On August 10, 2016 a
Motion,Ex Parte
was filed
involving a dispute between
Bush, Lori,
Dignity Health, A Califonia Corporation,
and
Dignity Health, A Califonia Corporation,
St. Bernadine Medical Center A Business Entity Unknown,
Total Professional Network, Inc,
for Medical Malpractice Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
THOMPSON & COLEGATE LLP F L E D '
3610 Fourteenth Street WGOURTOF
mgrsm CNJFORNIA‘
P. O. Box 1299
Riverside, California 92502
“m" ”WM"
genumm‘ao
"MW“
Tel: (951) 682-5550 r..-
-r
Fax: (951) 781—4012 I/F‘B 1‘0 2022/,
DIANE MAR WIESMANN (SBN 124409)
u ,,
Pada mmdez
dwiesmann@tclaw.net Donny
JUSTIN J. JANZEN (SBN 242556)
jjanzen@tclaw.net
Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Complainant, DIGNITY HEALTH, erroneously sued and
served as ST. BERNARDINE MEDICAL CENTER
DIAMOND & DRAGOJEVIC, LLP
21860 Burbank Blvd., Suite 370
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Tel: (818) 340-1009
10 Fax: (818) 340-1034
11 SCOTT R. DIAMOND (SBN 93706)
srd@dnd-law.com
12 Attorneys for Cross-Defendant, TOTAL PROFESSIONAL NETWORK, INC.
l3 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
14 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT
15
l6 LORI BUSH, an individual; CASE NO. CIVDSl613161
17 Plaintiff, JUDGE: Hon. John M. Pacheco
Dept: S31
18 v.
DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO
19 ST. BERNARDINE MEDICAL CENTER, a MOTION IN LIMINE #2
PLAINTIFF’S
business entity form unknown; DIGNITY
20 HEALTH, a California Corporation; and DOES
1 through 200, inclusive, TRIAL DATE: 02/14/2022
2] ACTION FILED: 11/08/2016 (FAC)
Defendants.
22
23 DIGNITY HEALTH,
24 Cross-Complainant,
25 v.
26 TOTAL PROFESSIONAL NETWORK. INC,
and ROES l-IOO, inclusive,
27
Cross-Defendants.
28
DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE #2
Defendants herein responds t0 plaintiff‘s Motion in Limine #2 to exclude defendants’ expert
witnesses Rhonda Renteria, Mark Gomez, Henry Miller, Suzy Kim, and Constantine Boukedis.
Plaintiff‘s grounds for this motion is a claimed failure t0 reasonable produce those experts for
deposition. These claims are invalid as discussed further below.
As a preliminary note, defendants have withdrawn 0r do not plan to call the above experts
except for Henry Miller, so the motion is moot as t0 them.
Plaintiff engages in a long and inaccurate history 0f the events 0f this case; rather than bore
the Court with irrelevant details from years ago, Defendant would note the following:
Plaintiff Agreed t0 Produce her Experts Prior t0 Defendants Producing Theirs
10 California Code 0f Civil Procedure §20l6.030 allows parties to modify the procedures for
1] discovery.
12 In this case, the parties agreed that plaintiff's experts would be produced for deposition, then
13 defendants’ corresponding expert would be produced. As discussed in e-mail chain attached as exhibit
14 “A”, Ms. Wiesmann and Mr. Libman had a conversation about expert depositions. On March 12, 2019,
15 Ms. Wiesmann sent an e-mail confirming the agreement that plaintiff could provide dates for
16 depositions, and defendants would then provide dates for the corresponding expert. That same day,
17 Mr. Libman responded, confirming the agreement and noting there was another term agreed to,
18 specifically that defendants’ experts would review the corresponding plaintiff’s expert’s deposition
prior t0 their deposition so the opinions would be complete. (Exhibit “A” p. 5-6).
20 This agreement was not mentioned in plaintiff‘s motion for obvious reasons. While defendants
2] expect plaintiff counsel will contend he later tried t0 back out of the agreement, the purpose of
22 agreements is t0 prevent such unilateral action.
Plaintiff Refused t0 Take Mr. Miller’s Deposition Because Defendants would not Pay Plaintiff’s
24
25
M On January l 1., 2022, Mr. Diamond e-mailed Mr. Libman regarding the agreed upon date of
26 January 27, 2022, for the deposition of defendants’ expert Dr. Feuerman. (Exhibit “B” p.7-8). The
27 deposition 0f plaintiff‘s expert Dr. Orlowski was then noticed for January 20, 2022. Mr. Libman
28 responded that the proposed dates were presumptuous and he wanted the defendants t0 bear the costs
2
DEFENDANTS‘ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE #2
Document Filed Date
February 10, 2022
Case Filing Date
August 10, 2016
Category
Medical Malpractice Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
THOMPSON & COLEGATE LLP F L E D ' 3610 Fourteenth Street WGOURTOF mgrsm CNJFORNIA‘ P. O. Box 1299 Riverside, California 92502 “m" ”WM" genumm‘ao "MW“ Tel: (951) 682-5550 r..- -r Fax: (951) 781—4012 I/F‘B 1‘0 2022/, DIANE MAR WIESMANN (SBN 124409) u ,, Pada mmdez dwiesmann@tclaw.net Donny JUSTIN J. JANZEN (SBN 242556) jjanzen@tclaw.net Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Complainant, DIGNITY HEALTH, erroneously sued and served as ST. BERNARDINE MEDICAL CENTER DIAMOND & DRAGOJEVIC, LLP 21860 Burbank Blvd., Suite 370 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Tel: (818) 340-1009 10 Fax: (818) 340-1034 11 SCOTT R. DIAMOND (SBN 93706) srd@dnd-law.com 12 Attorneys for Cross-Defendant, TOTAL PROFESSIONAL NETWORK, INC. l3 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 14 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT 15 l6 LORI BUSH, an individual; CASE NO. CIVDSl613161 17 Plaintiff, JUDGE: Hon. John M. Pacheco Dept: S31 18 v. DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO 19 ST. BERNARDINE MEDICAL CENTER, a MOTION IN LIMINE #2 PLAINTIFF’S business entity form unknown; DIGNITY 20 HEALTH, a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 200, inclusive, TRIAL DATE: 02/14/2022 2] ACTION FILED: 11/08/2016 (FAC) Defendants. 22 23 DIGNITY HEALTH, 24 Cross-Complainant, 25 v. 26 TOTAL PROFESSIONAL NETWORK. INC, and ROES l-IOO, inclusive, 27 Cross-Defendants. 28 DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE #2 Defendants herein responds t0 plaintiff‘s Motion in Limine #2 to exclude defendants’ expert witnesses Rhonda Renteria, Mark Gomez, Henry Miller, Suzy Kim, and Constantine Boukedis. Plaintiff‘s grounds for this motion is a claimed failure t0 reasonable produce those experts for deposition. These claims are invalid as discussed further below. As a preliminary note, defendants have withdrawn 0r do not plan to call the above experts except for Henry Miller, so the motion is moot as t0 them. Plaintiff engages in a long and inaccurate history 0f the events 0f this case; rather than bore the Court with irrelevant details from years ago, Defendant would note the following: Plaintiff Agreed t0 Produce her Experts Prior t0 Defendants Producing Theirs 10 California Code 0f Civil Procedure §20l6.030 allows parties to modify the procedures for 1] discovery. 12 In this case, the parties agreed that plaintiff's experts would be produced for deposition, then 13 defendants’ corresponding expert would be produced. As discussed in e-mail chain attached as exhibit 14 “A”, Ms. Wiesmann and Mr. Libman had a conversation about expert depositions. On March 12, 2019, 15 Ms. Wiesmann sent an e-mail confirming the agreement that plaintiff could provide dates for 16 depositions, and defendants would then provide dates for the corresponding expert. That same day, 17 Mr. Libman responded, confirming the agreement and noting there was another term agreed to, 18 specifically that defendants’ experts would review the corresponding plaintiff’s expert’s deposition prior t0 their deposition so the opinions would be complete. (Exhibit “A” p. 5-6). 20 This agreement was not mentioned in plaintiff‘s motion for obvious reasons. While defendants 2] expect plaintiff counsel will contend he later tried t0 back out of the agreement, the purpose of 22 agreements is t0 prevent such unilateral action. Plaintiff Refused t0 Take Mr. Miller’s Deposition Because Defendants would not Pay Plaintiff’s 24 25 M On January l 1., 2022, Mr. Diamond e-mailed Mr. Libman regarding the agreed upon date of 26 January 27, 2022, for the deposition of defendants’ expert Dr. Feuerman. (Exhibit “B” p.7-8). The 27 deposition 0f plaintiff‘s expert Dr. Orlowski was then noticed for January 20, 2022. Mr. Libman 28 responded that the proposed dates were presumptuous and he wanted the defendants t0 bear the costs 2 DEFENDANTS‘ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE #2