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
Michele Ballard Miller (SBN 104198)
mbmiller@cozen.com
Ethan W. Chemin (SBN) 273906 F LE
I
D
echernin@cozen.com COUNTsygiEngS gEOAJRT
401 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 850
Santa Monica, California 90401 JUL ‘ 8 2022
Telephone: 3 10.393.4000
Facsimile: 310.394.4700 f
BY
OLDmVOCn-waA
Attorneys for Defendants
CUAUHTEMOC m%gEPUTV
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
4444A
-'
é.-
i-v‘
Luff».
ESPERANZA PEREZ,
ACDNA
90401 Case No.2 CIVDSl920836
BOULEVARD
O'CONNOR
CA
850
Plaintiff;
WlLsHIRE
SUITE
MONICA.
[Assigned t0 the Hon. Michael A. Sachs,
DEB}. 828]
COZEN
SANTA
401
—\ U1
I
Y5. r
fl ~
—\ O) KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, a DEFENDANT? REPLY T0
California Corporation; KAISER PLAINTIFFS EVIDENTIARY
—\
V FOUNDATION HEALTH pLAN’ INC” a OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF
California Corporation; and SOUTHERN TAWNA BRUUN FJLED IN SUPPORT
—¥
m CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL 0F DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR
GROUP, INC, 'a
California Corporation; SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE
-\
(O
TAWNA BRUUN, an Individual; and DOES 1
ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY
through 50, Inclusive, ,
ADJUDICATION
NO
Defendants. Date: July 14, 2022
N —‘
Time: 8:30 a.m.
Place: S28
NN
Action Filed: March 20, 2019
N 00
Trial Date: September 19, 2022
NA
N O1
N O)
l\) \l
Nm
LEGAL\58586050\2 1
DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF TAWNA BRUUN
FILED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE,
SUMMARY ADJUDICATION - CASE NO. 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 to Plaintiff Esperanza Perez’s Evidentiary Objections to the Declaration of
Tawna Bruun, which was filed in support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the
Alternative, Summary Adjudication (“Motion”).
OOWVOU‘ILWNA
DECLARATION OF TAWNA BRUUN
1. MATERIAL OBJECTED T0: Bruun Declaration, 11
2: “As an Assistant Manager
and then Manager in the Fontana Medical Center, I oversaw the staff in the Perioperative Services
Department. This included both nurses and other staff, including Mobility Technicians. As an
Assistant Manager and then Manager in the Fontana Medical Center, I supervised approximately
‘
““‘"
_x_\_\_\_\
100 employees.” '
Er
AQNA
BOULEVARD
90401
PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS:
O'CONNOR
CA
850
WILSHIR:
SUITE
MONICA.
1. Lacks Foundation (Evid. Code § 403).
COZEN
SANTA
401 O‘l
A 2. Lacks Personal Knowledge (Evid. Code § 702).
A O) 3. Speculation (Evid. Code § 702).
\l
_\
4. Improper Opinion Testimony (Evid. Code §§ 800-803).
—\
m 5. Hearsay (Evid. Code § 1200, et seq.), No exceptions.
—\ (O 6. Evidence Code § 412.
NO Bruun is not able to clearly delineate the employees she supervised. In her deposition she
NA claims she was not the direct supervisor of Mobility Techs (Bruun Vol.1, 51:10- 53:8) but in her
NN declaration, she claims the opposite.
N (A)
Authority: Declarations must state evidentiary facts, not conclusions, and may not contain
NA inadmissible hearsay or opinions. Hayman v. Block (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 629, 638-639.
U'I
N Declarations cannot be based 0n speculation or conjecture. Sanchez v, Swinerton & Walberg
N O) ‘Company (1996) 447 Ca1.App.4th 1461, 1465-1466 Also see CACI 203. Party Having Power to
N N Produce Better Evidence. Also, Evidence Code Section 412, “If weaker and less satisfactory
Nm
LEGAL\58586050\2 2
DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF TAWNA BRUUN
FILED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE,
SUMMARY ADJUDICATION - CASE NO. CIVDSl920836
Preview
Michele Ballard Miller (SBN 104198) mbmiller@cozen.com Ethan W. Chemin (SBN) 273906 F LE I D echernin@cozen.com COUNTsygiEngS gEOAJRT 401 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 850 Santa Monica, California 90401 JUL ‘ 8 2022 Telephone: 3 10.393.4000 Facsimile: 310.394.4700 f BY OLDmVOCn-waA Attorneys for Defendants CUAUHTEMOC m%gEPUTV 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 4444A -' é.- i-v‘ Luff». ESPERANZA PEREZ, ACDNA 90401 Case No.2 CIVDSl920836 BOULEVARD O'CONNOR CA 850 Plaintiff; WlLsHIRE SUITE MONICA. [Assigned t0 the Hon. Michael A. Sachs, DEB}. 828] COZEN SANTA 401 —\ U1 I Y5. r fl ~ —\ O) KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, a DEFENDANT? REPLY T0 California Corporation; KAISER PLAINTIFFS EVIDENTIARY —\ V FOUNDATION HEALTH pLAN’ INC” a OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF California Corporation; and SOUTHERN TAWNA BRUUN FJLED IN SUPPORT —¥ m CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL 0F DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR GROUP, INC, 'a California Corporation; SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE -\ (O TAWNA BRUUN, an Individual; and DOES 1 ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY through 50, Inclusive, , ADJUDICATION NO Defendants. Date: July 14, 2022 N —‘ Time: 8:30 a.m. Place: S28 NN Action Filed: March 20, 2019 N 00 Trial Date: September 19, 2022 NA N O1 N O) l\) \l Nm LEGAL\58586050\2 1 DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF TAWNA BRUUN FILED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION - CASE NO. 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 to Plaintiff Esperanza Perez’s Evidentiary Objections to the Declaration of Tawna Bruun, which was filed in support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication (“Motion”). OOWVOU‘ILWNA DECLARATION OF TAWNA BRUUN 1. MATERIAL OBJECTED T0: Bruun Declaration, 11 2: “As an Assistant Manager and then Manager in the Fontana Medical Center, I oversaw the staff in the Perioperative Services Department. This included both nurses and other staff, including Mobility Technicians. As an Assistant Manager and then Manager in the Fontana Medical Center, I supervised approximately ‘ ““‘" _x_\_\_\_\ 100 employees.” ' Er AQNA BOULEVARD 90401 PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS: O'CONNOR CA 850 WILSHIR: SUITE MONICA. 1. Lacks Foundation (Evid. Code § 403). COZEN SANTA 401 O‘l A 2. Lacks Personal Knowledge (Evid. Code § 702). A O) 3. Speculation (Evid. Code § 702). \l _\ 4. Improper Opinion Testimony (Evid. Code §§ 800-803). —\ m 5. Hearsay (Evid. Code § 1200, et seq.), No exceptions. —\ (O 6. Evidence Code § 412. NO Bruun is not able to clearly delineate the employees she supervised. In her deposition she NA claims she was not the direct supervisor of Mobility Techs (Bruun Vol.1, 51:10- 53:8) but in her NN declaration, she claims the opposite. N (A) Authority: Declarations must state evidentiary facts, not conclusions, and may not contain NA inadmissible hearsay or opinions. Hayman v. Block (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 629, 638-639. U'I N Declarations cannot be based 0n speculation or conjecture. Sanchez v, Swinerton & Walberg N O) ‘Company (1996) 447 Ca1.App.4th 1461, 1465-1466 Also see CACI 203. Party Having Power to N N Produce Better Evidence. Also, Evidence Code Section 412, “If weaker and less satisfactory Nm LEGAL\58586050\2 2 DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF TAWNA BRUUN FILED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION - CASE NO. CIVDSl920836