On March 20, 2019 a
Party Discovery
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
V QIR‘IQIN/NL.
V
Michele Ballard Miller (SBN 104198)
mbmiller@cozen.com
Ethan W. Chemin (SBN) 273906
echernin@cozen.com S F L E
l
COZEN OjCONNOR Légsu'iicr’fiéwfg OF
coaupormm
401 Wllshlre Boulevard, Suite 850 SAN BERNARDrNIivngifiRD'NO
O(OQVODUI#OON—I
Santa Monica. California 90401
Telephone: 310.393.4000
Facsimile: 310.394.4700
a ‘
sen" NE” N 0v O2
u
2023
R’CT
Attorneys for Defendants
BY.
KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, KAISER Cesar R Leo
FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC, .
be pu t y
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE
MEDICAL GROUP. and TAWNA BRUUN
FAAD
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
_L_L_L_n
WN—K
m1
ESPERANZA PEREZ. Case No.: CIVDSI920836
CONNOR
BOUKKVMO
CA
aso
Plaintiff’
0'
“WE
Sm:
MA. _L
A [Assigned to the Hon. Thomas S. Garza. Dept
COZEN
SANTA
VS.
$27]
40‘
_x UI
A
0') KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, a DECLARATION 0F ETHAN CHFRNIN
California Corporation; KAISER 1N SUPPORT 0F DEFENDANTS
FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN. INC, a OPPOSITION T0 PLAINTIFF S
_L
N
SOUTHERN
California Corporation; and MOTION T0 QUASH SUBPOENA 0F
_x
m CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL EMPLOYMENT RECORDS FROM
GROUP. INC, a California Corporation; RIVERSIDE POSTACUTE CARE
_A (O
TAWNA BRUUN, an Individual; and DOES l
through 50, Inclusive. , Date: November 16, 2023
NO Time: 8:30 a.m.
Defendants. place: 527
N -t
Action Filed: March 20. 2019
NN
Trial Date: March I l. 2024
N 00
NA
mVODU'I
NNNN
LEGAL\43735341\1 1
DECLARATION OF ETHAN CHERNIN IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA OF EMPLOYMENT RECORDS FROM RIVERSIDE
POSTACUTE CARE - CASE NO. CIVDSI920836
LEGAL\66692196\]
A l, Ethan Chemin, declare:
1. l am an attorney at law licensed to practice before all courts ofthe State of California
and before this Court. I am a member ofthe law firm Cozen O'Connor, and am one 0f the attorneys
ofrecord for Defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospitals. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan. Inc., Southern
California Permanente Medical Group, and Tawna Bruun (collectively “Defendants“), in the above-
O(OQVODCHAOJN
captioned matter.
2. l have personal knowledge of the matters contained in this declaration. and if called
to do so, can testify competently to the same.
3. Plaintiff disclosed in discovery that she was or has been employed by (l) Vista
Pacifica Convalescent ("Vista"); (2) Riverside PostAcute Care (“RPAC”); and (3) Riverside
University Health System Medical Center (“RUHSMC‘”) afier her termination from Defendant
Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (“KPH"). A true and correct copy ofthe relevant excerpt of Plaintiff’s
CONNOR
m1
responses to Form lnterrogatories — Employment Law (Set l) is attached here as Exhibit A.
BOMEVARD
CA
ISO
0'
MW:
SUITE
Mock 4. Throughout the course of discovery. Plaintiff has hardly produced any documents
COZEN
SAN“
‘0'
that relate t0 her mitigation efforts. For example. Defendants requested documents from Plaintiff
showing her income from her other employers and. to date. Plaintiff has produced only a single
paystub from RUHSMC and 3 paystubs from RPAC, despite working at both locations for years.
5. On July 20, 2022, my office served Notices t0 Consumer or Employee 0n Plaintiff‘s
counsel, Twila White. informing Plaintiff that Defendants would be subpoenaing documents from
her post-temination employers: Vista, RPAC. and RUHSMC. A true and correct copy of these
Notices to Consumer. along with their corresponding Deposition Subpoenas and Proofs of Service.
are attached here as Exhibit B. Plaintiff did not object to these subpoenas, and Defendants caused
them to be served on the deponents. Plaintiff did not seek to quash these subpoenas.
6. Vista and RPAC produced documents in response to the subpoenas.
7. When RUHSMC failed to produce records. Defendants learned through the
deposition officer t0 whom the documents were to be produced that RUHSMC did not produce
documents because it had received an objection from Plaintiff — an objection that was never
LEGAL\43735341\1 2
DECLARATION OF ETHAN CHERNIN IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA OF EMPLOYMENT RECORDS FROM RIVERSIDE
POSTACUTE CARE - CASE NO. CIVDSI920836
LEGAL\66692196\I
Document Filed Date
November 02, 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
V QIR‘IQIN/NL. V Michele Ballard Miller (SBN 104198) mbmiller@cozen.com Ethan W. Chemin (SBN) 273906 echernin@cozen.com S F L E l COZEN OjCONNOR Légsu'iicr’fiéwfg OF coaupormm 401 Wllshlre Boulevard, Suite 850 SAN BERNARDrNIivngifiRD'NO O(OQVODUI#OON—I Santa Monica. California 90401 Telephone: 310.393.4000 Facsimile: 310.394.4700 a ‘ sen" NE” N 0v O2 u 2023 R’CT Attorneys for Defendants BY. KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, KAISER Cesar R Leo FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC, . be pu t y SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP. and TAWNA BRUUN FAAD SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO _L_L_L_n WN—K m1 ESPERANZA PEREZ. Case No.: CIVDSI920836 CONNOR BOUKKVMO CA aso Plaintiff’ 0' “WE Sm: MA. _L A [Assigned to the Hon. Thomas S. Garza. Dept COZEN SANTA VS. $27] 40‘ _x UI A 0') KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, a DECLARATION 0F ETHAN CHFRNIN California Corporation; KAISER 1N SUPPORT 0F DEFENDANTS FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN. INC, a OPPOSITION T0 PLAINTIFF S _L N SOUTHERN California Corporation; and MOTION T0 QUASH SUBPOENA 0F _x m CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL EMPLOYMENT RECORDS FROM GROUP. INC, a California Corporation; RIVERSIDE POSTACUTE CARE _A (O TAWNA BRUUN, an Individual; and DOES l through 50, Inclusive. , Date: November 16, 2023 NO Time: 8:30 a.m. Defendants. place: 527 N -t Action Filed: March 20. 2019 NN Trial Date: March I l. 2024 N 00 NA mVODU'I NNNN LEGAL\43735341\1 1 DECLARATION OF ETHAN CHERNIN IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA OF EMPLOYMENT RECORDS FROM RIVERSIDE POSTACUTE CARE - CASE NO. CIVDSI920836 LEGAL\66692196\] A l, Ethan Chemin, declare: 1. l am an attorney at law licensed to practice before all courts ofthe State of California and before this Court. I am a member ofthe law firm Cozen O'Connor, and am one 0f the attorneys ofrecord for Defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospitals. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan. Inc., Southern California Permanente Medical Group, and Tawna Bruun (collectively “Defendants“), in the above- O(OQVODCHAOJN captioned matter. 2. l have personal knowledge of the matters contained in this declaration. and if called to do so, can testify competently to the same. 3. Plaintiff disclosed in discovery that she was or has been employed by (l) Vista Pacifica Convalescent ("Vista"); (2) Riverside PostAcute Care (“RPAC”); and (3) Riverside University Health System Medical Center (“RUHSMC‘”) afier her termination from Defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (“KPH"). A true and correct copy ofthe relevant excerpt of Plaintiff’s CONNOR m1 responses to Form lnterrogatories — Employment Law (Set l) is attached here as Exhibit A. BOMEVARD CA ISO 0' MW: SUITE Mock 4. Throughout the course of discovery. Plaintiff has hardly produced any documents COZEN SAN“ ‘0' that relate t0 her mitigation efforts. For example. Defendants requested documents from Plaintiff showing her income from her other employers and. to date. Plaintiff has produced only a single paystub from RUHSMC and 3 paystubs from RPAC, despite working at both locations for years. 5. On July 20, 2022, my office served Notices t0 Consumer or Employee 0n Plaintiff‘s counsel, Twila White. informing Plaintiff that Defendants would be subpoenaing documents from her post-temination employers: Vista, RPAC. and RUHSMC. A true and correct copy of these Notices to Consumer. along with their corresponding Deposition Subpoenas and Proofs of Service. are attached here as Exhibit B. Plaintiff did not object to these subpoenas, and Defendants caused them to be served on the deponents. Plaintiff did not seek to quash these subpoenas. 6. Vista and RPAC produced documents in response to the subpoenas. 7. When RUHSMC failed to produce records. Defendants learned through the deposition officer t0 whom the documents were to be produced that RUHSMC did not produce documents because it had received an objection from Plaintiff — an objection that was never LEGAL\43735341\1 2 DECLARATION OF ETHAN CHERNIN IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA OF EMPLOYMENT RECORDS FROM RIVERSIDE POSTACUTE CARE - CASE NO. CIVDSI920836 LEGAL\66692196\I