Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/18520652/75/RESPONSE-TO-REQUEST-NO-75
Timestamp: 2013-12-05 05:09:16
Document Index: 394779633

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 636', '§ 636', '§ 1040', '§ 1040', '§ 1157', '§ 1040', '§ 1040', '§ 1040', '§ 1040']

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 75 for 134 Request for Reconsideration Re RPD1
Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡DownloadStandard viewFull view of .Add noteSave to My LibrarySync to mobileLook up keyword or sectionLike thisShare on social networks1Activity×There was a problem sending you an sms. Check your phone number or try again later.To get Scribd mobile enter your number and we'll send you a link to the Scribd app for iPhone & Android.We've sent a link to the Scribd app. If you didn't receive it, try again.Text meWe'll never share your phone number.iTunes App Store | Google Play Store×Share to your social networks.TweetEmbedTable Of ContentsRESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 1RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 2RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 3RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 4RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 5RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 6RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 7RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 8RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 9RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 10RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 11RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 12RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 13RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 14RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 15RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 16RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 17RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 18RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 19RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 20RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 21RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 22RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 23RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 24RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 25RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 26RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 27RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 28RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 29RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 30RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 31RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 32RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 33RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 34RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 35RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 36RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 37RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 38RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 39RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 40RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 41RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 42RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 43RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 44RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 45RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 46RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 47RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 48RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 49RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 50RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 51RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 52RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 53RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 54RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 55RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 56RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 57RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 58RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 59RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 60RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 61RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 62RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 63RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 64RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 65RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 66RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 67RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 68RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 69RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 70RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 71RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 72RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 73RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 74RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 75RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 76RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 77RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 78RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 79RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 800 of .Results for: No results containing your search query{{& result_text }}
P. 1134 Request for Reconsideration Re RPD1134 Request for Reconsideration Re RPD1Ratings: 0|Views: 2,015|Likes: 2Published by Eugene D. LeeMore info: categoriesTypes, Research, LawPublished by: Eugene D. Lee on Aug 13, 2009Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Free download as PDF, TXT or read online for free from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee MoreSee lesshttp://www.scribd.com/doc/18520652/134-Request-for-Reconsideration-Re-RPD102/06/2013pdftextoriginal PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RULING ON PLAINTIFF’SMOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION AND FURTHER RESPONSES 1
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728Eugene D. Lee SB# 236812L
555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100Los Angeles, California 90013Telephone: (213) 992-3299Facsimile: (213) 596-0487Email: elee@LOEL.comAttorneys for Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIADAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.,
COUNTY OF KERN; et al.
Defendants.Case No. 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FORRECONSIDERATION BY THE DISTRICTCOURT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE’SRULING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TOCOMPEL PRODUCTION AND FURTHERRESPONSES
[28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Local Rule 72-303]
Date Action Filed: January 6, 2007Date Set for Trial: December 3, 2008Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O. (“Plaintiff”) respectfully submits the following points andauthorities in support of his request for reconsideration of Magistrate Judge Theresa A. Goldner’s May9, 2008 order (“Order”) granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff’s motion to compel production andfurther responses by Defendant to requests for production, set one (“RPD1”). (Doc. 124).
Plaintiff David F. Jadwin, D.O., F.C.A.P., former Chair of Pathology at Kern Medical Center(“KMC”) and senior pathologist since 2000, filed a complaint on January 6, 2007. The complaintalleges, among other things, that Defendants engaged in the following illegal acts: defamation,whistleblower retaliation, disability discrimination and failure to accommodate, medical leaveinterference and retaliation, demotion and pay reduction without due process, and Fair Labor Standard
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 1 of 101
PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RULING ON PLAINTIFF’SMOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION AND FURTHER RESPONSES 2
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728Act violations. When Plaintiff began reporting several patient care quality issues at KMC starting in2001, Defendants responded by singling out and targeting Plaintiff for harassment, retaliation andhumiliation over the course of the next six years. In 2005, Defendants’ conduct finally caused Plaintiff to suffer clinical depression. When Plaintiff began reduced work schedule sick leave in 2006 to treat hisdepression, Defendants responded by demoting him and retaliating against him further, effectivelyending Plaintiff’s pathology chair career.
On October 11, 2007, Plaintiff David F. Jadwin (“Plaintiff”) served Requests for Production of Documents (“RPD1”) on Defendant County of Kern (“Defendant”).On November 20, 2007, Defendant served initial responses to Plaintiff’s RPD1 (“Response 1”).Thereafter, Plaintiff met and conferred extensively with Defendant in an attempt to resolve discoverydisputes.On December 21, 2007, Plaintiff was forced to file a motion to compel production and furtherresponses to RPD1 (Doc. 82).On January 14, 2008, Plaintiff’s motion was heard by Magistrate Judge Theresa Goldner. At thehearing, Defendant withdrew objections to Requests 32, 33 and 40, among others. (See Exhibit 1, 6:10-15 and Exhibit 2, 20:16-19).On May 9, 2008, Magistrate Judge Goldner issued the Order granting in part and denying in partPlaintiff’s motion to compel production and further responses to RPD1. (Doc. 124, Exhibit 2).
AUTHORITY FOR MOTION
A District Court judge may reconsider pre-trial matters where it has been shown that themagistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Local Rule72-303. A motion to reconsider is appropriate if the court committed clear error or the initial decisionwas manifestly unjust.
, 5 F.3d 1255, 1263(9th Cir. 1993).
Plaintiff contends that the Order with regard to Request Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 28, 29, 30, 32,33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 45, 51, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 65, 66, 67, 70, 71, 72, 73, and 78, is clearly
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 2 of 101
PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RULING ON PLAINTIFF’SMOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION AND FURTHER RESPONSES 3
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728erroneous and contrary to law.
Assertion of “Confidential Personnel Privilege” under Cal. Ev. C. § 1040 Does NotAppear to Support Construing an Assertion of Federal Privacy Privilege
The Court held that wherever Defendant asserted “confidential personnel privilege” underCalifornia Evidence Code § 1040 (§ 1157 only pertains to peer review privilege) as an objection, theCourt would
construe that as an assertion of federal privacy privilege:Here, nearly all of Defendants’ discovery responses assert a “confidential personnelprivilege” without citing a specific source of law for the privilege. At the hearing on themotion, Defendants’ counsel relied on California Evidence Code §§ 1040 and 1157 asthe source of this privilege. To the extent that Defendants assert a “
confidentialpersonnel privilege
” as a state law privilege, it is inapplicable for the same reasons thatthe state law peer review privilege is inapplicable: state law privileges have noapplication in federal question cases. Agster, 433 F. 3d at 838-839. However, given thenature of documents requested and the reasons given for objecting to their disclosure,
the Court construes the assertion of this privilege as also raising a right of privacy
.(Order, 5:3-12) (emphasis added).Using this approach, the Court
asserted the objection of federal privacy privilege with regardto a large number of Plaintiff’s Requests – Request Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 36, 37,38, 39, 40, 41, 45, 51, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 65, 66, 67, 70, 71, 72, 73, 78. The Court then engaged in abalancing test and concluded in every instance that a protective order was required.However, the “confidential personnel privilege” under California Evidence Code § 1040 doesimplicate the constitutional right of privacy recognized by federal law. Cal. Ev. C. § 1040 states inrelevant part:§ 1040. Privilege for official information(a) As used in this section, "official information" means information acquired inconfidence by a public employee in the course of his or her duty and not open, orofficially disclosed, to the public prior to the time the claim of privilege is made.(b) A public entity has a privilege to refuse to disclose official information, and toprevent another from disclosing official information, if the privilege is claimed by aperson authorized by the public entity to do so and:(1) Disclosure is forbidden by an act of the Congress of the United States or a statute of this state; or(2) Disclosure of the information is against the public interest because there is anecessity for preserving the confidentiality of the information that outweighs thenecessity for disclosure in the interest of justice; but no privilege may be claimed underthis paragraph if any person authorized to do so has consented that the information bedisclosed in the proceeding. In determining whether disclosure of the information isagainst the public interest, the interest of the public entity as a party in the outcome of the proceeding may not be considered.Defendant’s assertion of “confidential personnel privilege” concerns the conditional
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 134 Filed 05/19/2008 Page 3 of 101