On March 20, 2019 a
Party Discovery
was filed
involving a dispute between
Perez, Esperanza,
and
Brown, Tawna,
Bruun, Tawna,
Does 1 Through 50,
Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc A California Corporation,
Kaiser Foundation Hospitals A California Corporation,
Southern California Permanente Medical Group Inc., A Caifornia Corporation,
for Wrongful Termination Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
\J \J.
a
L:
r‘ m
.
SUPERIOR CSURT 0F CALIFORNIA
Twila S. Whlte, State Bar #207424 ggumgppflsAr‘xl figgmérgqmo
”AN RFRNWHH' <"
LAW OFFICES OF TWILA S. WHITE
2615 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 325
Hermosa Beach, California 90254 OCT 2 2 2021
Telephone: (213) 381-8749
Facsimile: (213 381-8799)
By Wg/mgflfiw
a M mmu Lo
.ORIA DEPLHW.‘
Attorney for Plaintiff ESPERANZA PEREZ
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
OO\IO\
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
ESPERANZA PEREZ, CASE NO: ZOSTCV10684
KO Plaintiff,
vs. PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE
10 KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, a STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF
California Corporation; KAISER MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT
11
FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC, a TAWNA BRUUN’S
12
California Corporation; and SOUTHERN OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF
13 GROUP, INC., a California Corporation; REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
TAWNA BRUUN, an Individual; and DOES
14 1 through 50 Inclusive [Filed Concurrently with Plaintiff’s
’ ’
Defendants.
Memorandum of Points and Authorities;
15 Declaration of Twila S. White; Exhibits
and [Proposed] Order]
16
Judge Michael A. Sachs
17 Department $28
18
Complaint Filed: March 20, 2019
19
20
21
22
23 flaxvj§
24
25
26
27
28
1
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION T0 COMPEL DEFENDANT TAWNA
BRUUN’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES T0 PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET 0F REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION- SET ONE
REQUEST NO. 1:
The complete personnel files of YOU, including, but not limited to, the file “jackets” 0r
other obj ects used to contain the files, and [all attachments thereto, and any documents, records,
memoranda and notes, including, but not limited to, computer printouts that were part of YOUR
personnel file at any time throughout your employment with Defendant KAISER.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 1:
Defendant objects to this Request 0n the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous in its
entirety. Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that the terms “complete
9” “ ’3 6‘ ” H
personnel files,” “file ‘jackets, records, memoranda, notes,” and “computer printouts” are
10
vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that it seeks
11 documents protected from disclosure by California’s right t0 privacy. Defendant filrther obj ects to
12 this Request on the grounds that the term “KAISER” as defined, is vague and ambiguous, overly
broad, and argumentative because it assumes that Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Kaiser Foundation
13
Health Plan, and Southern California Permanente Medical Group are a single entity, which they
14
are not.
15
PLAINTIFF’S ARGUMENTS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
16
Defendant has responded to this substantial request only with obj ections. These objections
17 including vague, ambiguous etc are evasive responses, in bad faith and are not well taken. Plaintiff
18 requests Defendant to produce all the relevant records and supplement the response with relevant
19 bates stamp nos.
Vague, Ambiguous, and “Calls for Speculation” Obiections
20
With respect to the vague, ambiguous, and “calls for speculation” objections, the
21
answering party owes a duty to respond in good faith as best it can. Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84
22
Cal.App.3d 771, 783. Where a responding party objects to a question as ambiguous, vague and/or
23 overbroad, “Courts generally do not sustain this kind of objection unless the question is totally
24 unintelligible.” Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rutter 2014) § 8:1084. Defendant bears the burden
25 ofjustifying its objection and failure to respond on the basis 0f this objection. Coy v. Superior
Court (1962) 58 Ca1.2d 210.
26
In any event, even if materials are being withheld for privacy, the right to privacy is not
27
absolute and information may be compelled where there is a compelling state interest, such as the
28
2
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TAWNA
IN
BRUUN’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES T0 PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
Preview
\J \J. a L: r‘ m . SUPERIOR CSURT 0F CALIFORNIA Twila S. Whlte, State Bar #207424 ggumgppflsAr‘xl figgmérgqmo ”AN RFRNWHH' <" LAW OFFICES OF TWILA S. WHITE 2615 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 325 Hermosa Beach, California 90254 OCT 2 2 2021 Telephone: (213) 381-8749 Facsimile: (213 381-8799) By Wg/mgflfiw a M mmu Lo .ORIA DEPLHW.‘ Attorney for Plaintiff ESPERANZA PEREZ SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OO\IO\ FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ESPERANZA PEREZ, CASE NO: ZOSTCV10684 KO Plaintiff, vs. PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE 10 KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, a STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF California Corporation; KAISER MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT 11 FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC, a TAWNA BRUUN’S 12 California Corporation; and SOUTHERN OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF 13 GROUP, INC., a California Corporation; REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TAWNA BRUUN, an Individual; and DOES 14 1 through 50 Inclusive [Filed Concurrently with Plaintiff’s ’ ’ Defendants. Memorandum of Points and Authorities; 15 Declaration of Twila S. White; Exhibits and [Proposed] Order] 16 Judge Michael A. Sachs 17 Department $28 18 Complaint Filed: March 20, 2019 19 20 21 22 23 flaxvj§ 24 25 26 27 28 1 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION T0 COMPEL DEFENDANT TAWNA BRUUN’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES T0 PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET 0F REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION- SET ONE REQUEST NO. 1: The complete personnel files of YOU, including, but not limited to, the file “jackets” 0r other obj ects used to contain the files, and [all attachments thereto, and any documents, records, memoranda and notes, including, but not limited to, computer printouts that were part of YOUR personnel file at any time throughout your employment with Defendant KAISER. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 1: Defendant objects to this Request 0n the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous in its entirety. Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that the terms “complete 9” “ ’3 6‘ ” H personnel files,” “file ‘jackets, records, memoranda, notes,” and “computer printouts” are 10 vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that it seeks 11 documents protected from disclosure by California’s right t0 privacy. Defendant filrther obj ects to 12 this Request on the grounds that the term “KAISER” as defined, is vague and ambiguous, overly broad, and argumentative because it assumes that Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Kaiser Foundation 13 Health Plan, and Southern California Permanente Medical Group are a single entity, which they 14 are not. 15 PLAINTIFF’S ARGUMENTS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES 16 Defendant has responded to this substantial request only with obj ections. These objections 17 including vague, ambiguous etc are evasive responses, in bad faith and are not well taken. Plaintiff 18 requests Defendant to produce all the relevant records and supplement the response with relevant 19 bates stamp nos. Vague, Ambiguous, and “Calls for Speculation” Obiections 20 With respect to the vague, ambiguous, and “calls for speculation” objections, the 21 answering party owes a duty to respond in good faith as best it can. Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 22 Cal.App.3d 771, 783. Where a responding party objects to a question as ambiguous, vague and/or 23 overbroad, “Courts generally do not sustain this kind of objection unless the question is totally 24 unintelligible.” Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rutter 2014) § 8:1084. Defendant bears the burden 25 ofjustifying its objection and failure to respond on the basis 0f this objection. Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Ca1.2d 210. 26 In any event, even if materials are being withheld for privacy, the right to privacy is not 27 absolute and information may be compelled where there is a compelling state interest, such as the 28 2 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TAWNA IN BRUUN’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES T0 PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION