Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-02265/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-02265-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD TURNER,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-02265-WHO 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: 

SANCTIONS

During the testimony of defendant Dr. Rivera on March 6, 2019, it became clear that she 

had failed to meet her obligations to search for documents in her possession, custody, or control 

and to produce those documents if they existed, including notes that became a centerpiece of her 

testimony. Dr. Rivera and her counsel, Mitchell, Brisso, Delaney & Vrieze, LLP, are ORDERED 

TO SHOW CAUSE why they should not be sanctioned in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 26 (a)(1)(A)(i) and (ii), and (g)(3). The parties shall follow the procedure below.

Within seven days of the verdict being rendered in this court, Dr. Rivera shall:

1. Search for the “process notes” she discussed at length in her testimony that she has not 

produced, as well as all documents that are responsive to Plaintiff’s Requests for 

Production of Documents (Trial Exhibit 28), whether or not she considers them her 

“private copies” or thinks they are duplicative of other documents produced by another 

party. 

2. File a declaration under penalty of perjury that:

a. Attaches all of the documents she has located. 

b. Explains where she searched, why she searched there, and what explanation she 

has for documents she knows were in her possession, custody, or control at one 

Case 3:17-cv-02265-WHO Document 167 Filed 03/08/19 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

time but cannot locate now. 

c. States the first date on which she discussed having taken the “process notes” 

with her counsel and who that conversation was with. 

d. Attaches all written communications with her counsel that discuss her 

discovery obligations, including at the time of the initial disclosure and in 

responding to the Request for Production. At her choice, these communications 

may be redacted to protect attorney-client information or lodged with the court 

and not shared with counsel for Mr. Turner. 

Within seven days of the verdict being rendered in this court, Ms. Delaney shall:

1. File a declaration under penalty of perjury that:

a. Details the communications she and her firm had with Dr. Rivera regarding 

her discovery obligations.

b. Attaches all written communications to and from Dr. Rivera that discuss her 

discovery obligations, including at the time of the initial disclosure and in 

responding to the Request for Production. These communications may be 

redacted to protect attorney-client information other than the discussion of 

Dr. Rivera’s discovery obligations or lodged with the court and not shared 

with counsel for Mr. Turner.

c. States the first date on which she learned that Dr. Rivera had taken the 

“process notes” in question; if she is not the first person from her firm who 

discussed the notes with Dr. Rivera, she shall obtain a declaration from that 

person and file it contemporaneously with her declaration. 

Within seven days of the verdict, counsel for Dr. Rivera and Mitchell, Brisso, Delaney & 

Vrieze, LLP, may also file a memorandum explaining why sanctions are inappropriate in this case.

Seven days thereafter, counsel for Mr. Turner may, but need not, file a memorandum and 

any declarations identifying any matters of concern. If counsel for Mr. Turner makes such a 

filing, counsel for Dr. Rivera and Mitchell, Brisso, Delaney & Vrieze, LLP may file a reply seven 

days later. 

Case 3:17-cv-02265-WHO Document 167 Filed 03/08/19 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

If needed, I will set a hearing (probably to coincide with any post-trial motions) after 

reviewing the written materials. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 8, 2019

William H. Orrick

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-02265-WHO Document 167 Filed 03/08/19 Page 3 of 3