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
A Michele Ballard Miller (SBN 104198)
mbmiller@cozen.com
Ethan W. Chemin (SBN) 273906
echernin@cozen. com
COZEN O'CONNOR
401 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 850
SUP
FILED COURT
Santa Monica, California 90401 COUNTY OEHSIORB
Telephone: 3 10.393.4000 SAN BFRAIA$~~P§§%§%%¥O
Facsimile: 310.394.4700
JUL ‘ 8 2022
OCOQNO'JUILOJN
Attorneys for Defendants
KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, KAISER BY
FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC.,
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE CUAUHTEMOC . EPUTY
MEDICAL GROUP, and TAWNA BRUUN
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
.-
90401
ESPERANZA PEREZ, Case No.2 CIVDSI920836
BOULEVARD
O'CONNOR
CA
850
SunE
MONICA, Plaintiff,
WILsmn:
[Assigned to the Hon. Michael A. Sachs,
COZEN
401
SAN‘rA
vs. >
- r
Dept. 828]
KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, a DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO
California Corporation; KAISER PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENTIARY
FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC., a OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF
California Corporation; and SOUTHERN DEAN MCCANN FILED IN SUPPORT
CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL 0F DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
GROUP, 1NC., a California Corporation; SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE
TAWNA BRUUN, an Individual; and DOES 1
ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY
through 50, Inclusive, ,
ADJUDICATION
Defendants. Date: July 14, 2022
Time: 8:30 a.m.
Place: 828
Action Filed: March 20, 201 9
Trial Date: September 19, 2022
LEGAL\58586049\1
DEFENDANTS’ REPLY T0 PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENTIARY OBJEC
TIONS TO
MCCANN FILED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARYDECLA RATION OF DEAN
JUDGMENT 0R, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION CASE NO. CIVDSI920836 -
\r V
Health Plan, Southern
Defendants Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Kaiser Foundation
Inc.,
NA
Tawna Bruun (collectively “Defendants”) submit
California Permanente Medical Group, Inc., and
Perez’s Evidentiary Objections t0 the Declaration 0f
the following responses to Plaintiff Esperanza
Dean McCann, which was filed in support 0f Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the
Alternative, Summary Adjudication (“Motion”).
OOmNOU‘l-bm
DECLARATION OF DEAN MCCANN
“I have never been an
1. MATERIAL OBJECTED TO: McCann Declaration, 1]
4:
officer of Kaiser. In my position as a supervisor in the FMC Operating Room, I never had any
Kaiser’s policies. did not have
discretionary authority over decisions that ultimately determined
I
from the policies set at the
any discretion nor the ability to set corporate policy or to deviate
corporata-lev‘e‘i for Kaiser. I was not consulted on, nor did I provide any inp'ut into the fiolifies set
at the corporate level for Kaiser. My responsibility was only to follow and enforce the applicable
9mm
BOULEVARD
O‘CONNOR
CA
850
SUITE
MONICA.
Kaiser policies with respect to the approximately 22 Perioperative Assistants over
whom I had
WILSHIRE
COZEN
supervisory authorityk} did this to the best of my.abi1ities.”
SANTA
~
401
u
PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS:
1. Lacks Foundation (Evid. Code § 403) as t0 him claiming that he did not have any
from the policies set at the corporate
discretion nor the ability to set corporate policy 0r to deviate
level for Kaiser since he was the supervisor of the PeriOperative services. (cite)
2. Lacks Personal Knowledge (Evid. Code § 702).
3. Speculation (Evid. Code § 702).
4. Improper Opinion Testimony (Evid. Code §§ 800-803).
5. Hearsay (Evid. Code § 1200, et seq.), No exceptions.
6. Evidence Code § 412.
Maccann’s declaration has merely “parrot(ed) the White v. Ultramar, Ina, supra, standard,”
‘
stating that neither agent had ever “drafted corporate policy or had substantial discretionary
corporate policy.” These
authority over decisions that ultimately determined [the employer's]
conclusory statements were insufficient to satisfy the employer's burden of proof
0n the managing
LEGAL\58586049\1 2
DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF DEAN
MCCANN FILED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 0R, 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
A Michele Ballard Miller (SBN 104198) mbmiller@cozen.com Ethan W. Chemin (SBN) 273906 echernin@cozen. com COZEN O'CONNOR 401 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 850 SUP FILED COURT Santa Monica, California 90401 COUNTY OEHSIORB Telephone: 3 10.393.4000 SAN BFRAIA$~~P§§%§%%¥O Facsimile: 310.394.4700 JUL ‘ 8 2022 OCOQNO'JUILOJN Attorneys for Defendants KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, KAISER BY FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC., SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE CUAUHTEMOC . EPUTY MEDICAL GROUP, and TAWNA BRUUN SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO .- 90401 ESPERANZA PEREZ, Case No.2 CIVDSI920836 BOULEVARD O'CONNOR CA 850 SunE MONICA, Plaintiff, WILsmn: [Assigned to the Hon. Michael A. Sachs, COZEN 401 SAN‘rA vs. > - r Dept. 828] KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, a DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO California Corporation; KAISER PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENTIARY FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC., a OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF California Corporation; and SOUTHERN DEAN MCCANN FILED IN SUPPORT CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL 0F DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR GROUP, 1NC., a California Corporation; SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE TAWNA BRUUN, an Individual; and DOES 1 ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY through 50, Inclusive, , ADJUDICATION Defendants. Date: July 14, 2022 Time: 8:30 a.m. Place: 828 Action Filed: March 20, 201 9 Trial Date: September 19, 2022 LEGAL\58586049\1 DEFENDANTS’ REPLY T0 PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENTIARY OBJEC TIONS TO MCCANN FILED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARYDECLA RATION OF DEAN JUDGMENT 0R, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION CASE NO. CIVDSI920836 - \r V Health Plan, Southern Defendants Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Kaiser Foundation Inc., NA Tawna Bruun (collectively “Defendants”) submit California Permanente Medical Group, Inc., and Perez’s Evidentiary Objections t0 the Declaration 0f the following responses to Plaintiff Esperanza Dean McCann, which was filed in support 0f Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication (“Motion”). OOmNOU‘l-bm DECLARATION OF DEAN MCCANN “I have never been an 1. MATERIAL OBJECTED TO: McCann Declaration, 1] 4: officer of Kaiser. In my position as a supervisor in the FMC Operating Room, I never had any Kaiser’s policies. did not have discretionary authority over decisions that ultimately determined I from the policies set at the any discretion nor the ability to set corporate policy or to deviate corporata-lev‘e‘i for Kaiser. I was not consulted on, nor did I provide any inp'ut into the fiolifies set at the corporate level for Kaiser. My responsibility was only to follow and enforce the applicable 9mm BOULEVARD O‘CONNOR CA 850 SUITE MONICA. Kaiser policies with respect to the approximately 22 Perioperative Assistants over whom I had WILSHIRE COZEN supervisory authorityk} did this to the best of my.abi1ities.” SANTA ~ 401 u PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS: 1. Lacks Foundation (Evid. Code § 403) as t0 him claiming that he did not have any from the policies set at the corporate discretion nor the ability to set corporate policy 0r to deviate level for Kaiser since he was the supervisor of the PeriOperative services. (cite) 2. Lacks Personal Knowledge (Evid. Code § 702). 3. Speculation (Evid. Code § 702). 4. Improper Opinion Testimony (Evid. Code §§ 800-803). 5. Hearsay (Evid. Code § 1200, et seq.), No exceptions. 6. Evidence Code § 412. Maccann’s declaration has merely “parrot(ed) the White v. Ultramar, Ina, supra, standard,” ‘ stating that neither agent had ever “drafted corporate policy or had substantial discretionary corporate policy.” These authority over decisions that ultimately determined [the employer's] conclusory statements were insufficient to satisfy the employer's burden of proof 0n the managing LEGAL\58586049\1 2 DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF DEAN MCCANN FILED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 0R, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION CASE NO. CIVDSl920836 -