On March 20, 2019 a
Motion-Secondary
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
«MQAw
A Michele Ballard Miller (SBN 1041 98)
mbmiller@cozen.com
Ethan w. Chemin (SBN) 273906
echernin@cozen. com
F I L E D
COUN1S'VBEFR'OR COURT
COZEN O'CONNOR SAN BFM.$’.‘«N.P£§?£§%?&'¥°
401 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 850
Santa Monica, California 90401 -
JUL 8 2022
Telephone: 310.393.4000
Facsimile: 310.394.4700 /'
BY Ci
OLDmNODU‘l-hOON
5 E
Attorneys for Defendants CUAUHTEMOC E
. EPUTY
KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, KAISER
FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC.,
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE
MEDICAL GROUP, and TAWNA BRUUN
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
‘9’
5r?“
[ff h“ t 'y
90401
ESPERANZA PEREZ, Case No.2 CIVDSl920836
BOULEVARD
O’CONNOR
CA
850
MONICA.
Plaintiff’
WILSHIRE
SUITE
[Assigned to the Hon. Michael A. Sachs,
COZEN
401
SANTA
$s- Pep; $28] g?”
W I
r 7'
KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, a DEFENDANTS’ REPLY T0
California Corporation; KAISER PLAINTIFF S EVIDENTIARY
FOUNDATION HEALTH pLAN, INC” a OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF
California Corporation; and SOUTHERN ESTELLE CORDOVA FILED IN
CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL SUPPORT 0F DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
GROUP, INC., a California Corporation;
'
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN
TAWNA BRUUN, an Individual; and DOES 1
THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY
through 50, Inclusive, ,
ADJUDICATION
Defendants. Date: July 14, 2022
Time: 8:30 a.m.
Place: $28
Action Filed: March 26, 2019
Trial Date: September 19, 2022
LEGAL\58601264\1 1
DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF
ESTELLE CORDOVA FILED IN SUPPORT 0F DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
OR, lN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION CASE N0. CIVDSl920836 -
V \a
Defendants Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., Southern
California Permanente Medical Group, Inc., and Tawna Bruun (collectively “Defendants”) submit
the following responses t0 Plaintiff Esperanza Perez’s Evidentiary Objections to the Declaration of
Estelle Cordova, which was filed in support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment or, in
OOmVOEU‘l-bQJN—X
the Alternative, Summary Adjudication (“Motion”).
DECLARATION OF ESTELLE CORDOVA
1. MATERIAL OBJECTED TO: Cordova Declaration, 11
5: “I have never been an
officer 0f Kaiser. In my position as a Human Resources Consultant, I never had any discretionary
authority over decisions that ultimately determined Kaiser's policies. I did not have any discretion
nor the ability t0 set corporate policy or t0 deviate from the policies set at the corporate level for
._\._L.A_\_\
Kaiser. Iwas not consulted on, nor did Lprév‘vide any input into the policies set at the corporate level
#WNA
BOULEVARD
90401
for Kaiser. My responsibility is only to follow and enforce the applicable Kaiser policies with
O’CONNOR
CA
850
WILSHIRE
SUITE
MONICA.
respect t0 the employees within the departments for which I provide human resources services. I
COZEN
:W
SANVA
'
U1
of my
401
have done ‘-
'
A this t0 the best abilities.” , . _.~
—¥ 03 PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS:
A N 1. Lacks Foundation (Evid. Code § 403).
-—\
m 2. Lacks Personal Knowledge (Evid. Code § 702).
—\
(0 3. Speculation (Evid. Code § 702).
NO 4. Improper Opinion Testimony (Evid. Code §§ 800-803).
N —¥
5. Hearsay (Evid. Code § 1200, et seq.), No exceptions.
NN 6. Evidence céde § 412.
‘
N (A)
Cordova’s declaration has merely “parrot(ed) the White v. Ultramar, Ina, supra, standard,”
N -b stating that neither agent had ever “drafied corporate policy or had substantial discretionary
N 0'1
authority over decisions that ultimately determined [the employer's] corporate policy.” These
N O) conclusory statements were insufficient to satisfy the employer's burden of proof on the managing
N \l agent issue. An employer “cannot satisfy its initial burden of production of evidence by making a
[\J
m conclusory statement 0f law, whether directly (through its separate statement of undisputed facts)
LEGAL\58601264\1 2
DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS T0 DECLARATION OF
ESTELLE CORDOVA FILED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION - CASE NO. CIVDSl920836
Document Filed Date
July 08, 2022
Case Filing Date
March 20, 2019
Category
Wrongful Termination Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
«MQAw A Michele Ballard Miller (SBN 1041 98) mbmiller@cozen.com Ethan w. Chemin (SBN) 273906 echernin@cozen. com F I L E D COUN1S'VBEFR'OR COURT COZEN O'CONNOR SAN BFM.$’.‘«N.P£§?£§%?&'¥° 401 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 850 Santa Monica, California 90401 - JUL 8 2022 Telephone: 310.393.4000 Facsimile: 310.394.4700 /' BY Ci OLDmNODU‘l-hOON 5 E Attorneys for Defendants CUAUHTEMOC E . EPUTY KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC., SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, and TAWNA BRUUN SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ‘9’ 5r?“ [ff h“ t 'y 90401 ESPERANZA PEREZ, Case No.2 CIVDSl920836 BOULEVARD O’CONNOR CA 850 MONICA. Plaintiff’ WILSHIRE SUITE [Assigned to the Hon. Michael A. Sachs, COZEN 401 SANTA $s- Pep; $28] g?” W I r 7' KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, a DEFENDANTS’ REPLY T0 California Corporation; KAISER PLAINTIFF S EVIDENTIARY FOUNDATION HEALTH pLAN, INC” a OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF California Corporation; and SOUTHERN ESTELLE CORDOVA FILED IN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL SUPPORT 0F DEFENDANTS’ MOTION GROUP, INC., a California Corporation; ' FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN TAWNA BRUUN, an Individual; and DOES 1 THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY through 50, Inclusive, , ADJUDICATION Defendants. Date: July 14, 2022 Time: 8:30 a.m. Place: $28 Action Filed: March 26, 2019 Trial Date: September 19, 2022 LEGAL\58601264\1 1 DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF ESTELLE CORDOVA FILED IN SUPPORT 0F DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, lN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION CASE N0. CIVDSl920836 - V \a Defendants Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., Southern California Permanente Medical Group, Inc., and Tawna Bruun (collectively “Defendants”) submit the following responses t0 Plaintiff Esperanza Perez’s Evidentiary Objections to the Declaration of Estelle Cordova, which was filed in support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment or, in OOmVOEU‘l-bQJN—X the Alternative, Summary Adjudication (“Motion”). DECLARATION OF ESTELLE CORDOVA 1. MATERIAL OBJECTED TO: Cordova Declaration, 11 5: “I have never been an officer 0f Kaiser. In my position as a Human Resources Consultant, I never had any discretionary authority over decisions that ultimately determined Kaiser's policies. I did not have any discretion nor the ability t0 set corporate policy or t0 deviate from the policies set at the corporate level for ._\._L.A_\_\ Kaiser. Iwas not consulted on, nor did Lprév‘vide any input into the policies set at the corporate level #WNA BOULEVARD 90401 for Kaiser. My responsibility is only to follow and enforce the applicable Kaiser policies with O’CONNOR CA 850 WILSHIRE SUITE MONICA. respect t0 the employees within the departments for which I provide human resources services. I COZEN :W SANVA ' U1 of my 401 have done ‘- ' A this t0 the best abilities.” , . _.~ —¥ 03 PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS: A N 1. Lacks Foundation (Evid. Code § 403). -—\ m 2. Lacks Personal Knowledge (Evid. Code § 702). —\ (0 3. Speculation (Evid. Code § 702). NO 4. Improper Opinion Testimony (Evid. Code §§ 800-803). N —¥ 5. Hearsay (Evid. Code § 1200, et seq.), No exceptions. NN 6. Evidence céde § 412. ‘ N (A) Cordova’s declaration has merely “parrot(ed) the White v. Ultramar, Ina, supra, standard,” N -b stating that neither agent had ever “drafied corporate policy or had substantial discretionary N 0'1 authority over decisions that ultimately determined [the employer's] corporate policy.” These N O) conclusory statements were insufficient to satisfy the employer's burden of proof on the managing N \l agent issue. An employer “cannot satisfy its initial burden of production of evidence by making a [\J m conclusory statement 0f law, whether directly (through its separate statement of undisputed facts) LEGAL\58601264\1 2 DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS T0 DECLARATION OF ESTELLE CORDOVA FILED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION - CASE NO. CIVDSl920836