On March 20, 2019 a
Motion,Ex Parte
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 \a
F I L ED
SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFORNIA
COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDmo
SAN BERNARDWO DISTRICT
LAW OFFICE 0F TWILA s. Wm. scnuuin AUG 1 0 2023
Twila S. White, State Bar #207424
kWh.)
2615 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 325
Hermosa Beach, California 90254
BYA
W
cesa' R Le -
Députy
Tel: (213) 381-8749
Fax: (21 3) 381-8799
Attorney for Plaintiff ESPERENZA PEREZ
\OOONONKII
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Case No.: CIVDSl920836
ESPERANZA PEREZ, (Case Assigned to the Honorable Judge
10
Thomas S Garza, Department S27)
Plaintiff,
11
vs. PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO
12 DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE
KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, a APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO:
13 California Corporation; KAISER (l) EXTEND THE DEADLINE T0
FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC., a DESIGNATE REBUTTAL EXPERTS
14
California Corporation; and SOUTHERN AND (2) TO ADVANCE
15 CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO
GROUP, INC., a California Corporation; COMPEL 0R, IN THE
l6 TAWNA BRUUN; an Individual; and DOES ALTERNATIVE, TO CONTINUE
1through 50, Inclusive, TRIAL
17
Defendants.
[Filed Concurrently with Declaration of
18
Twila White and Proposed order]
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
S.
l9
Date: August 10, 2023
20 Time: 8:30 a.m.
Dept.: $27
21
22 Complaint Filed: March 20, 2019
FAC Filed: March 26, 2019
23 MSJ: August l6, 2022
TRC: December 7, 2023
24 Trial Date: December II, 2023
25
26
27
28
I. MEMORANDUM 0F POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
On July 26, 2023, this court rejected Defendant’s ex pane application to continue trial. It
was defense counsel who reached out on July 24, 2023, serving its expert designation. Exhibit I.
Plaintiff served her expert designation that same evening as she promised she would. Exhibit 1.
(White Decl. fl 2)
OWV®UIAWNfl
1n Defendant’s designation they intentionally used vague language, straddling the fence,
essentially designating now experts but also at the same time employing language as if they were
designating experts. (White Decl. fl 3) The wording of the defense’s designation states:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure
KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS,
section 2034.210 et seq., Defendants
KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, and TAWNA BRUUN (collectively,
“‘Defendants”) have not retainedany expert witnesses in this matter to date.
Defendants reserve the right to call all non-retained treating physicians or
non-retained treating health care practitioners, whether or not disclosed by
Plaintiff Esperanza Perez (“Plaintiff").
In addition, Defendants reserve the right to call any and all expert witnesses
disclosed by Plaintiff, any expert witnesses necessary in rebuttal to Plaintiff’s
retained experts, and to supplement this expert designation within 20 days
pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.280. (Exhibit 2)
[emphasis added.]
NNNNNNNNN—flfl—H—‘u—t—u—n—n
Kaiser cannot have it both ways. They have already indicated that they seek to designate
any and all treaters of Plaintiff, which is not a proper designation. All of Plaintiff‘s designated
WN®M$WN—‘OOWNO\M#WN—‘O
experts are non-retained treaters and employees of Kaisers, either Kaiser doctors or
counsellors/therapists. (White Decl. 1] 4)
Ms. White communicated that if Defendant wanted an extension of time to designate
rebuttal experts that she would agree if there was a mutual extension and grant for Plaintiff to
designate, under the circumstances where Kaiser quibbled about whether it was designating
experts or not, and waited until after Plaintiff designated to now seek not only an extension but to
designate rebuttal experts. There is no justification for the ex pane. (White Decl. 1] 5)
Also, Defendants were aware that Plaintiff s counsel, Ms. Twila S. White is out 0f the state
and is currently in Wyoming at a trial college, as she is on staff there, and cannot appear for the ex
pane hearing. Ms. White respectfully requests that if the court is going to entertain the merits of
Preview
\a \a F I L ED SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFORNIA COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDmo SAN BERNARDWO DISTRICT LAW OFFICE 0F TWILA s. Wm. scnuuin AUG 1 0 2023 Twila S. White, State Bar #207424 kWh.) 2615 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 325 Hermosa Beach, California 90254 BYA W cesa' R Le - Députy Tel: (213) 381-8749 Fax: (21 3) 381-8799 Attorney for Plaintiff ESPERENZA PEREZ \OOONONKII SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO Case No.: CIVDSl920836 ESPERANZA PEREZ, (Case Assigned to the Honorable Judge 10 Thomas S Garza, Department S27) Plaintiff, 11 vs. PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO 12 DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, a APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO: 13 California Corporation; KAISER (l) EXTEND THE DEADLINE T0 FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC., a DESIGNATE REBUTTAL EXPERTS 14 California Corporation; and SOUTHERN AND (2) TO ADVANCE 15 CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO GROUP, INC., a California Corporation; COMPEL 0R, IN THE l6 TAWNA BRUUN; an Individual; and DOES ALTERNATIVE, TO CONTINUE 1through 50, Inclusive, TRIAL 17 Defendants. [Filed Concurrently with Declaration of 18 Twila White and Proposed order] VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV S. l9 Date: August 10, 2023 20 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept.: $27 21 22 Complaint Filed: March 20, 2019 FAC Filed: March 26, 2019 23 MSJ: August l6, 2022 TRC: December 7, 2023 24 Trial Date: December II, 2023 25 26 27 28 I. MEMORANDUM 0F POINTS AND AUTHORITIES On July 26, 2023, this court rejected Defendant’s ex pane application to continue trial. It was defense counsel who reached out on July 24, 2023, serving its expert designation. Exhibit I. Plaintiff served her expert designation that same evening as she promised she would. Exhibit 1. (White Decl. fl 2) OWV®UIAWNfl 1n Defendant’s designation they intentionally used vague language, straddling the fence, essentially designating now experts but also at the same time employing language as if they were designating experts. (White Decl. fl 3) The wording of the defense’s designation states: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, section 2034.210 et seq., Defendants KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, and TAWNA BRUUN (collectively, “‘Defendants”) have not retainedany expert witnesses in this matter to date. Defendants reserve the right to call all non-retained treating physicians or non-retained treating health care practitioners, whether or not disclosed by Plaintiff Esperanza Perez (“Plaintiff"). In addition, Defendants reserve the right to call any and all expert witnesses disclosed by Plaintiff, any expert witnesses necessary in rebuttal to Plaintiff’s retained experts, and to supplement this expert designation within 20 days pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.280. (Exhibit 2) [emphasis added.] NNNNNNNNN—flfl—H—‘u—t—u—n—n Kaiser cannot have it both ways. They have already indicated that they seek to designate any and all treaters of Plaintiff, which is not a proper designation. All of Plaintiff‘s designated WN®M$WN—‘OOWNO\M#WN—‘O experts are non-retained treaters and employees of Kaisers, either Kaiser doctors or counsellors/therapists. (White Decl. 1] 4) Ms. White communicated that if Defendant wanted an extension of time to designate rebuttal experts that she would agree if there was a mutual extension and grant for Plaintiff to designate, under the circumstances where Kaiser quibbled about whether it was designating experts or not, and waited until after Plaintiff designated to now seek not only an extension but to designate rebuttal experts. There is no justification for the ex pane. (White Decl. 1] 5) Also, Defendants were aware that Plaintiff s counsel, Ms. Twila S. White is out 0f the state and is currently in Wyoming at a trial college, as she is on staff there, and cannot appear for the ex pane hearing. Ms. White respectfully requests that if the court is going to entertain the merits of