they will “supplement if appropriate” is neither responsive nor
appropriate to sustain their burden of proof regarding damages. As such, Defendant reiterates his
Motion to Compel discovery from Plaintiffs Riley and Cameron Frame.
C. Defendant Frazer’s Second Set of Discovery Requests
As discussed in Defendant’s Motion to Compel, Defendant Frazer served a second set of
discovery requests on Plaintiff Carissa Thangathurai on July 17, 2023. Plaintiff has not
responded to the requests, requested additional time, objected, or otherwise addressed this
second set of discovery requests, originally due on August 14, 2023. As such, Defendant
reiterates his Motion to Compel responses to his second set of discovery.
II. Plaintiffs have not provided a privilege log.
In response to Defendant’s discovery requests, Plaintiffs have also asserted that certain
items are privileged, including but not limited to: some or all of Plaintiff Carissa Thangathurai’s
military and/or employment records (see Response to Request for Production No. 33);
correspondence with Defendant Frazer (see Response to Request for Production Nos. 24 and 25);
and photos and videos of Plaintiffs on or after the subject incident (see Response to Request for
Production No. 32). Plaintiff has also claimed that certain of her medical providers’ records are
privileged, as these medical providers rendered treatments and/or evaluations in relation to her
ongoing divorce and child custody situation. (see Exhibit A, p 5-6).
The Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure establish the procedural mechanism by which a party
properly asserts a privilege:
Electronically Filed 10/24/2023 15:45 / BRIEF / CV 22 970590 / Confirmation Nbr. 2999282 / BATCH
When information subject to discovery is withheld on a claim that it is
privileged...the claim shall be made expressly and shall be supported by a
description of the nature of the documents, communications, or things not produced
that is sufficient to enable the demanding party to contest the claim.
Ohio Civ. R. 26(B)(6)(a) (emphasis added). The Plaintiffs have apparently decided that they
need not abide by the procedural requirements of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. The
Plaintiffs have neither produced a privilege log, nor provided any description of the nature of
those documents that they claim to be withholding as privileged. The Plaintiffs have not
described these documents in any way whatsoever, much less in a way that is sufficient to enable
the Defendant to contest the Plaintiffs’ claim, as required by the civil rules.
Indeed, there is no way for the Court to evaluate whether the Plaintiffs have properly
invoked the privilege in this regard. Ohio courts have often held that “a claim of privilege can be
waived where no privilege log is submitted.” Hartzell v. Breneman, 2011-Ohio-2472, 23 (7th
Dist.); see also McPherson v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 146 Ohio App. 3d 441, 766
N.E.2d1015 (9th Dist. 2001).
In Hartzell, a defendant in an uninsured motorist action sought to compel the execution
of authorization for an injured party’s medical records. The Hartzell plaintiffs asserted privilege,
claiming that executing the authorizations would require them to divulge medical records not
causally or historically related to the injuries at issue. After the Mahoning County Court of
Common Pleas ordered the execution of the authorizations, the Hartzell plaintiffs appealed.
Notably, just like the Plaintiffs in this matter, the Hartzell plaintiffs did not seek to obtain a
protective order, nor did they prepare and produce a privilege log outlining those medical records
that they claimed were protected from disclosure.
On appeal, the Ohio Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court and
ordered the execution of the medical authorizations. The Hartzell court noted that the plaintiffs
Electronically Filed 10/24/2023 15:45 / BRIEF / CV 22 970590 / Confirmation Nbr. 2999282 / BATCH
did not seek a protective order, instead only opposing the motion to compel discovery. The
Hartzell court also noted that the plaintiffs did not construct a privilege log to describe those
medical records withheld under the guise of privilege so that the requesting party could evaluate
the claim. The Hartzell court found, based on these circumstances, that the plaintiffs had waived
the privilege and were required to execute the medical authorizations. As the Hartzell court
held:
“As the rule does not provide an exception to the privilege log requirement,
appellants should have collected their own medical records, constructed a privilege
log for records it deemed not causally or historically related to the action, and
provided the other records and the privilege log to Allstate [the requesting party], at
which point Allstate could have determined whether a motion to compel was
necessary, or to the trial court for an in-camera inspection.
Appellants failed to follow the proper procedure under the Civil Rules and thus were
not entitled to an in-camera review. It was their burden to show that the records
were not causally or historically related. Without a privilege log and a provision of
the records to the trial court, this burden could not be met, allowing the trial court to
compel production of the records. ”
Hartzell, 2011-Ohio-2472, 24-25 (emphasis added).
Ohio courts make clear that it is the party invoking the privilege that is required to
compile the protected records, construct a privilege log, and provide the privilege log to the party
seeking discovery or to the Court for purposes of in camera review. Id.; McPherson, 146 Ohio
App. 3d at 444. Failing to follow this procedure amounts to a failure to discharge the burden of
establishing privilege, and allows a court to compel production of the records. Id.
The Plaintiffs’ objections suffer from the same fatal defects as in Hartzell. The Plaintiffs
in this matter neither sought a protective order nor provided a privilege log. This results in a
waiver of any privilege, including a waiver of the requirement for an in camera review, and
demands an order compelling execution of the requested medical authorizations. The Plaintiffs
cannot withhold access to evidence that would allow the Defendant to evaluate and defend
Electronically Filed 10/24/2023 15:45 / BRIEF / CV 22 970590 / Confirmation Nbr. 2999282 / BATCH
against the Plaintiffs’ claims. As such, the Court should grant the Defendant’s Motion to
Compel and order the Plaintiffs to provide complete discovery responses.
III. Defendant has experienced and will continue to experience prejudice based on
the delays in response.
Plaintiffs’ assertion that Defendant has not been privileged by the delays in discovery in
this case is incorrect. This case has been rife with unexplained, significant, and ongoing delays
in production of records, bills, and other documentation to support Plaintiffs’ case. Defendant is
certainly sympathetic with the complications of obtaining voluminous records from providers
across the country, but this is not the only issue at play. As evidenced by Exhibit A, even the
most basic of requests - Plaintiff’s signature of medical authorizations - took three to four
months to accomplish, and still remains incomplete.
Now, nearly a year after the filing of the initial Complaint, Defendant is still waiting on
discovery responses with no end in sight. This is notwithstanding the time it will take for
Defendant to receive and analyze these records , to depose Plaintiffs and any necessary
witnesses, and to conduct any additional discovery that may be warranted, not to mention to
retain and prepare appropriate expert witnesses. Defendant has been prejudiced as he still is not
aware of the true nature and extent of the injuries claimed by Plaintiffs nor the amount of
medical bills alleged, which are the central issues in this case. Accordingly, Defendant requests
that this Court compel Plaintiffs to produce complete discovery responses.
3 As an example, the SF-180 form required to obtain military records was returned to Defendant’s counsel on
October 18, 2023. Defendant’s counsel was advised by Plaintiff’s counsel that the government’s response to this
request will likely take at least three months.
Electronically Filed 10/24/2023 15:45 / BRIEF / CV 22 970590 / Confirmation Nbr. 2999282 / BATCH
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth in Defendant’s Motion to Compel and as stated above,
Defendant Brimman J. Frazer respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order compelling
complete responses to the discovery requests served on Plaintiffs.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Richard C.O. Rezie_________
RICHARD C.O. REZIE (0071321)
GALLAGHER SHARP| LLP
1215 Superior Avenue, 7th Floor
Cleveland, OH 44114
(216) 241-5310 Telephone
(216) 241-1608 Facsimile
E-Mail: rrezie@gallaghersharp.com
Attorney for Amica Mutual Insurance Company
/s/Liz R. Phillips____________
LIZ R. PHILLIPS (0097953)
GALLAGHER SHARP| LLP
1215 Superior Avenue, 7th Floor
Cleveland, OH 44114
(216) 241-5310 Telephone
(216) 241-1608 Facsimile
E-Mail: lphillips@gallaghersharp.com
Attorney for Defendant Brimman J. Frazer
Electronically Filed 10/24/2023 15:45 / BRIEF / CV 22 970590 / Confirmation Nbr. 2999282 / BATCH
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on October 24, 2023 the foregoing was filed electronically. Notice
of this filing will be sent by operation of the Court's electronic filing system to all parties
indicated on the electronic filing receipt. All other parties will be served by regular U.S. Mail.
Parties may access this filing through the Court's system.
/s/Liz R. Phillips________________
LIZ R. PHILLIPS (0097953)
GALLAGHER SHARP| LLP
Attorney for Defendant Brimman J. Frazer
Electronically Filed 10/24/2023 15:45 / BRIEF / CV 22 970590 /•Confirmation Nbr. 2999282 / BATCH
EXHIBIT A
m
® Thangathurai v. Frazer Records Status as of 10/23/2023
6
Carissa Thangathurai
~n
DO£ 11-21-2020
-*• Provider Missing Records Authorization to Authorization returned Records Received Complete? Date Rec'd/ What providers/records are
o
NJ
Plaintiff Date from Plaintiff Date from Plaintiff & Number of Missing/ Status on follow up
Date Received pages and date
NJ
O range received/
NJ
OJ
Date
Requested
LIMITED
-1 RECORDS
0
t RECEIVED, NO
BILLS PRODUCED
Mercy St. Vincent Medical 11/01/2010 to present recs 5/11/23 8.8.2023 1.20.2023 73 pgs, Pending
Center and films; all 11/21/2020 to 11.21.20- 3
2213 Cherry Street present page billing
Toledo, OH 43608
Date requested
8.17.2023 &
9.15.23
CD Provider Missing Records Authorization to Authorization returned Records Received Complete? Date Rec'd/ What providers/records are
a
Plaintiff Date from Plaintiff Date from Plaintiff & Number of Missing/ Status on follow up
6
Z5 Date Received pages and date
o' range received/
Q)_
Date
~n Requested
nr^Walter A. Thomas 11/01/2010 to present recs 5/11/23 8.8.2023 1.20.2023 Pending
258Lombard Street, Suite 200, and films; all 11/21/2020 to 29 pgs, 9.14.21
Thousand Oaks, CA 91360 present 1.24.22
# 805-497-0817
NJ
Requested
O 9.14.23
NJ
OJ
Ventura Orthopedics 11/01/2010 to present recs 5/11/23 8.8.2023 1.20.2023 307 pages, Pending
DrJtAli Motomehti and films; all 11/21/2020 to 11.16.20
Dr^Kamyar Assil 3.30.22
present
137tE. Thousand Oaks Blvd.
Thousand Oaks, CA 91360 Requested
m 8.17.23
T1
9.15.2023
Futon County EMS 11/21/2020 to present recs 5/11/23 8.8.2023 1.24.2023 8 pages 8.28.23 rec report
152Fulton Street, Suite 250 and run report; all 11.21.20, 1
WfiAseon, OH 43567 11/21/2020 to present page billing
CD
O
CH Requested
CD
O 8.17.23
SKSpine 11/01/2010 to present recs 5/11/23 8.8.2023 Missing
444 S San Vicente Boulevard, and films; all 11/21/2020 to
Suite 901, Los Angeles, CA 90048 present NO RESPONSE Requested
3 RECEIVED 8.17.23
m
1 1 9.15.2023
o' NO
Z5
NOTIFICATION
Z
CT THAT RECORDS
WERE NOT
NJ
CD RECEIVED
CD
CD
DioGail F. Smith 11/01/2010 to present recs 5/11/23 8.8.2023 Missing Requested Pending
2021 Sperry Avenue, Suite 26, and films; all 11/21/2020 to 8.17.23
Ventura, CA 93003 present 9.15.2023
>
-1 9.25.23
O
Dr?Brian D. Rudin 11/01/2010 to present recs 5/11/23 8.8.2023 1.20.2023 9.27.23 rec bills/pending
Dr. Thrakal and films; all 11/21/2020 to 23 pages
696 Hampshire Road, Westlake present received 7.22.21-1.17.22,
Village, CA 91361 additional Requested
authorization on 8.17.23
9/15/2023 9.15.2023
9.21.2023
CORRECT
Page 2 of 8
CD Provider Missing Records Authorization to Authorization returned Records Received Complete? Date Rec'd/ What providers/records are
a
Plaintiff Date from Plaintiff Date from Plaintiff & Number of Missing/ Status on follow up
6
Z5 Date Received pages and date
o' range received/
Q)_
Date
~n Requested
DrsPaul Nassif 11/01/2010 to present recs 5/11/23 8.8.2023 Missing Requested Pending
120>S Spalding Dr #301 and films; all 11/21/2020 to 8.17.23
Beverly Hills, CA 90212 present no response 9.15.2023
NJ received
NJ
O NO
NJ
OJ NOTIFICATION
CH THAT RECORDS
WERE NOT
CH
RECEIVED
CD
Dr.5Brian Adams 11/01/2010 to present recs 5/11/23 8.8.2023 Requested Pending
Psychologist and films; all 11/21/2020 to sent 8.17.23
333-N Lantana St #269 present 10/18/2023 9.15.2023 RECORDS IN COMBINATION WITH
Camarillo, CA 93010 DR. LEE MENDIOLA
NJ INCOMPLETE
NJ SET OF RECORDS
CD
RECEIVED, DID
O
CH NOT CONTAIN
CD PRIOR
O
TREATMENT
O
O
Z5 MOTION WAS
B
FILED ON 10/18/23
0)
DioAdam Darby 11/01/2010 to present recs 5/11/23 8.8.2023 Requested Pending
U^A Neuro Thousand Oaks and films; all 11/21/2020 to SENT 8.17.23
2100 Lynn Road # 230
present 5/4/2023 9.15.2023 RECORDS FOR 12/11/2020 -1/19/2022
Thousand
NJ
Oaks,’ CA 91360 9.25.23
CD INCOMPLETE
CD
CD SETOF RECORDS
NJ
00 RECEIVED, HAD
NJ TX PRIOR TO
CD 12/11/20
>
DrfMichael Dorsi 11/01/2010 to present recs 5/11/23 8.8.2023 Missing Requested 9.29.23 received records
6633 Telephone Road # 100 and films; all 11/21/2020 to 8.17.23
Ventura, CA 93003 present SENT 9.15.2023 RECORDS IN COMBINATION WITH
5/4/2023 VENTURA PRIMARY CARE
INCOMPLETE
SETOF RECORDS
RECEIVED
Page 3 of 8
CD Provider Missing Records Authorization to Authorization returned Records Received Complete? Date Rec'd/ What providers/records are
a
Plaintiff Date from Plaintiff Date from Plaintiff & Number of Missing/ Status on follow up
6
ZJ Date Received pages and date
o' range received/
Q)_
Date
~n Requested
Dr^Farshad Malekmehr 11/01/2010 to present recs 5/11/23 8.8.2023 5.16.2023 11 pages, Pending
16311 Ventura Blvd Ste 1080 and films; all 11/21/2020 to 9.8.21-3.29.23,
Encjno, CA 91436 present
NJ Requested
NJ
8.17.23
O 9.15.2023
NJ
OJ 9.25.23
cn
Dr. Lee Mendiola 11/01/2010 to present recs 5/11/23 8.8.2023 Requested Pending
TMS Center of Ventura and films; all 11/21/2020 to Sent via email on 8.17.23
1752 S Victoria Ave # 250 present 10/18/2023 9.15.2023
Ventura, CA 93003
m
~n INCOMPLETE
SET OF RECORDS
O
<
RECEIVED, DID
NJ NOT CONTAIN
NJ PRIOR
CD
TREATMENT
O
CH
CD MOTION WAS
O
FILED ON 10/18/23
O
/■n
D^Mojgan Sadeghi 11/01/2010 to present recs 5/11/23 8.8.2023 Missing Requested 9.14.2023 records/bills/pending
Si^Care Medical Group and films; all 11/21/2020 to 8.17.23
1164 Swallow Lane present SENT 9.14.2023 RECORDS FOR 11/1/2018-8/18/2022
Sim Valley, CA 93065 5/4/2023
Z
CT INCOMPLETE
SET OF RECORDS
NJ
CD RECEIVED, HAD
CD
CD TX PRIOR TO
NJ
00 11/1/18
NJ
DrgMatthew Thomas Siedhoff 11/01/2010 to present recs 5/11/23 8.8.2023 Missing Requested Pending
444 S San Vicente Blvd # 1003 and films; all 11/21/2020 to 8.17.23
Los Angeles, CA 90048 present SENT 9.15.2023 RECORDS IN COMBINATION WITH
I
1/20/2023 CEDAR SINAI LA
INCOMPLETE
SET OF RECORDS
RECEIVED
Department of Veterans Affairs 11/01/2010 to present recs 5/11/23 8.8.2023 Missing Requested Pending
1301 Clay Street and films; all 11/21/2020 to 8.17.23
Oakland, CA 94612 present 9.15.2023
9.20.2023
Cleveland VA
Fx 844-531-7818 & 248-524-4260
Page 4 of 8
CD Provider Missing Records Authorization to Authorization returned Records Received Complete? Date Rec’d/ What providers/records are
a
Plaintiff Date from Plaintiff Date from Plaintiff & Number of Missing/ Status on follow up
6
Z5 Date Received pages and date
o' range received/
Q)_
Date
~n Requested
C'MH Ventura 11/01/2010 to present recs 5.17.23 Missing Missing
Co&munity Memorial Hospital and films; all 11/21/2020 to 8/18/23
147^ Brent St present 9/11/23 sent RECORDS FOR 9/18/2018-6/22/2023
Ventura, CA 93003 9/21/2023
NJ
O CORRECT
NJ
OJ
Cedar Sinai LA 11/01/2010 to present recs 5.17.23 Missing Missing Missing Missing
8700 Beverly Blvd and films; all 11/21/2020 to 8/18/23
Los Angeles, CA 90048 present 9/11/23 SENT
03 9/20/2023
m INCOMPLETE
“0
SET OF RECORDS
O RECEIVED
<
NJ
JaCkSon Surgical Center 11/01/2010 to present recs 5.17.23 Missing Missing Missing Missing
1 Park Place and films; all 11/21/2020 to 8/18/23
Montgomery, AL 36106 present 9/11/23 NO RESPONSE
CD
O RECEIVED
o
o NO
Z5 NOTIFICATION
B THAT RECORDS
0)
1 1 WERE NOT
o' RECEIVED
Z5
Thousand Oaks Dr. Assil 11/01/2010 to present recs 5.17.23 Missing Missing Missing Missing
137 E Thousand Oaks Blvd and films; all 11/21/2020 to 8/18/23
Thousand Oaks, CA 91360 present 9/11/23 SENT
co
CD 1/20/23
NJ
00
NJ
Preview
NAILAH K. BYRD CUYAHOGA COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 Court of Common Pleas REPEY BRIEF October 24,2023 15:45 By: LIZ ROCHELLE PHILLIPS 0097953 Confirmation Nbr. 2999282 CARISSA THANGATHURAI, ET AL CV 22 970590 vs. Judge: MAUREEN CLANCY BRIMMAN J. FRAZER, ET AL Pages Filed: 48 Electronically Filed 10/24/2023 15:45 / BRIEF / CV 22 970590 / Confirmation Nbr. 2999282 / BATCH IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO CARISSA THANGATHURAI, et al. ) CASE NO. CV-22-970590 ) Plaintiffs, ) JUDGE MAUREEN CLANCY ) v. ) ) DEFENDANT BRIMMAN J. FRAZER’S BRIMMAN FRAZER, et al. ) REPLY IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION ) TO COMPEL DISCOVERY Defendants. ) ) Defendant Brimman J. Frazer, by and through counsel, hereby submits his Reply Brief in support of his Motion to Compel Discovery1. Defendant Frazer respectfully reiterates his request for an Order compelling Plaintiffs to supplement and/or respond to Defendant’s discovery requests in full. I. Significant discovery and supplemental discovery responses remain outstanding. A. Defendant Frazer’s First Set of Discovery Requests to Plaintiff Carissa Thangathurai As discussed in Defendant’s initial Motion to Compel, Defendant served discovery on all three Plaintiffs on January 30, 2023. Now, nearly ten (10) months later, Defendant still awaits numerous items, including the following from Plaintiff Carissa Thangathurai: - Plaintiff s state and local tax returns (First Set of Requests for Production Nos. 11, 21); - Plaintiff s correspondence with Defendant Frazer (First Set of Requests for Production No. 25); - Rental information for the vehicle involved in the subject accident (First Set of Requests for Production Nos. 27, 28); - Complete medical records/bills of Plaintiff (First Set of Requests for Production Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 12, 13, and 14; see also Exhibit A - updated list of medical authorizations requested and received); and 1 Defendant incorporates the arguments in his initial Motion to Compel as if fully rewritten herein. Electronically Filed 10/24/2023 15:45 / BRIEF / CV 22 970590 / Confirmation Nbr. 2999282 / BATCH - Complete lost wage/disability/military benefits documentation (First Set of Requests for Production Nos. 11, 21, 22, 33, and 35). Plaintiff's Brief in Opposition provides no explanation for delays in production of her tax information, correspondence with Defendant Frazer, or rental information for the subject vehicle. The alleged complexity of this case and wide range of medical records do not justify the lack of production of these items. Additionally, numerous and significant medical records and bills of Plaintiff Carissa Thangathurai remain outstanding. Exhibit A is an updated list of medical authorizations requested and received by Defendant2. There are still various issues outstanding with the production of medical records: - Numerous authorizations have yet to be returned to Defendant’s counsel: o CMH Ventura Community Memorial Hospital, initial authorization sent May 17, 2023 (see Exhibit A, p. 5); o Cedars Sinai LA, initial authorization sent May 17, 2023 (see Exhibit A, p. 5); o Jackson Surgical Center, initial authorization sent May 17, 2023 (see Exhibit A, p. 5); o Thousand Oaks, Dr. Assil, initial authorization sent May 17, 2023 (see Exhibit A, p. 5); o Dr. Joseph Khairi, initial authorization sent May 17, 2023 (see Exhibit A, p. 6); o Loma Vista Psychology, initial authorization sent May 17, 2023 (see Exhibit A, p. 5). - Numerous productions by Plaintiff have not included complete medical records, nor medical records dating prior to the accident at issue, without justification: o Dr. Jason Snibbe (see Exhibit A, p. 1); o Dr. Brian Adams (See Exhibit A, p. 3); o Dr. Adam Darby (see Exhibit A, p. 3); o Dr. Michael Dorsi (see Exhibit A, p. 3); o Dr. Lee Mendiola (see Exhibit A, p. 4); o Dr. Mojgan Sadeghi (see Exhibit A, p. 4); o Dr. Matthew Thomas Siedhoff (see Exhibit A, p. 4); o Cedars Sinai LA (see Exhibit A, p. 5); o Thousand Oaks, Dr. Assil (see Exhibit A, p. 5). 2 Defendant’s office prepared this document initially, and attached the original to its Motion to Compel. Exhibit A includes Plaintiff’s counsel’s comments in blue text. Defendant’s counsel’s office added further comments in red text on 10/23/2023. Electronically Filed 10/24/2023 15:45 / BRIEF / CV 22 970590 / Confirmation Nbr. 2999282 / BATCH Plaintiff also claims that Defendant’s requests for medical records are overly broad, supporting this argument by citing to Dineen v. Pelfrey, in which a plaintiff alleged a neck injury as a result of a motor vehicle accident. (Brief in Opposition, p. 3). However, Dineen differs significantly from this matter. In Dineen, the parties concurred that the only injury at issue was the plaintiff’s claim of a neck injury resulting from the motor vehicle accident. Dineen v. Pelfrey, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 21AP-547, 2002-Ohio-2035, 31. . Therefore, the court found that broad access to the plaintiff’s medical history was improper without appropriate limits on the timeframe or content of the information sought, stating that “[w]hile appellant waived the physician-patient relationship by filing his civil action, he only did so as to communications that are causally or historically related to the injuries presented in the civil action.” Id. Unlike in Dineen, and despite what Plaintiffs have claimed in their Brief in Opposition, Defendant has not requested broad-based access to Plaintiff Carissa Thangathurai’s medical records and history. Plaintiff’s own Brief in Opposition states that this case involves “complicated injuries with multiple surgeries, out of state providers and multiple medical experts, along with medical treatments, disability, and medical retirement from the military.” (Brief in Opposition, p. 1). Plaintiff cannot claim wide ranging injuries and damages, including multiple surgeries for neck pain, shoulder pain and potential additional surgeries, multiple partial hip replacements, ankle pain and resulting surgical procedures, tendon/ligament damage, hearing loss, and numerous falls, admit that some or all of these injuries/conditions predated the accident, and then allege that Defendant’s discovery requests seeking complete information on the nature, treatment, causation, and history of these injuries is overly broad. (Plaintiff’s Responses to First Set of Discovery, Interrogatory No. 17). Further, if Plaintiff believes limits are necessary, she bears the burden of establishing this, which she has not done through the submission of a Electronically Filed 10/24/2023 15:45 / BRIEF / CV 22 970590 / Confirmation Nbr. 2999282 / BATCH privilege log or motion for protective order. See Pietrangelo v. Hudson, 2019-Ohio-1988, 136 N.E.3d 867, 15 (8th Dist.) (holding that “[t]he party opposing a discovery request bears the burden of establishing that the information requested would not reasonably lead to discovery of admissible evidence”). Lastly, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant merely seeks supplementary responses from Defendant because he “did not like” the responses provided. (Brief in Opposition, p. 2). To the contrary, Defendant sent Plaintiff multiple letters detailing the deficiencies in Plaintiff's responses, many of which remain unaddressed. (See Exhibits D and E to Defendant’s Motion to Compel). According to Civ.R. 37(A)(4), an evasive or incomplete answer or response constitutes a failure to answer or respond. Thus, Defendant renews his Motion to Compel complete responses to discovery. B. Defendant Frazer’s First Set of Discovery Requests to Plaintiffs Riley and Cameron Frame Plaintiffs Cameron and Riley Frame did not provide any responses to the January 30, 2023 discovery requests until October 5, 2023 and October 10, 2023, respectively. Again, no justification was provided for this lengthy delay. Further, these responses are likewise deficient. Plaintiffs Cameron and Riley Frame are Plaintiff Carissa Thangathurai’s minor children. In Plaintiffs’ responses to discovery, it is alleged that Plaintiffs are “experiencing developmental delays which may be related. Will supplement if appropriate.” (See Exhibit B, Riley Frame Discovery Responses, Interrogatory No. 9; Exhibit C, Cameron Frame Discovery Responses, Interrogatory No. 9). It is improper for Plaintiffs to allege potential injuries as a result of this incident yet provide no justification, documentation, or supporting evidence whatsoever. As stated by the Eighth District: “The plaintiff bears the burden of proving damages. Damages cannot be awarded if the plaintiff fails to meet this burden by presenting adequate proof. Evidence of Electronically Filed 10/24/2023 15:45 / BRIEF / CV 22 970590 / Confirmation Nbr. 2999282 / BATCH damages must be shown with a reasonable degree of certainty. A plaintiff may not recover speculative damages. A plaintiff must prove the extent of his damages to be entitled to compensation. Broadvue Motors, Inc. v. Maple Hts. Police, 135 Ohio App.3d 405, 410, 734 N.E.2d 417 (8th Dist. 1999), citations omitted. As such, Plaintiffs’ response that they “may” have experienced developmental delays, and that they will “supplement if appropriate” is neither responsive nor appropriate to sustain their burden of proof regarding damages. As such, Defendant reiterates his Motion to Compel discovery from Plaintiffs Riley and Cameron Frame. C. Defendant Frazer’s Second Set of Discovery Requests As discussed in Defendant’s Motion to Compel, Defendant Frazer served a second set of discovery requests on Plaintiff Carissa Thangathurai on July 17, 2023. Plaintiff has not responded to the requests, requested additional time, objected, or otherwise addressed this second set of discovery requests, originally due on August 14, 2023. As such, Defendant reiterates his Motion to Compel responses to his second set of discovery. II. Plaintiffs have not provided a privilege log. In response to Defendant’s discovery requests, Plaintiffs have also asserted that certain items are privileged, including but not limited to: some or all of Plaintiff Carissa Thangathurai’s military and/or employment records (see Response to Request for Production No. 33); correspondence with Defendant Frazer (see Response to Request for Production Nos. 24 and 25); and photos and videos of Plaintiffs on or after the subject incident (see Response to Request for Production No. 32). Plaintiff has also claimed that certain of her medical providers’ records are privileged, as these medical providers rendered treatments and/or evaluations in relation to her ongoing divorce and child custody situation. (see Exhibit A, p 5-6). The Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure establish the procedural mechanism by which a party properly asserts a privilege: Electronically Filed 10/24/2023 15:45 / BRIEF / CV 22 970590 / Confirmation Nbr. 2999282 / BATCH When information subject to discovery is withheld on a claim that it is privileged...the claim shall be made expressly and shall be supported by a description of the nature of the documents, communications, or things not produced that is sufficient to enable the demanding party to contest the claim. Ohio Civ. R. 26(B)(6)(a) (emphasis added). The Plaintiffs have apparently decided that they need not abide by the procedural requirements of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiffs have neither produced a privilege log, nor provided any description of the nature of those documents that they claim to be withholding as privileged. The Plaintiffs have not described these documents in any way whatsoever, much less in a way that is sufficient to enable the Defendant to contest the Plaintiffs’ claim, as required by the civil rules. Indeed, there is no way for the Court to evaluate whether the Plaintiffs have properly invoked the privilege in this regard. Ohio courts have often held that “a claim of privilege can be waived where no privilege log is submitted.” Hartzell v. Breneman, 2011-Ohio-2472, 23 (7th Dist.); see also McPherson v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 146 Ohio App. 3d 441, 766 N.E.2d1015 (9th Dist. 2001). In Hartzell, a defendant in an uninsured motorist action sought to compel the execution of authorization for an injured party’s medical records. The Hartzell plaintiffs asserted privilege, claiming that executing the authorizations would require them to divulge medical records not causally or historically related to the injuries at issue. After the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas ordered the execution of the authorizations, the Hartzell plaintiffs appealed. Notably, just like the Plaintiffs in this matter, the Hartzell plaintiffs did not seek to obtain a protective order, nor did they prepare and produce a privilege log outlining those medical records that they claimed were protected from disclosure. On appeal, the Ohio Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court and ordered the execution of the medical authorizations. The Hartzell court noted that the plaintiffs Electronically Filed 10/24/2023 15:45 / BRIEF / CV 22 970590 / Confirmation Nbr. 2999282 / BATCH did not seek a protective order, instead only opposing the motion to compel discovery. The Hartzell court also noted that the plaintiffs did not construct a privilege log to describe those medical records withheld under the guise of privilege so that the requesting party could evaluate the claim. The Hartzell court found, based on these circumstances, that the plaintiffs had waived the privilege and were required to execute the medical authorizations. As the Hartzell court held: “As the rule does not provide an exception to the privilege log requirement, appellants should have collected their own medical records, constructed a privilege log for records it deemed not causally or historically related to the action, and provided the other records and the privilege log to Allstate [the requesting party], at which point Allstate could have determined whether a motion to compel was necessary, or to the trial court for an in-camera inspection. Appellants failed to follow the proper procedure under the Civil Rules and thus were not entitled to an in-camera review. It was their burden to show that the records were not causally or historically related. Without a privilege log and a provision of the records to the trial court, this burden could not be met, allowing the trial court to compel production of the records. ” Hartzell, 2011-Ohio-2472, 24-25 (emphasis added). Ohio courts make clear that it is the party invoking the privilege that is required to compile the protected records, construct a privilege log, and provide the privilege log to the party seeking discovery or to the Court for purposes of in camera review. Id.; McPherson, 146 Ohio App. 3d at 444. Failing to follow this procedure amounts to a failure to discharge the burden of establishing privilege, and allows a court to compel production of the records. Id. The Plaintiffs’ objections suffer from the same fatal defects as in Hartzell. The Plaintiffs in this matter neither sought a protective order nor provided a privilege log. This results in a waiver of any privilege, including a waiver of the requirement for an in camera review, and demands an order compelling execution of the requested medical authorizations. The Plaintiffs cannot withhold access to evidence that would allow the Defendant to evaluate and defend Electronically Filed 10/24/2023 15:45 / BRIEF / CV 22 970590 / Confirmation Nbr. 2999282 / BATCH against the Plaintiffs’ claims. As such, the Court should grant the Defendant’s Motion to Compel and order the Plaintiffs to provide complete discovery responses. III. Defendant has experienced and will continue to experience prejudice based on the delays in response. Plaintiffs’ assertion that Defendant has not been privileged by the delays in discovery in this case is incorrect. This case has been rife with unexplained, significant, and ongoing delays in production of records, bills, and other documentation to support Plaintiffs’ case. Defendant is certainly sympathetic with the complications of obtaining voluminous records from providers across the country, but this is not the only issue at play. As evidenced by Exhibit A, even the most basic of requests - Plaintiff’s signature of medical authorizations - took three to four months to accomplish, and still remains incomplete. Now, nearly a year after the filing of the initial Complaint, Defendant is still waiting on discovery responses with no end in sight. This is notwithstanding the time it will take for Defendant to receive and analyze these records , to depose Plaintiffs and any necessary witnesses, and to conduct any additional discovery that may be warranted, not to mention to retain and prepare appropriate expert witnesses. Defendant has been prejudiced as he still is not aware of the true nature and extent of the injuries claimed by Plaintiffs nor the amount of medical bills alleged, which are the central issues in this case. Accordingly, Defendant requests that this Court compel Plaintiffs to produce complete discovery responses. 3 As an example, the SF-180 form required to obtain military records was returned to Defendant’s counsel on October 18, 2023. Defendant’s counsel was advised by Plaintiff’s counsel that the government’s response to this request will likely take at least three months. Electronically Filed 10/24/2023 15:45 / BRIEF / CV 22 970590 / Confirmation Nbr. 2999282 / BATCH IV. Conclusion For the reasons set forth in Defendant’s Motion to Compel and as stated above, Defendant Brimman J. Frazer respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order compelling complete responses to the discovery requests served on Plaintiffs. Respectfully submitted, /s/Richard C.O. Rezie_________ RICHARD C.O. REZIE (0071321) GALLAGHER SHARP| LLP 1215 Superior Avenue, 7th Floor Cleveland, OH 44114 (216) 241-5310 Telephone (216) 241-1608 Facsimile E-Mail: rrezie@gallaghersharp.com Attorney for Amica Mutual Insurance Company /s/Liz R. Phillips____________ LIZ R. PHILLIPS (0097953) GALLAGHER SHARP| LLP 1215 Superior Avenue, 7th Floor Cleveland, OH 44114 (216) 241-5310 Telephone (216) 241-1608 Facsimile E-Mail: lphillips@gallaghersharp.com Attorney for Defendant Brimman J. Frazer Electronically Filed 10/24/2023 15:45 / BRIEF / CV 22 970590 / Confirmation Nbr. 2999282 / BATCH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on October 24, 2023 the foregoing was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent by operation of the Court's electronic filing system to all parties indicated on the electronic filing receipt. All other parties will be served by regular U.S. Mail. Parties may access this filing through the Court's system. /s/Liz R. Phillips________________ LIZ R. PHILLIPS (0097953) GALLAGHER SHARP| LLP Attorney for Defendant Brimman J. Frazer Electronically Filed 10/24/2023 15:45 / BRIEF / CV 22 970590 /•Confirmation Nbr. 2999282 / BATCH EXHIBIT A m ® Thangathurai v. Frazer Records Status as of 10/23/2023 6 Carissa Thangathurai ~n DO£ 11-21-2020 -*• Provider Missing Records Authorization to Authorization returned Records Received Complete? Date Rec'd/ What providers/records are o NJ Plaintiff Date from Plaintiff Date from Plaintiff & Number of Missing/ Status on follow up Date Received pages and date NJ O range received/ NJ OJ Date Requested LIMITED -1 RECORDS 0 t RECEIVED, NO BILLS PRODUCED Mercy St. Vincent Medical 11/01/2010 to present recs 5/11/23 8.8.2023 1.20.2023 73 pgs, Pending Center and films; all 11/21/2020 to 11.21.20- 3 2213 Cherry Street present page billing Toledo, OH 43608 Date requested 8.17.2023 & 9.15.23 CD Provider Missing Records Authorization to Authorization returned Records Received Complete? Date Rec'd/ What providers/records are a Plaintiff Date from Plaintiff Date from Plaintiff & Number of Missing/ Status on follow up 6 Z5 Date Received pages and date o' range received/ Q)_ Date ~n Requested nr^Walter A. Thomas 11/01/2010 to present recs 5/11/23 8.8.2023 1.20.2023 Pending 258Lombard Street, Suite 200, and films; all 11/21/2020 to 29 pgs, 9.14.21 Thousand Oaks, CA 91360 present 1.24.22 # 805-497-0817 NJ Requested O 9.14.23 NJ OJ Ventura Orthopedics 11/01/2010 to present recs 5/11/23 8.8.2023 1.20.2023 307 pages, Pending DrJtAli Motomehti and films; all 11/21/2020 to 11.16.20 Dr^Kamyar Assil 3.30.22 present 137tE. Thousand Oaks Blvd. Thousand Oaks, CA 91360 Requested m 8.17.23 T1 9.15.2023 Futon County EMS 11/21/2020 to present recs 5/11/23 8.8.2023 1.24.2023 8 pages 8.28.23 rec report 152Fulton Street, Suite 250 and run report; all 11.21.20, 1 WfiAseon, OH 43567 11/21/2020 to present page billing CD O CH Requested CD O 8.17.23 SKSpine 11/01/2010 to present recs 5/11/23 8.8.2023 Missing 444 S San Vicente Boulevard, and films; all 11/21/2020 to Suite 901, Los Angeles, CA 90048 present NO RESPONSE Requested 3 RECEIVED 8.17.23 m 1 1 9.15.2023 o' NO Z5 NOTIFICATION Z CT THAT RECORDS WERE NOT NJ CD RECEIVED CD CD DioGail F. Smith 11/01/2010 to present recs 5/11/23 8.8.2023 Missing Requested Pending 2021 Sperry Avenue, Suite 26, and films; all 11/21/2020 to 8.17.23 Ventura, CA 93003 present 9.15.2023 > -1 9.25.23 O Dr?Brian D. Rudin 11/01/2010 to present recs 5/11/23 8.8.2023 1.20.2023 9.27.23 rec bills/pending Dr. Thrakal and films; all 11/21/2020 to 23 pages 696 Hampshire Road, Westlake present received 7.22.21-1.17.22, Village, CA 91361 additional Requested authorization on 8.17.23 9/15/2023 9.15.2023 9.21.2023 CORRECT Page 2 of 8 CD Provider Missing Records Authorization to Authorization returned Records Received Complete? Date Rec'd/ What providers/records are a Plaintiff Date from Plaintiff Date from Plaintiff & Number of Missing/ Status on follow up 6 Z5 Date Received pages and date o' range received/ Q)_ Date ~n Requested DrsPaul Nassif 11/01/2010 to present recs 5/11/23 8.8.2023 Missing Requested Pending 120>S Spalding Dr #301 and films; all 11/21/2020 to 8.17.23 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 present no response 9.15.2023 NJ received NJ O NO NJ OJ NOTIFICATION CH THAT RECORDS WERE NOT CH RECEIVED CD Dr.5Brian Adams 11/01/2010 to present recs 5/11/23 8.8.2023 Requested Pending Psychologist and films; all 11/21/2020 to sent 8.17.23 333-N Lantana St #269 present 10/18/2023 9.15.2023 RECORDS IN COMBINATION WITH Camarillo, CA 93010 DR. LEE MENDIOLA NJ INCOMPLETE NJ SET OF RECORDS CD RECEIVED, DID O CH NOT CONTAIN CD PRIOR O TREATMENT O O Z5 MOTION WAS B FILED ON 10/18/23 0) DioAdam Darby 11/01/2010 to present recs 5/11/23 8.8.2023 Requested Pending U^A Neuro Thousand Oaks and films; all 11/21/2020 to SENT 8.17.23 2100 Lynn Road # 230 present 5/4/2023 9.15.2023 RECORDS FOR 12/11/2020 -1/19/2022 Thousand NJ Oaks,’ CA 91360 9.25.23 CD INCOMPLETE CD CD SETOF RECORDS NJ 00 RECEIVED, HAD NJ TX PRIOR TO CD 12/11/20 > DrfMichael Dorsi 11/01/2010 to present recs 5/11/23 8.8.2023 Missing Requested 9.29.23 received records 6633 Telephone Road # 100 and films; all 11/21/2020 to 8.17.23 Ventura, CA 93003 present SENT 9.15.2023 RECORDS IN COMBINATION WITH 5/4/2023 VENTURA PRIMARY CARE INCOMPLETE SETOF RECORDS RECEIVED Page 3 of 8 CD Provider Missing Records Authorization to Authorization returned Records Received Complete? Date Rec'd/ What providers/records are a Plaintiff Date from Plaintiff Date from Plaintiff & Number of Missing/ Status on follow up 6 ZJ Date Received pages and date o' range received/ Q)_ Date ~n Requested Dr^Farshad Malekmehr 11/01/2010 to present recs 5/11/23 8.8.2023 5.16.2023 11 pages, Pending 16311 Ventura Blvd Ste 1080 and films; all 11/21/2020 to 9.8.21-3.29.23, Encjno, CA 91436 present NJ Requested NJ 8.17.23 O 9.15.2023 NJ OJ 9.25.23 cn Dr. Lee Mendiola 11/01/2010 to present recs 5/11/23 8.8.2023 Requested Pending TMS Center of Ventura and films; all 11/21/2020 to Sent via email on 8.17.23 1752 S Victoria Ave # 250 present 10/18/2023 9.15.2023 Ventura, CA 93003 m ~n INCOMPLETE SET OF RECORDS O < RECEIVED, DID NJ NOT CONTAIN NJ PRIOR CD TREATMENT O CH CD MOTION WAS O FILED ON 10/18/23 O /■n D^Mojgan Sadeghi 11/01/2010 to present recs 5/11/23 8.8.2023 Missing Requested 9.14.2023 records/bills/pending Si^Care Medical Group and films; all 11/21/2020 to 8.17.23 1164 Swallow Lane present SENT 9.14.2023 RECORDS FOR 11/1/2018-8/18/2022 Sim Valley, CA 93065 5/4/2023 Z CT INCOMPLETE SET OF RECORDS NJ CD RECEIVED, HAD CD CD TX PRIOR TO NJ 00 11/1/18 NJ DrgMatthew Thomas Siedhoff 11/01/2010 to present recs 5/11/23 8.8.2023 Missing Requested Pending 444 S San Vicente Blvd # 1003 and films; all 11/21/2020 to 8.17.23 Los Angeles, CA 90048 present SENT 9.15.2023 RECORDS IN COMBINATION WITH I 1/20/2023 CEDAR SINAI LA INCOMPLETE SET OF RECORDS RECEIVED Department of Veterans Affairs 11/01/2010 to present recs 5/11/23 8.8.2023 Missing Requested Pending 1301 Clay Street and films; all 11/21/2020 to 8.17.23 Oakland, CA 94612 present 9.15.2023 9.20.2023 Cleveland VA Fx 844-531-7818 & 248-524-4260 Page 4 of 8 CD Provider Missing Records Authorization to Authorization returned Records Received Complete? Date Rec’d/ What providers/records are a Plaintiff Date from Plaintiff Date from Plaintiff & Number of Missing/ Status on follow up 6 Z5 Date Received pages and date o' range received/ Q)_ Date ~n Requested C'MH Ventura 11/01/2010 to present recs 5.17.23 Missing Missing Co&munity Memorial Hospital and films; all 11/21/2020 to 8/18/23 147^ Brent St present 9/11/23 sent RECORDS FOR 9/18/2018-6/22/2023 Ventura, CA 93003 9/21/2023 NJ O CORRECT NJ OJ Cedar Sinai LA 11/01/2010 to present recs 5.17.23 Missing Missing Missing Missing 8700 Beverly Blvd and films; all 11/21/2020 to 8/18/23 Los Angeles, CA 90048 present 9/11/23 SENT 03 9/20/2023 m INCOMPLETE “0 SET OF RECORDS O RECEIVED < NJ JaCkSon Surgical Center 11/01/2010 to present recs 5.17.23 Missing Missing Missing Missing 1 Park Place and films; all 11/21/2020 to 8/18/23 Montgomery, AL 36106 present 9/11/23 NO RESPONSE CD O RECEIVED o o NO Z5 NOTIFICATION B THAT RECORDS 0) 1 1 WERE NOT o' RECEIVED Z5 Thousand Oaks Dr. Assil 11/01/2010 to present recs 5.17.23 Missing Missing Missing Missing 137 E Thousand Oaks Blvd and films; all 11/21/2020 to 8/18/23 Thousand Oaks, CA 91360 present 9/11/23 SENT co CD 1/20/23 NJ 00 NJ