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
g, A
“WG‘NAL \a
Michele Ballard Miller (SBN 104198)
mbmiller@cozen.com
Ethan W. Chemin (SBN) 273906
echernin®cozencom supER
F x
I
‘
L
,
E D _
COZEN 0‘60NN0R cou~Kr35
5922s? 3?£3‘;5§3§“'A
401 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 850 SAN BERNwo-r.cfolsréucro
Santa Monica. California 9040]
Telephone: 3 1 0.393.4000 NOV 0 3 2023
Facsimile: 3 0.394.4700
l
A" NE” aaxvd
Attorneys for Defendants
KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, KAISER C988! R Lep
.Bepuu,
FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN. INC,
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE
MEDICAL GROUP. and TAWNA BRUUN
SUPERIOR COURT 0F THE STATE 0F CALIFORNIA
11 COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDINO
12
9M0!
13
ESPERANZA PEREZ, Case No.: CIVDS 920836
1
CONNOR
8001:an
CA
050
Plaintiff”
O‘
MsME
Son:
Mona
14 [Assigned to the Hon. Hon. Thomas S Garza.
COZEN
Dept. $27]
401
SAN”
vs.
15
16 KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS. a DEFENDANT KAISER FOUNDATION
California Corporation; KAISER HOSPITALS s REPLY 1N SUPPORT 0F
FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN. INC. a ITS MOTION T0 COMPEL
17
SOUTHERN
California Corporation; and PRODUCTION 0F PLAINTIFF S ,
18
CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL MEDICAL RECORDS: REQUEST FOR
GROUP, INC. a California Corporation; MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST
TAWNA BRUUN. an Individual; and DOES I
PLAINTIFF AND HER COUNSEL 1N
19
through 50, Inclusive, THE SUM 0F 539739-60
20
Defendants.
21 Date: November 8, 2023
Time: 8:30 a.m.
22 Dept.: $27
23
Action Filed: March 20. 2019
24 Trial Date: September 1 l, 2023
25
26
27
28
l
DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF PLAINTIFF’S
MEDICAL RECORDS; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS - CASE NO. CIVDSI920836
LEGAL\66704226\1
y .
x.
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff‘s untimely opposition — which should be disregarded and stricken - proposes the
untenable and unjustified “offer" that the Court conduct an in camera review of the nearly 1500
pages 0f Plaintiffs medical records before they are produced to Defendants. Nothing about the
production of medical records in this case warrants special or heightened protection. as medical
records are routinely produced in employment cases where an employee alleges that she suffered
severe and ongoing emotional distress damages as a result of her employer‘s alleged wrongful
conduct. Indeed. Plaintiffdoes not dispute that she has placed at issue her medical records by virtue
of the lawsuit and claims she has brought against Defendants. yet she now attempts to deprive
Defendants of full access to the relevant and necessary medical records by producing the records
11 with heavy. misleading. and inconsistent redactions.
12 Because Plaintiff has placed her emotional state at issue by claiming ongoing and severe
CONNOR
BomEVARD
90401
13 emotional distress. allegedly caused solely by Defendants. Plaintiff has waived any privacy rights
CA
B50
0'
MSME
Sm! Mount 14 she may have to these records. Any such privacy right is further outweighed by Defendants‘ due
COZEN
SANTA
401
15 process right to prepare an adequate defense and to receive a fair trial. which can only be achieved
16 if they have full access to the unredacted medical records that would allow Defendants t0
17 appropriately assess and rebut Plaintiff‘s claims. including whether there were alternative stressors.
18 Considerate of Plaintiff‘s concerns. Defendants offered Plaintiffa reasonable compromise
19 that the unredacted records would be produced pursuant t0 a protective order, and that the Parties
20 would meet and confer about additional steps to safeguard Plaintiff‘s privacy. to the extent any
21 specific document needs to be used as part ofa court filing. Plaintiff rejected this reasonable offer
22 without reason. Detailed in Defendants‘ moving papers and herein. Defendants are entitled t0
23 Plaintiff‘s unredacted medical records. and the Coun should grant Defendants' motion to compel
24 and order Plaintiffto produce them.‘
25
I
Plaintiff‘s Opposition addresses three separate Motions to Compel filed by Defendants.
26 Defendants have agreed to withdraw their Motions t0 Compel Responses to Requests for
Production. Set Two. and Special lnterrogatories, Set l. Accordingly. Defendants will not waste this
27 Court‘s time addressing Plaintiff‘s numerous misrepresentations concerning service of those
discovery requests and the meet and confer process related thereto. This Reply addresses only the
28 remaining dispute regarding the production of Plaintiff‘s medical records.
’7
DEFENDANT'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF PLAINTIFF‘S
MEDICAL RECORDS; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS - CASE NO. ClVDSl920836
LEGAL\66704226\]
Document Filed Date
November 03, 2023
Case Filing Date
March 20, 2019
Category
Wrongful Termination Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
g, A “WG‘NAL \a Michele Ballard Miller (SBN 104198) mbmiller@cozen.com Ethan W. Chemin (SBN) 273906 echernin®cozencom supER F x I ‘ L , E D _ COZEN 0‘60NN0R cou~Kr35 5922s? 3?£3‘;5§3§“'A 401 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 850 SAN BERNwo-r.cfolsréucro Santa Monica. California 9040] Telephone: 3 1 0.393.4000 NOV 0 3 2023 Facsimile: 3 0.394.4700 l A" NE” aaxvd Attorneys for Defendants KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, KAISER C988! R Lep .Bepuu, FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN. INC, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP. and TAWNA BRUUN SUPERIOR COURT 0F THE STATE 0F CALIFORNIA 11 COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDINO 12 9M0! 13 ESPERANZA PEREZ, Case No.: CIVDS 920836 1 CONNOR 8001:an CA 050 Plaintiff” O‘ MsME Son: Mona 14 [Assigned to the Hon. Hon. Thomas S Garza. COZEN Dept. $27] 401 SAN” vs. 15 16 KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS. a DEFENDANT KAISER FOUNDATION California Corporation; KAISER HOSPITALS s REPLY 1N SUPPORT 0F FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN. INC. a ITS MOTION T0 COMPEL 17 SOUTHERN California Corporation; and PRODUCTION 0F PLAINTIFF S , 18 CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL MEDICAL RECORDS: REQUEST FOR GROUP, INC. a California Corporation; MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST TAWNA BRUUN. an Individual; and DOES I PLAINTIFF AND HER COUNSEL 1N 19 through 50, Inclusive, THE SUM 0F 539739-60 20 Defendants. 21 Date: November 8, 2023 Time: 8:30 a.m. 22 Dept.: $27 23 Action Filed: March 20. 2019 24 Trial Date: September 1 l, 2023 25 26 27 28 l DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF PLAINTIFF’S MEDICAL RECORDS; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS - CASE NO. CIVDSI920836 LEGAL\66704226\1 y . x. I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff‘s untimely opposition — which should be disregarded and stricken - proposes the untenable and unjustified “offer" that the Court conduct an in camera review of the nearly 1500 pages 0f Plaintiffs medical records before they are produced to Defendants. Nothing about the production of medical records in this case warrants special or heightened protection. as medical records are routinely produced in employment cases where an employee alleges that she suffered severe and ongoing emotional distress damages as a result of her employer‘s alleged wrongful conduct. Indeed. Plaintiffdoes not dispute that she has placed at issue her medical records by virtue of the lawsuit and claims she has brought against Defendants. yet she now attempts to deprive Defendants of full access to the relevant and necessary medical records by producing the records 11 with heavy. misleading. and inconsistent redactions. 12 Because Plaintiff has placed her emotional state at issue by claiming ongoing and severe CONNOR BomEVARD 90401 13 emotional distress. allegedly caused solely by Defendants. Plaintiff has waived any privacy rights CA B50 0' MSME Sm! Mount 14 she may have to these records. Any such privacy right is further outweighed by Defendants‘ due COZEN SANTA 401 15 process right to prepare an adequate defense and to receive a fair trial. which can only be achieved 16 if they have full access to the unredacted medical records that would allow Defendants t0 17 appropriately assess and rebut Plaintiff‘s claims. including whether there were alternative stressors. 18 Considerate of Plaintiff‘s concerns. Defendants offered Plaintiffa reasonable compromise 19 that the unredacted records would be produced pursuant t0 a protective order, and that the Parties 20 would meet and confer about additional steps to safeguard Plaintiff‘s privacy. to the extent any 21 specific document needs to be used as part ofa court filing. Plaintiff rejected this reasonable offer 22 without reason. Detailed in Defendants‘ moving papers and herein. Defendants are entitled t0 23 Plaintiff‘s unredacted medical records. and the Coun should grant Defendants' motion to compel 24 and order Plaintiffto produce them.‘ 25 I Plaintiff‘s Opposition addresses three separate Motions to Compel filed by Defendants. 26 Defendants have agreed to withdraw their Motions t0 Compel Responses to Requests for Production. Set Two. and Special lnterrogatories, Set l. Accordingly. Defendants will not waste this 27 Court‘s time addressing Plaintiff‘s numerous misrepresentations concerning service of those discovery requests and the meet and confer process related thereto. This Reply addresses only the 28 remaining dispute regarding the production of Plaintiff‘s medical records. ’7 DEFENDANT'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF PLAINTIFF‘S MEDICAL RECORDS; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS - CASE NO. ClVDSl920836 LEGAL\66704226\]