Preview
:Mur—wr:33H»
7:.
2,;
p—l
MARCIE ISOM FITZSIMMONS (SBN: 226906) EILEngfié’
H]EU T. WILLIAMS (SBN: 280585)
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP JAN-5 IA 3 :59 l
275 Battery Suite 2000
new
Street,
San Francisco, CA 94111
CLE- K 0F TOHE COURT
Telephone: (415) 986—5900
Facsimile: (415) 986-8054
/\/fup Er§lom OURTOFCA
$UN1Y0RF 05mm CLARA!
MIsom@grsm.com B DEPU
HWilliams @gr sm.co In
\OOOQONUI-IAUJN
two,
.GEIXVfl
Attorneys for Defendant
PALO ALTO FOUNDATION MEDICAL GROUP, INC.
LINDBERGH PORTER (SBN: 100091)
LITTLER MENDELSON, P. C.
333 Bush Street, 34Lh Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 433-1940 T
F acsimile: (415) 399-8490
LPorter@1ittler.com
MAIKO NAKARAI-KANIVAS (SBN: 271710)
2000
LITTLER MENDELSON, RC.
94111
1255 Treat Blvd., Suite 600
LLP
Suite Walnut Creek, CA 94597
CA
Telephone: (925) 932-2468
Rees
Street,
Facsimile: (925) 946-9809
& MNakaraikanivas@littler.com
Francisco,
Gordon
Battery Attorneys for Defendants
SUTTER HEALTH and PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION
San
275
NNNNNNNNND—Ib—lv—‘h—‘D—lb—lh—lur—IP‘
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
OOQONUIJAWNt—‘OKOOOVONUI-PWNv-‘O
DIANA P. BLUM, M.D., ) CASE NO. llSCV277582
)
Plaintiff, ) DEFENDANTS’ JOINT
) MOTION 1N LIMINE
vs.
)
TO LIMIT TI-IE TESTIMONY 0F
PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT
SUTTER HEALTH, a California corporation; ) DR. ALAN H. ROSENSTEIN
PALO ALTO FOUNDATION MEDICAL )
GROUP, INC., a California corporation; ) No. 4 of 16
PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION, a )
California corporation; and DOES I through ) Trial Date: January 8, 2018
20, ) Time: 8:45 a.m.
) Dept: 16
Defendants. )
) Complaint Filed: March 4, 2015
) FAC Filed: August 7, 2015
DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION IN LIMNE NO. 4
TO LIMIT THE TESTIMONY OF PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DR. ALAN H. ROSENSTEIN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 7
#m
II. RELEVANT FACTS ........................................................................................................... 7
A. Dr. Rosenstein’s Qualifications ............................................................................... 7
B. Testimony that Plaintiff Did Not Engage in “Disruptive Behavior” ....................... 8
C. Testimony that Defendants Did Not Treat Plaintiff “With Dignity and
\DOOQON Respec ” ...................................................................................................................
9
D. Testimony That the Performance Improvement Plan (“PIP”) Was .
Inappropriate ............................................................................................................ 9
10 E. Testimony that Defendants “Pressured” Plaintiff to Resign .................................... 9
11 F. Testimony that Defendants Became “Confrontational” When Plaintiff and
Other Physicians “Spoke Out” ............................................................................... 10
2000
12
94111
G. Dr. Rosenstein’s Preparation for Rendering His Opinions .................................... 10
LLP
Suite 13
CA
III. LEGAL ARGUIVLENT ....................................................................................................... 1 1
Rees
Street,
14
A. Testimony That Plaintiff Was Not A “Disruptive Physician” Should Be
&
Gordon
Francisco,
Battery
15 Excluded ........................................... 1 1
16 1. Dr. Rosenstein’s Testimony that Plaintiff Was Not a “Disruptive
San
275
Physician” Is Irrelevant .............................................................................. 11
17
2. Dr. Rosenstein’s Opinion On Whether Plaintiff Engaged In
18 “Disruptive Behavior” Is Not A Proper Subject Of Expert Opinion ......... 12
19 3. Dr. Rosenstein Was Not Disclosed as an Expert Regarding
“Disruptive Physician Behavior” ............................................................ 12
20
4. Dr. Rosenstein Cannot Testify Under the Guise Of Expert Opinion
21 to a Central Issue at Hand .......................................................................... 13
22 B. Testimony That Defendants Did Not Treat Plaintiff “With Dignity and
Respect” Is Not A Proper Subject Of Expert Opinion and Should Be
23 Excluded ................................................................................................................
14
24 C. Testimony That the PIP Was Not Warranted Should Be Excluded ....................... 15
25 1. Dr. Rosenstein Is Not Qualified As An Expert On The
Reasonableness of PIPs .............................................................................. 15
26
2. Dr. Rosenstein’s Opinion On The Reasonableness of PIP Invades
27 The Province Of The Jury and Is Improper ............................................... 15
28
-2-
DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4
TO LIMIT THE TESTIMONY OF PLAINTIFF ’S EXPERT DR. ALAN H. ROSENSTEIN
D. Testimony That Defendants “Pressured” Plaintiff to Quit As a Form of
“Harassment” Should Be Excluded ....................................................................... 16
1.
Termination or Harassment .......................
Dr. Rosenstein Is Not Qualified As an Expert On Constructive
16
2. Dr Rosenstein Was Not Disclosed as an Expert on Constructive
Termination or Harassment ........................................................................ 16
OO\IO\UIJ>WN
3. Dr. Rosenstein’s Testimony Is Improper Because It Invades The
Province Of The Jury ................................................................................. 17
4. Dr. Rosenstein’s Testimony Is Irrelevant Because There is No
Claim for Harassment ................................................................................ 18
5. Dr.‘ Rosenstein’s Testimony Based on Allegations in the FAC is
\O Speculative ................................................................................................. 18
10 E. Testimony That Defendants Retaliated Against Plaintiff Should Be
Excluded ................................................................................................................ 1 9
11
1. Dr. Rosenstein Is Not Qualified As An Expert On Retaliation ................. 19
2000
12
2. Dr. Rosenstein Attempts to Usurp the Jury’ 5 Function to Decide
LLP
94111
Suite
13' the Ultimate Issue of Reta11at10n ................ ... ................... l9
CA
Rees
Street,
14 3. Dr. Rosenstein’s Testimony About Defendants’ Propensity to Be
& “Confrontational” is Improper Character Evidence ................................... 20
Francisco,
15
Gordon
Battery 4. Dr. Rosenstein’s Testimony Regarding Frye and Crozier is
16 Speculative and Will Cause Unfair Prejudice, Confusion and
San
275
Waste of Time ................................................................................. 20
17
F. Any Probative Value is Substantially Outweighed by the Danger of Undue
1s Prejudice ................................................................................................................ 21
19 IV. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 21
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4
TO LIMIT THE TESTIMONY OF PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DR. ALAN H. ROSENSTEIN
, K/
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
N Page(s)
Cases
'
Bonds v. Roy
(1999) 20 Cal. 4th 140 ........................................................................................................
12, 16
Cota v. County of Los Angeles
(1980)
\OOOVO‘UI-bm
105 Cal.App.3d 282 ......................................................................................................
18
Dee v. PCS Property Management, Inc.
(2009) 174 Ca1.App.4th 390 .....................................................................................................
19
Downer v. Bramet et a1.
(1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 837 ................................................................................................
13, 15
10 Hughes v. Blue Cross ofNorthern California
(1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 832 ......................................................................................................
18
11
Hyatt v. Sierra Boat Co.
2000
12 20
(1978) 79 CaI.App.3d 325 ........................................................................................................
94111
LLP
Suite 13 Korsak v. Atlas Hotels, Inc.
CA (1992) 2 Ca1.App.4th 1516 .......................................................................................................
15
Rees
Street,
14
& Kotla v. Regents of the University of California
Francisco,
15 (2004) 115 13,14,15,16,17
Cal. App. 4th 283 .............................................................................
Gordon
Battery
16 Long v. California-Western States Life Ins. Co.
San
(1955) 43 Ca1.2d 871 20
................................................................................................................
275
17
0stling v. Loring
18 (1994) 27 CaI.App.4th 1731 .....................................................................................................
18
19 People v. Erickson
(1997) 57 Ca1.App.4th 1391 .........................................................................
17
20
People v. Gardeley
21 (1996) 14 Ca1.4th 605 ...............................................................................................................
19
22 People v. Hogan
(1982) 31 Ca1.3d 817 ................................................................................................................
15
23
People v. Louie
24 (1984) 158 CaI.App.3d Supp. 28 ..............................................................................................
11
25 People v. Loving
(1968) 258 Cal. App. 2d 84 ........................................................................................................
14
26
People v. McDowell
27 (2012), 54 Ca1.4th 395 ..............................................................................................................
14
28
-4-
DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION IN LIMINE N0. 4
TO LIMIT THE TESTIMONY OF PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DR. ALAN H. ROSENSTEIN
People v. Parrison
(1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 529 ......................................................................................................
11
People v. Price
LA.)
(1991) 1 _
20
Cal. 4th 324 ......... .......................................................................................................
People v. Prince
(2007) 40 Ca1.4th 17
1179 .............................................................................................................
People v. Richardson
(2008) 43 Ca1.4th 959 ...............................................................................................................
18
People v. Smith
\DOOQO" (2003) 30 Cal.4th 581 14
...............................................................................................................
Sanchez v. Brooke
(2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 126 .....................................................................................................
14
1o Schweitzer v. Westminster Investments
(2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1195 ...................................................................................................
18
11
Summers v. A.L. Gilbert Co.
2000
12 (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 13, 17, 19
1155 .........................................................................................
94111
LLP
Suite 13 Statutes
CA
Rees
Street,
14 Business and Professions Code
& Section 2056 20
..............................................................................................................
Francisco,
15
Gordon
Battery
Code of Civil Procedure
16 Section 2034.260 ......................................................................................................................
12
San
275
17 Evidence Code
Section 1 101 20
.............................................................................................................................
1s
Evidence Code ‘
19 Section 312 ...............................................................................................................................
13
20 Evidence Code
Section 350 .........................................................................................................................
11, 18
21
Evidence Code
22 Section 352 .........................................................................................................................
18, 21
23 Evidence Code
Section 608 ...............................................................................................................................
13
24
’
Evidence Code
25 Section 720 14, 16, 19
.............................................................................................................
15,
26 Evidence Code
Section 801 13, 14,17,19, 20
.................................................................................................
12,
27
Evidence Code
28 Section 805 ...............................................................................................................................
13
-5-
DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION 1N LIMNE NO. 4
To LIMIT THE TESTIMONY OF PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DR ALAN H. ROSENSTEIN
Regulations
California Civil Jury Instructions ‘
CACI 25 10 ................................................................................................................................
17
\lONUI-b
00
10
11
2000
12
94111
LLP
Suite 13
CA
Rees
Street,
14
& Francisco,
15
Gordon
Battery
16
San
275
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-6-
DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4
TO LIMIT THE TESTIMONY OF PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DR. ALAN H. ROSENSTEIN
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff disclosed Dr. Alan H. Rosenstein as an expert regarding Defendants’
éwN disciplinary actions and alleged other retaliatory conduct. (See Plaintiffs Amended Designation
of Experts, pg. 3:17-22, Ex. 27 to Declaration of Marcie I. Fitzsimmons In Support of
Defendants’ Motions in Limine [“Fitzsimmons Decl.”].) In his deposition testimony, however,
Dr. Rosenstein provided five opinions regarding the instant case that are outside the scope of his
expertise, transverse subjects for which he was not disclosed as an expert, and not fire proper
\DOOQQUI
subject for expert testimony. Dr. Rosenstein’s opinions on these topics will cause undue
prejudice, mislead the jury, confuse the issues, and waste time. In particular, Dr. Rosenstein
1o offered the following five opinions during his deposition that should be excluded at trial:
11
(1) Plaintiff did not engage in “disruptive behavior” in the workplace;
12
Defendants did not treat Plaintiff “with dignity and respect;”
2000
94111
(2)
LLP
Suite 13
Rees
CA (3) It was inappropriate for Defendants to place Plaintiff on a Performance
Street,
14 Improvement Plan (“PIP”);
& Francisco,
15
Gordon
(4) Defendants “pressured” Plaintiff “to leave the organization;” and
Battery
16
San
(5) Defendants became “confrontational” when Plaintiff and other physicians
275
17 “spoke out.”
1s Accordingly, Defendants PALO ALTO FOUNDATION MEDICAL GROUP, INC. (“the
19 Physician Group”), SUTTER HEALTH and PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION
20 (“PAMF”) (collectively referred to hereinafter as “Defendants”) jointly move for an order
21 limiting Dr. Rosenstein’s testimony solely to matters for which he is qualified, for which he was
22 properly disclosed as an expert witness, and for which are the proper subject for expert testimony
23 and therefore for an order excluding testimony related to those five opinions.
24 II. RELEVANT FACTS
25 A. Dr. Rosenstein’s Qualifications
26 Plaintiff disclosed Dr. Rosenstein as an expert who will proffer testimony:
27 [C]onceming defendants’ disciplinary actions and other retaliatory conduct,
including termination of Dr. Blum, as well as Dr. Blum’s and defendants’ conduct
28 related to Dr. Blum’s protests of defendants’ business policies, procedures,
-7-
DEFENDANT S’ JOINT MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4
TO LIMIT THE TESTDVIONY OF PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DR. ALAN H. ROSENSTEIN
practices and decisions.
(Id. at pg. 3:17-22, Ex. 27 to Fitzsimmons Decl.) Rosenstein practices internal medicine on a
mN
part-time basis and is a “consultant in health care management.” (See CV, Ex. 29 to
Fitzsimmons Decl.) He does not have any training, background, or certifications in Hmnan
Resources. (See Transcript of Deposition of Dr. Alan H. Rosenstein [“Rosenstein Depo.”] pp.
147:24-25, 14823-5, Ex. 28 to Fitzsimmons Decl.) He also has no experience directly managing
\OOOQQUI-b
other physicians. (Id. at 136:16-18, 136224-13726.) He has never placed anyone on a
Performance Improvement Plan nor has he participated in the disciplinary process related to
Performance Improvement Plans. (Id.at 136:24-13721.)
10 Dr. Rosenstein has not published any articles nor had any speaking engagements on
11 Performance Improvement Plans, doctors protesting an organization’s policies or practices, or on
2000
12 the retaliatory conduct of doctors. (Id. at 23:25-24:4, 24:10—25:3, 26:14-20.) He is admittedly
94111
LLP
Suite 13 not an expert on employee harassment or discrimination. (Id. at 159:1-6.)
CA
Rees
Street,
14 B. Testimony that Plaintiff Did Not Engage in “Disruptive Behavior”
& Francisco,
15 Dr. Rosenstein testified that he did not “see any evidence of any disruptive behavior
Gordon
Battery
16 whatsoever” from Plaintiff. (Id. at 699-10.) He defined “disruptive behavior” as “behavior that
San
275
17 has a significant impact on staff relationships.” (Id. at 81:17-20.) Dr. Rosenstein testified that he
18 did very little to ascertain whether Plaintiff engaged in “disruptive behavior”:
19 Q. And I want to talkjust a little bit about Dr. Blum's conduct: Okay?- You've
testified at little bit about it, but I have some follow up questions. Now, you were
20 obviously not present and didn't witness any of her conduct: Correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 And you've never talked with [Plaintiff]?
23 Never.
24 p>p>pYou never read her deposition testimony?
25 I only read what is here. I assume her deposition testimony is not here, and if
it's not I didn't read it.
26
43 Okay. And you haven't spoken with anyone other than Theresa Barta
27 [Plaintiffs counsel] about Dr. Blum's conduct: Right?
28 A. Yes. Correct.
—8-
DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION IN LIMNE NO. 4
TO LIMIT THE TESTIMONY OF PLAINTJFF’S EXPERT DR. ALAN H. ROSENSTEIN
(Id. at 1175-19.) He likewise admitted that he did not speak to Plaintiff or any of the staff
members regarding Plaintiffs conduct in the workplace. (Id. at 117:8-12.)
C. Testimony that Defendants Did Not Treat Plaintiff “With Dignity and Respect”
Dr. Rosenstein testified that there was “no respect, no dignity, and there was no really
organizational
“\IOUI-IRWN
help to help [Plaintiff] be successful.” (Id. at 72:15-17.) He testified that, “no one
was really trying to get to the core issue of what was going on and what they could do to help
[Plaintiff].” (Id.at 69:14-16.)
D. Testimony That the Performance Improvement Plan (“PIP”) Was Inappropriate
RD Dr. Rosenstein admitted that he was not familiar with the term “Performance
10 Improvement Plan,” but he nevertheless opined that it was not appropriate for Defendants to
11 place Plaintiff on a PIP Plan because “there was not enough information, nor enough homework,
2000
12 nor enough discussions around this to get to that stage.” (Id. at 103 :20-104:2, 1665-7, 101 :1-4.)
94111
LLP
Suite 13 He testified that he did not see any evidence thatjustified a performance improvement plan or
CA
Rees
Street,
14 that an “investigation” was conducted. (Id. at 16529-18, 167:8-9.) He testified that “a
& Francisco,
15 performance improvement plan is a punitive step,” describing it as “extreme,” that “a lot of other
Gordon
Battery
San
16 supportive type of actions that should have occurred” and that the issues could have been
275
17 resolved in an “amicable manner.” (Id.at 101:13-16; 102:7-8, 16529-16.)
18 E. Testimony that Defendants “Pressured” Plaintiff to Resign
19 Dr. Rosenstein testified that Plaintiff “was pressured to leave the organization.” (Id. at
2o 72:11-14.) He testified, “[Plaintiff] felt that she was pressured to -- based on what I read that
21 she was pressured to leave the organization.” (Id.at 94:15-17.) Dr. Rosenstein testified that in
22 his opinion, pressuring Plaintiff to resign is “a form of harassment.” (Id. at 159:19-16024.) He
23 further testified:
24 I’m not an expert on harassment. I know part of the harassment is the idea if you
are trying to do certain things and you're not able to do that and putting pressure
2s upon you, you know, in a way you're being harassed.
'26 (Id. at 159:23-16024.)
27 M
28 M
-9-
DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4
TO LIMIT THE TESTlMONY OF PLAlNTlFF’S EXPERT DR. ALAN H. ROSENSTEIN
Dr. Rosenstein testified that his opinion regarding his belief that Plaintiff was “pressured”
is based entirely on the allegation in the First Amended Complaint that “someone may have
given her three options,” to “leave with a severance,” or termination, or face the “third
alternative” which he could not recall at the time of the deposition. (Id.at 92:9-12, 94:5-11,
94:18-95:1, 93:20-22.)
F. Testimony that Defendants Became “Confrontational” When Plaintiff and Other
xoooxiaxuue.
Physicians “Spoke Out”
Dr. Rosenstein testified that “when [Plaintiff] spoke out... it turned into more of a
confrontational-type of relationship, rather than a supportive-type of relationship.” (Id. at 71 :1-4,.
1o 163216-20.) He testified that “[flor whatever reason, when [Plaintiff] spoke out about issues
11 which other physicians have also spoke out. . .it turned into confrontational relationships.” (Id. at
2000
12 71:16-23.) He testified that he saw “inferences that because she spoke out on certain sensitive
94111
LLP
Suite 13 topics that she was maybe perceived as not being a collegial member of the group.” (Id. at
CA
Rees
Street,
14 163 : 1 3-1 9.)
& Francisco,
15 Dr. Rosenstein further testified that there were other doctors, Dr. Kathryn Crozier and Dr.
Gordon
Battery
16 Adama Frye, whom Defendants treated “in the same or similar way” as Plaintiff. (Id. at 91 :16-
San
275
17 25.) He based on the deposition transcripts ofDrs. Crozier and Frye, and text messages he
18 reviewed. (Id. at 9221-25.) He admitted that he did not speak with either Drs. Crozier or Frye,
19 land that he did not review their personnel files. (Id. at 35:16-18, 9225-7.) In fact, he admitted
20 that he did not speak with anyone at the Physician Group or PAMF regarding Drs. Crozier’s or
21 Frye’s separation and thus, he does not actually know if Defendants’ handling of the
22 employment of either of those individuals was appropriate or inappropriate. (Id. at 9211-4.) He
23 likewise admitted that he does not know anything about the circumstances of their separation
24 from employment. (Id. at.92:1-25.)
25 G. Dr. Rosenstein’s Preparation for Rendering His Opinions
26 Dr. Rosenstein testified that he based his opinions related to this case based on his review
27 of the following:
28 ///
.10.
DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION IN LIMNE N0. 4
T0 LIMIT THE TESTIMONY OF PLAINTIFF ’S EXPERT DR. ALAN H. ROSENSTEIN
/ N
0 “Facts” made known to him through conversations with Plaintiff’s counsel;
- A limited number of documents provided to him by Plaintiff s counsel, of which he
only reviewed some of;
a five of the more than 50 deposition transcripts that were taken in this case; and
LII-AWN
- Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.
(Id. at 31:12-18, 66:2—8, 117:8-19, 139:20-140z8, 14224-24.) Dr. Rosenstein did not read a single
page of Plaintiff’s five-volume deposition transcript or the deposition transcripts of the three key
\ODOQO‘
witnesses (Drs. Curtis, Fischer, Smith) who counseled Plaintiff and participated in the
Performance Improvement Plan. (Id.) Dr. Rosenstein also did not speak with any witnesses in
10 this case and only reviewed excerpts from two physicians who no longer work at PAMF and had
11 no supervisory authority over Plaintiff (Drs. Crozier and Frye). (Id)
2000
12 Not surprisingly, Dr. Rosenstein admitted that he might be “missing some of the facts”
LLP
94111
Suite 13 that occurred since he had not read all of the documents related to any of the categories in the
CA
Rees
14 case. (Id. at 55 :4-8.)
Street,
& Francisco,
15 III. LEGAL ARGUMENT
Gordon
Battery
16 A. Testimony That Plaintiff Was Not A “Disruptive Physician” Should Be Excluded
San
275
17 1. Dr. Rosenstein’s Testimony that Plaintiff Was Not a “Disruptive Physician” Is
Irre evant
18
19 Only relevant evidence is admissible. (Evid. § 350.) Evidence is not relevant if it can
20 prove a fact only by inferences or deductions that are speculative or conj ectural in nature.
21 (People v. Louie (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d Supp. 28, 47; People v. Parrison (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d
22 529, 539.) As a threshold matter, Dr. Rosenstein’s testimony that he did not “see any evidence
23 of any disruptive behavior whatsoever” from Plaintiff is not relevant to any of the disputed facts
Preview
:Mur—wr:33H» 7:. 2,; p—l MARCIE ISOM FITZSIMMONS (SBN: 226906) EILEngfié’ H]EU T. WILLIAMS (SBN: 280585) GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP JAN-5 IA 3 :59 l 275 Battery Suite 2000 new Street, San Francisco, CA 94111 CLE- K 0F TOHE COURT Telephone: (415) 986—5900 Facsimile: (415) 986-8054 /\/fup Er§lom OURTOFCA $UN1Y0RF 05mm CLARA! MIsom@grsm.com B DEPU HWilliams @gr sm.co In \OOOQONUI-IAUJN two, .GEIXVfl Attorneys for Defendant PALO ALTO FOUNDATION MEDICAL GROUP, INC. LINDBERGH PORTER (SBN: 100091) LITTLER MENDELSON, P. C. 333 Bush Street, 34Lh Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-1940 T F acsimile: (415) 399-8490 LPorter@1ittler.com MAIKO NAKARAI-KANIVAS (SBN: 271710) 2000 LITTLER MENDELSON, RC. 94111 1255 Treat Blvd., Suite 600 LLP Suite Walnut Creek, CA 94597 CA Telephone: (925) 932-2468 Rees Street, Facsimile: (925) 946-9809 & MNakaraikanivas@littler.com Francisco, Gordon Battery Attorneys for Defendants SUTTER HEALTH and PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION San 275 NNNNNNNNND—Ib—lv—‘h—‘D—lb—lh—lur—IP‘ SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA OOQONUIJAWNt—‘OKOOOVONUI-PWNv-‘O DIANA P. BLUM, M.D., ) CASE NO. llSCV277582 ) Plaintiff, ) DEFENDANTS’ JOINT ) MOTION 1N LIMINE vs. ) TO LIMIT TI-IE TESTIMONY 0F PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT SUTTER HEALTH, a California corporation; ) DR. ALAN H. ROSENSTEIN PALO ALTO FOUNDATION MEDICAL ) GROUP, INC., a California corporation; ) No. 4 of 16 PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION, a ) California corporation; and DOES I through ) Trial Date: January 8, 2018 20, ) Time: 8:45 a.m. ) Dept: 16 Defendants. ) ) Complaint Filed: March 4, 2015 ) FAC Filed: August 7, 2015 DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION IN LIMNE NO. 4 TO LIMIT THE TESTIMONY OF PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DR. ALAN H. ROSENSTEIN TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 7 #m II. RELEVANT FACTS ........................................................................................................... 7 A. Dr. Rosenstein’s Qualifications ............................................................................... 7 B. Testimony that Plaintiff Did Not Engage in “Disruptive Behavior” ....................... 8 C. Testimony that Defendants Did Not Treat Plaintiff “With Dignity and \DOOQON Respec ” ................................................................................................................... 9 D. Testimony That the Performance Improvement Plan (“PIP”) Was . Inappropriate ............................................................................................................ 9 10 E. Testimony that Defendants “Pressured” Plaintiff to Resign .................................... 9 11 F. Testimony that Defendants Became “Confrontational” When Plaintiff and Other Physicians “Spoke Out” ............................................................................... 10 2000 12 94111 G. Dr. Rosenstein’s Preparation for Rendering His Opinions .................................... 10 LLP Suite 13 CA III. LEGAL ARGUIVLENT ....................................................................................................... 1 1 Rees Street, 14 A. Testimony That Plaintiff Was Not A “Disruptive Physician” Should Be & Gordon Francisco, Battery 15 Excluded ........................................... 1 1 16 1. Dr. Rosenstein’s Testimony that Plaintiff Was Not a “Disruptive San 275 Physician” Is Irrelevant .............................................................................. 11 17 2. Dr. Rosenstein’s Opinion On Whether Plaintiff Engaged In 18 “Disruptive Behavior” Is Not A Proper Subject Of Expert Opinion ......... 12 19 3. Dr. Rosenstein Was Not Disclosed as an Expert Regarding “Disruptive Physician Behavior” ............................................................ 12 20 4. Dr. Rosenstein Cannot Testify Under the Guise Of Expert Opinion 21 to a Central Issue at Hand .......................................................................... 13 22 B. Testimony That Defendants Did Not Treat Plaintiff “With Dignity and Respect” Is Not A Proper Subject Of Expert Opinion and Should Be 23 Excluded ................................................................................................................ 14 24 C. Testimony That the PIP Was Not Warranted Should Be Excluded ....................... 15 25 1. Dr. Rosenstein Is Not Qualified As An Expert On The Reasonableness of PIPs .............................................................................. 15 26 2. Dr. Rosenstein’s Opinion On The Reasonableness of PIP Invades 27 The Province Of The Jury and Is Improper ............................................... 15 28 -2- DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 TO LIMIT THE TESTIMONY OF PLAINTIFF ’S EXPERT DR. ALAN H. ROSENSTEIN D. Testimony That Defendants “Pressured” Plaintiff to Quit As a Form of “Harassment” Should Be Excluded ....................................................................... 16 1. Termination or Harassment ....................... Dr. Rosenstein Is Not Qualified As an Expert On Constructive 16 2. Dr Rosenstein Was Not Disclosed as an Expert on Constructive Termination or Harassment ........................................................................ 16 OO\IO\UIJ>WN 3. Dr. Rosenstein’s Testimony Is Improper Because It Invades The Province Of The Jury ................................................................................. 17 4. Dr. Rosenstein’s Testimony Is Irrelevant Because There is No Claim for Harassment ................................................................................ 18 5. Dr.‘ Rosenstein’s Testimony Based on Allegations in the FAC is \O Speculative ................................................................................................. 18 10 E. Testimony That Defendants Retaliated Against Plaintiff Should Be Excluded ................................................................................................................ 1 9 11 1. Dr. Rosenstein Is Not Qualified As An Expert On Retaliation ................. 19 2000 12 2. Dr. Rosenstein Attempts to Usurp the Jury’ 5 Function to Decide LLP 94111 Suite 13' the Ultimate Issue of Reta11at10n ................ ... ................... l9 CA Rees Street, 14 3. Dr. Rosenstein’s Testimony About Defendants’ Propensity to Be & “Confrontational” is Improper Character Evidence ................................... 20 Francisco, 15 Gordon Battery 4. Dr. Rosenstein’s Testimony Regarding Frye and Crozier is 16 Speculative and Will Cause Unfair Prejudice, Confusion and San 275 Waste of Time ................................................................................. 20 17 F. Any Probative Value is Substantially Outweighed by the Danger of Undue 1s Prejudice ................................................................................................................ 21 19 IV. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 21 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3- DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 TO LIMIT THE TESTIMONY OF PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DR. ALAN H. ROSENSTEIN , K/ TABLE OF AUTHORITIES N Page(s) Cases ' Bonds v. Roy (1999) 20 Cal. 4th 140 ........................................................................................................ 12, 16 Cota v. County of Los Angeles (1980) \OOOVO‘UI-bm 105 Cal.App.3d 282 ...................................................................................................... 18 Dee v. PCS Property Management, Inc. (2009) 174 Ca1.App.4th 390 ..................................................................................................... 19 Downer v. Bramet et a1. (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 837 ................................................................................................ 13, 15 10 Hughes v. Blue Cross ofNorthern California (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 832 ...................................................................................................... 18 11 Hyatt v. Sierra Boat Co. 2000 12 20 (1978) 79 CaI.App.3d 325 ........................................................................................................ 94111 LLP Suite 13 Korsak v. Atlas Hotels, Inc. CA (1992) 2 Ca1.App.4th 1516 ....................................................................................................... 15 Rees Street, 14 & Kotla v. Regents of the University of California Francisco, 15 (2004) 115 13,14,15,16,17 Cal. App. 4th 283 ............................................................................. Gordon Battery 16 Long v. California-Western States Life Ins. Co. San (1955) 43 Ca1.2d 871 20 ................................................................................................................ 275 17 0stling v. Loring 18 (1994) 27 CaI.App.4th 1731 ..................................................................................................... 18 19 People v. Erickson (1997) 57 Ca1.App.4th 1391 ......................................................................... 17 20 People v. Gardeley 21 (1996) 14 Ca1.4th 605 ............................................................................................................... 19 22 People v. Hogan (1982) 31 Ca1.3d 817 ................................................................................................................ 15 23 People v. Louie 24 (1984) 158 CaI.App.3d Supp. 28 .............................................................................................. 11 25 People v. Loving (1968) 258 Cal. App. 2d 84 ........................................................................................................ 14 26 People v. McDowell 27 (2012), 54 Ca1.4th 395 .............................................................................................................. 14 28 -4- DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION IN LIMINE N0. 4 TO LIMIT THE TESTIMONY OF PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DR. ALAN H. ROSENSTEIN People v. Parrison (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 529 ...................................................................................................... 11 People v. Price LA.) (1991) 1 _ 20 Cal. 4th 324 ......... ....................................................................................................... People v. Prince (2007) 40 Ca1.4th 17 1179 ............................................................................................................. People v. Richardson (2008) 43 Ca1.4th 959 ............................................................................................................... 18 People v. Smith \DOOQO" (2003) 30 Cal.4th 581 14 ............................................................................................................... Sanchez v. Brooke (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 126 ..................................................................................................... 14 1o Schweitzer v. Westminster Investments (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1195 ................................................................................................... 18 11 Summers v. A.L. Gilbert Co. 2000 12 (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 13, 17, 19 1155 ......................................................................................... 94111 LLP Suite 13 Statutes CA Rees Street, 14 Business and Professions Code & Section 2056 20 .............................................................................................................. Francisco, 15 Gordon Battery Code of Civil Procedure 16 Section 2034.260 ...................................................................................................................... 12 San 275 17 Evidence Code Section 1 101 20 ............................................................................................................................. 1s Evidence Code ‘ 19 Section 312 ............................................................................................................................... 13 20 Evidence Code Section 350 ......................................................................................................................... 11, 18 21 Evidence Code 22 Section 352 ......................................................................................................................... 18, 21 23 Evidence Code Section 608 ............................................................................................................................... 13 24 ’ Evidence Code 25 Section 720 14, 16, 19 ............................................................................................................. 15, 26 Evidence Code Section 801 13, 14,17,19, 20 ................................................................................................. 12, 27 Evidence Code 28 Section 805 ............................................................................................................................... 13 -5- DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION 1N LIMNE NO. 4 To LIMIT THE TESTIMONY OF PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DR ALAN H. ROSENSTEIN Regulations California Civil Jury Instructions ‘ CACI 25 10 ................................................................................................................................ 17 \lONUI-b 00 10 11 2000 12 94111 LLP Suite 13 CA Rees Street, 14 & Francisco, 15 Gordon Battery 16 San 275 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -6- DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 TO LIMIT THE TESTIMONY OF PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DR. ALAN H. ROSENSTEIN I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff disclosed Dr. Alan H. Rosenstein as an expert regarding Defendants’ éwN disciplinary actions and alleged other retaliatory conduct. (See Plaintiffs Amended Designation of Experts, pg. 3:17-22, Ex. 27 to Declaration of Marcie I. Fitzsimmons In Support of Defendants’ Motions in Limine [“Fitzsimmons Decl.”].) In his deposition testimony, however, Dr. Rosenstein provided five opinions regarding the instant case that are outside the scope of his expertise, transverse subjects for which he was not disclosed as an expert, and not fire proper \DOOQQUI subject for expert testimony. Dr. Rosenstein’s opinions on these topics will cause undue prejudice, mislead the jury, confuse the issues, and waste time. In particular, Dr. Rosenstein 1o offered the following five opinions during his deposition that should be excluded at trial: 11 (1) Plaintiff did not engage in “disruptive behavior” in the workplace; 12 Defendants did not treat Plaintiff “with dignity and respect;” 2000 94111 (2) LLP Suite 13 Rees CA (3) It was inappropriate for Defendants to place Plaintiff on a Performance Street, 14 Improvement Plan (“PIP”); & Francisco, 15 Gordon (4) Defendants “pressured” Plaintiff “to leave the organization;” and Battery 16 San (5) Defendants became “confrontational” when Plaintiff and other physicians 275 17 “spoke out.” 1s Accordingly, Defendants PALO ALTO FOUNDATION MEDICAL GROUP, INC. (“the 19 Physician Group”), SUTTER HEALTH and PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION 20 (“PAMF”) (collectively referred to hereinafter as “Defendants”) jointly move for an order 21 limiting Dr. Rosenstein’s testimony solely to matters for which he is qualified, for which he was 22 properly disclosed as an expert witness, and for which are the proper subject for expert testimony 23 and therefore for an order excluding testimony related to those five opinions. 24 II. RELEVANT FACTS 25 A. Dr. Rosenstein’s Qualifications 26 Plaintiff disclosed Dr. Rosenstein as an expert who will proffer testimony: 27 [C]onceming defendants’ disciplinary actions and other retaliatory conduct, including termination of Dr. Blum, as well as Dr. Blum’s and defendants’ conduct 28 related to Dr. Blum’s protests of defendants’ business policies, procedures, -7- DEFENDANT S’ JOINT MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 TO LIMIT THE TESTDVIONY OF PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DR. ALAN H. ROSENSTEIN practices and decisions. (Id. at pg. 3:17-22, Ex. 27 to Fitzsimmons Decl.) Rosenstein practices internal medicine on a mN part-time basis and is a “consultant in health care management.” (See CV, Ex. 29 to Fitzsimmons Decl.) He does not have any training, background, or certifications in Hmnan Resources. (See Transcript of Deposition of Dr. Alan H. Rosenstein [“Rosenstein Depo.”] pp. 147:24-25, 14823-5, Ex. 28 to Fitzsimmons Decl.) He also has no experience directly managing \OOOQQUI-b other physicians. (Id. at 136:16-18, 136224-13726.) He has never placed anyone on a Performance Improvement Plan nor has he participated in the disciplinary process related to Performance Improvement Plans. (Id.at 136:24-13721.) 10 Dr. Rosenstein has not published any articles nor had any speaking engagements on 11 Performance Improvement Plans, doctors protesting an organization’s policies or practices, or on 2000 12 the retaliatory conduct of doctors. (Id. at 23:25-24:4, 24:10—25:3, 26:14-20.) He is admittedly 94111 LLP Suite 13 not an expert on employee harassment or discrimination. (Id. at 159:1-6.) CA Rees Street, 14 B. Testimony that Plaintiff Did Not Engage in “Disruptive Behavior” & Francisco, 15 Dr. Rosenstein testified that he did not “see any evidence of any disruptive behavior Gordon Battery 16 whatsoever” from Plaintiff. (Id. at 699-10.) He defined “disruptive behavior” as “behavior that San 275 17 has a significant impact on staff relationships.” (Id. at 81:17-20.) Dr. Rosenstein testified that he 18 did very little to ascertain whether Plaintiff engaged in “disruptive behavior”: 19 Q. And I want to talkjust a little bit about Dr. Blum's conduct: Okay?- You've testified at little bit about it, but I have some follow up questions. Now, you were 20 obviously not present and didn't witness any of her conduct: Correct? 21 A. Yes. 22 And you've never talked with [Plaintiff]? 23 Never. 24 p>p>pYou never read her deposition testimony? 25 I only read what is here. I assume her deposition testimony is not here, and if it's not I didn't read it. 26 43 Okay. And you haven't spoken with anyone other than Theresa Barta 27 [Plaintiffs counsel] about Dr. Blum's conduct: Right? 28 A. Yes. Correct. —8- DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION IN LIMNE NO. 4 TO LIMIT THE TESTIMONY OF PLAINTJFF’S EXPERT DR. ALAN H. ROSENSTEIN (Id. at 1175-19.) He likewise admitted that he did not speak to Plaintiff or any of the staff members regarding Plaintiffs conduct in the workplace. (Id. at 117:8-12.) C. Testimony that Defendants Did Not Treat Plaintiff “With Dignity and Respect” Dr. Rosenstein testified that there was “no respect, no dignity, and there was no really organizational “\IOUI-IRWN help to help [Plaintiff] be successful.” (Id. at 72:15-17.) He testified that, “no one was really trying to get to the core issue of what was going on and what they could do to help [Plaintiff].” (Id.at 69:14-16.) D. Testimony That the Performance Improvement Plan (“PIP”) Was Inappropriate RD Dr. Rosenstein admitted that he was not familiar with the term “Performance 10 Improvement Plan,” but he nevertheless opined that it was not appropriate for Defendants to 11 place Plaintiff on a PIP Plan because “there was not enough information, nor enough homework, 2000 12 nor enough discussions around this to get to that stage.” (Id. at 103 :20-104:2, 1665-7, 101 :1-4.) 94111 LLP Suite 13 He testified that he did not see any evidence thatjustified a performance improvement plan or CA Rees Street, 14 that an “investigation” was conducted. (Id. at 16529-18, 167:8-9.) He testified that “a & Francisco, 15 performance improvement plan is a punitive step,” describing it as “extreme,” that “a lot of other Gordon Battery San 16 supportive type of actions that should have occurred” and that the issues could have been 275 17 resolved in an “amicable manner.” (Id.at 101:13-16; 102:7-8, 16529-16.) 18 E. Testimony that Defendants “Pressured” Plaintiff to Resign 19 Dr. Rosenstein testified that Plaintiff “was pressured to leave the organization.” (Id. at 2o 72:11-14.) He testified, “[Plaintiff] felt that she was pressured to -- based on what I read that 21 she was pressured to leave the organization.” (Id.at 94:15-17.) Dr. Rosenstein testified that in 22 his opinion, pressuring Plaintiff to resign is “a form of harassment.” (Id. at 159:19-16024.) He 23 further testified: 24 I’m not an expert on harassment. I know part of the harassment is the idea if you are trying to do certain things and you're not able to do that and putting pressure 2s upon you, you know, in a way you're being harassed. '26 (Id. at 159:23-16024.) 27 M 28 M -9- DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 TO LIMIT THE TESTlMONY OF PLAlNTlFF’S EXPERT DR. ALAN H. ROSENSTEIN Dr. Rosenstein testified that his opinion regarding his belief that Plaintiff was “pressured” is based entirely on the allegation in the First Amended Complaint that “someone may have given her three options,” to “leave with a severance,” or termination, or face the “third alternative” which he could not recall at the time of the deposition. (Id.at 92:9-12, 94:5-11, 94:18-95:1, 93:20-22.) F. Testimony that Defendants Became “Confrontational” When Plaintiff and Other xoooxiaxuue. Physicians “Spoke Out” Dr. Rosenstein testified that “when [Plaintiff] spoke out... it turned into more of a confrontational-type of relationship, rather than a supportive-type of relationship.” (Id. at 71 :1-4,. 1o 163216-20.) He testified that “[flor whatever reason, when [Plaintiff] spoke out about issues 11 which other physicians have also spoke out. . .it turned into confrontational relationships.” (Id. at 2000 12 71:16-23.) He testified that he saw “inferences that because she spoke out on certain sensitive 94111 LLP Suite 13 topics that she was maybe perceived as not being a collegial member of the group.” (Id. at CA Rees Street, 14 163 : 1 3-1 9.) & Francisco, 15 Dr. Rosenstein further testified that there were other doctors, Dr. Kathryn Crozier and Dr. Gordon Battery 16 Adama Frye, whom Defendants treated “in the same or similar way” as Plaintiff. (Id. at 91 :16- San 275 17 25.) He based on the deposition transcripts ofDrs. Crozier and Frye, and text messages he 18 reviewed. (Id. at 9221-25.) He admitted that he did not speak with either Drs. Crozier or Frye, 19 land that he did not review their personnel files. (Id. at 35:16-18, 9225-7.) In fact, he admitted 20 that he did not speak with anyone at the Physician Group or PAMF regarding Drs. Crozier’s or 21 Frye’s separation and thus, he does not actually know if Defendants’ handling of the 22 employment of either of those individuals was appropriate or inappropriate. (Id. at 9211-4.) He 23 likewise admitted that he does not know anything about the circumstances of their separation 24 from employment. (Id. at.92:1-25.) 25 G. Dr. Rosenstein’s Preparation for Rendering His Opinions 26 Dr. Rosenstein testified that he based his opinions related to this case based on his review 27 of the following: 28 /// .10. DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION IN LIMNE N0. 4 T0 LIMIT THE TESTIMONY OF PLAINTIFF ’S EXPERT DR. ALAN H. ROSENSTEIN / N 0 “Facts” made known to him through conversations with Plaintiff’s counsel; - A limited number of documents provided to him by Plaintiff s counsel, of which he only reviewed some of; a five of the more than 50 deposition transcripts that were taken in this case; and LII-AWN - Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. (Id. at 31:12-18, 66:2—8, 117:8-19, 139:20-140z8, 14224-24.) Dr. Rosenstein did not read a single page of Plaintiff’s five-volume deposition transcript or the deposition transcripts of the three key \ODOQO‘ witnesses (Drs. Curtis, Fischer, Smith) who counseled Plaintiff and participated in the Performance Improvement Plan. (Id.) Dr. Rosenstein also did not speak with any witnesses in 10 this case and only reviewed excerpts from two physicians who no longer work at PAMF and had 11 no supervisory authority over Plaintiff (Drs. Crozier and Frye). (Id) 2000 12 Not surprisingly, Dr. Rosenstein admitted that he might be “missing some of the facts” LLP 94111 Suite 13 that occurred since he had not read all of the documents related to any of the categories in the CA Rees 14 case. (Id. at 55 :4-8.) Street, & Francisco, 15 III. LEGAL ARGUMENT Gordon Battery 16 A. Testimony That Plaintiff Was Not A “Disruptive Physician” Should Be Excluded San 275 17 1. Dr. Rosenstein’s Testimony that Plaintiff Was Not a “Disruptive Physician” Is Irre evant 18 19 Only relevant evidence is admissible. (Evid. § 350.) Evidence is not relevant if it can 20 prove a fact only by inferences or deductions that are speculative or conj ectural in nature. 21 (People v. Louie (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d Supp. 28, 47; People v. Parrison (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 22 529, 539.) As a threshold matter, Dr. Rosenstein’s testimony that he did not “see any evidence 23 of any disruptive behavior whatsoever” from Plaintiff is not relevant to any of the disputed facts