Motion To Compel Productioninspection of Documents Or ThingsMotionCal. Super. - 4th Dist.October 10, 2014AN Ln BA W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 23 26 27 28 Thomas H. Bienert, Jr., (State Bar No. 135311) tbienert@bmkattorrneys.com Michael R. Williams, (State Bar No. 192222) mwilliams @bmkattorneys.com Ali Matin, (State Bar No. 268452) amatin @bmkattorneys.com BIENERT, MILLER & KATZMAN, PLC 903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 350 San Clemente, California 92673 Telephone (949) 369-3700/Facsimile (949) 369-3701 Attorneys for Plaintiff Lori Y. Nekota ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California, County of Orange 05/20/2016 at 01:32:00 Pi Clerk of the Superior Court By Enrique “weloz, Deputy Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF COUNTY OF ORANGE —- CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER LORI Y. NEKOTA, an individual; Plaintiff, Vv. WMC-A, INC., a California corporation; INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, INC., a Nevada corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. 30-2014-00750046-CU-WT-CJC Judge: Hon. Frederick P. Aguirre Dept.: C23 PLAINTIFF LORI Y. NEKOTA’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS IN RESPONSE TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION PROPOUNDED ON (1) DEFENDANT WMC-A, INC. AND (2) DEFENDANT INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, INC. [Filed concurrently with separate statements for defendant WMC-A, Inc. and defendant Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc.] Date: June 14, 2016 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept.: C23 Complaint Filed: October 10, 2014 Trial Date: July 25, 2016 MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AN Un BA W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TO DEFENDANTS AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on Tuesday at 8:30 a.m., in Department C23 of this Court located at 700 Civic Center Drive, Santa Ana, California, plaintiff Lori Y. Nekota (“Plaintiff”) will move the Court for an order compelling defendants WMC-A, Inc. and Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (collectively, the “Defendants”) to produce documents in response to the demands for inspection set forth in the two Separate Statements of Demands for Inspection and Responses in Dispute filed concurrently with this motion. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that before filing this motion, Plaintiff met and conferred with Defendants on multiple occasions, but those efforts have yielded no documents. This motion is made on the grounds that good cause exists for production of the documents demanded, the demands are relevant to the subject matter of the action, and Defendants’ refusal to provide even a single document in response to the demands lacks substantial justification. The motion will be based upon this Notice, the memorandum in support, the declaration of Ali Matin, two Separate Statements of Demands for Inspection and Responses in Dispute filed concurrently with this motion, the arguments of counsel, and the records and files in this action. DATED: May 20, 2016 BIENERT, MILLER & KATZMAN, PLC By: /s/Ali Matin Michael R. Williams Attorneys for Plaintiff Lori Y. Nekota NOTICE OF MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AN Ln BA W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 23 26 27 28 LL Introduction. In October 2015, plaintiff Lori Nekota (“Plaintiff”) served defendants WMC-A, Inc. (“WMC”) and Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (“IHHIL,” and together with WMC, the “Defendants”) with identical sets of requests for production (the “Requests”), each with six requests numbered 55 through 60. Plaintiff granted extensions to respond to the Requests, and, in January 2016, Defendants served boilerplate objections (“Objections”). After meeting and conferring regarding the Objections, Defendants acknowledged that they needed to make a legitimate effort to comply with Plaintiff’s demands and stated that they would produce documents, subject to determining what was in their files and computer systems and addressing privacy concerns for nonparty patients under the Health Information Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and similar patient privacy statutes. To date, Defendants have not produced a single document in response to any of the Requests. Instead, Defendants have repeatedly raised HIPAA and patient privacy concerns as the primary reason to justify Defendants’ months-long production delay. The continuing delay at this point in the proceedings (i.e., with trial fast approaching) is prejudicial. Thus, Plaintiff has filed this motion to seek immediate production of documents, subject to protections for patient privacy. First, HIPAA and similar patient privacy statutes that Defendants have repeatedly invoked permit disclosure of medical information pursuant to a court order and without patient authorization. An order from this Court compelling production will preclude Defendants from using these statutes as an excuse to further delay production. Second, Plaintiff has no interest in publically disclosing patient information and only seeks documents for use in this litigation. Indeed, Plaintiff has offered to stipulate to a protective order that places restrictions regarding the use and disclosure of medical records, but her offer has been rejected by Defendants. Even now, Plaintiff is willing to submit to a protective order prohibiting the Plaintiff from using or disclosing protected health information for any purpose other than for litigation and requiring the return (or destruction) of the protected material at the conclusion of the litigation. All Plaintiff is asking for, in other words, are documents to which she is entitled under the liberal provisions of the Discovery Act for use in connection with prosecuting her claims in this case. 1 MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AN Un BA W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Accordingly, for the reasons stated above and below, and as further discussed in the two accompanying separate statements regarding the Requests, the Court should overrule all of Defendants’ objections, grant the motion, and order immediate production of documents. IL. Statement of relevant facts. On October 10, 2014, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants asserting claims for (1) wrongful termination in violation of public policy and (2) violation of Health and Safety Code section 1278.5. In her complaint, Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that she was employed by WMC as Director of Pharmacy for over a decade, received only positive employee reviews, and routinely received the maximum allowable salary increases while working at the medical center. Compl. 9. She further alleges that WMC unlawfully terminated her employment in retaliation for discovering and reporting illegal activity by other WMC employees. Compl. qq 12, 16-27. A. The Requests. On October 7, 2015, Plaintiff served Defendants with identical sets of requests for production numbered 55 through 60. Defendants requested (and received) extensions to respond to the Requests, and they served Objections on January 4, 2016. Defendants did not produce a single document in connection with the Requests. B. Plaintiff’s attempts to meet and confer. On February 16, 2016, Plaintiff sent Defendants a meet and confer email, pointing out numerous deficiencies with Defendants’ Objections. The parties exchanged emails and phone calls over the course of several months regarding the Defendants’ Objections. True and correct copies of the parties’ email communications are attached collectively as Exhibits 1 and 2 to the Declaration of Michael R. Williams (the “Williams Decl.”) and are numerically labeled as EMAILS001 through -018 for ease of reference. Although Defendants have stated that they will provide documents and information, subject to addressing patient confidentiality concerns, they have not provided a single document and the information regarding the production has been sparse and tardy. Given that trial is fast approaching, Plaintiff is left with no alternative but to file this motion. 2 MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AN Un BA W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 III. The Court should order immediate production of documents. Under the Civil Discovery Act (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2016.010 et seq.), the scope of permissible discovery is very broad. “[A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010. “In the context of discovery, evidence is ‘relevant’ if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement.” Glenfed Development Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal. App. 4th 1113, 1117 (1997). “Admissibility is not the test, and it is sufficient if the information sought might reasonably lead to other, admissible evidence.” Id. “Any doubts regarding relevance are generally resolved in favor of allowing the discovery.” Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein, 158 Cal. App. 4th 60, 98 (2007). Plaintiff's Requests 55 through 60 cover six general document categories: (a) emails sent and received by Plaintiff from January 1, 2012 through February 24, 2014 (Request 55); (b) documents located on Plaintiffs hard drive for her work computer (Request 56); (c) hard copy documents located in Plaintiffs office at WMC (Request 57); (d) notes by Defendants” employees during any meetings with Plaintiff for the period of August 1, 2013 through February 24, 2014 (Request 58); (e) reports generated by Plaintiff using the Pyxis or Pandora computer systems at WMC between January 1, 2012 through February 24, 2014 (Request 59); and (f) documents reflecting any penalties or discipline based on a “Letter of Admonishment” issued by the State Board of Pharmacy (Request 60). Defendants’ initial Objections consisted almost entirely of improper boilerplate objections that lacked specificity. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2031.240(b) (objections must “[s]et forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection”). Nevertheless, during the parties’ meet and confer communications, Defendants acknowledged that they could not withhold responsive documents and agreed to review the documents within their possession and on their computer systems in order to provide proper answers and documents in response to the Requests, subject to addressing confidentiality concerns for nonparty patients. Williams Decl. Ex. 2 EMAILSO013-18. During the months Plaintiff has waited for production, Defendants have repeatedly raised patient privacy concerns under the Health Information Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and the federal Health Information Technology for Economic 3 MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AN Un BA W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 and Clinical Health Act (HITECH) as reasons to delay production. See, e.g., Williams Decl. Ex. 1 EMAILS001-12. Defendants cannot keep invoking these statutes to continually delay (and in effect deny) legitimate discovery requests. Indeed, HIPAA'’s privacy provisions explicitly allow for disclosure of medical information in the course of an administrative or judicial proceeding, subject to certain conditions. See 45 C.F.R. § 164.512(e) (providing the standard for disclosure in judicial proceedings); Snibbe v. Superior Court, 224 Cal. App. 4th 184, 197 (2014) (HIPAA “allow[s] disclosure of medical information pursuant to a court order without patient authorization”); Hitzig v. Hubbard, 2011 WL 3360410, at *3 (D. Vt. Aug. 3,2011) (“While [defendant] makes frequent reference to HIPAA and HITECH, she does not appear to be arguing for an absolute bar to discovery. Such an argument would be misplaced, as federal confidentiality law allows for health information to be disclosed in judicial proceedings.”). In any case, Plaintiff has offered to enter into a stipulated protective order to satisfy Defendants’ concerns regarding patient confidentiality and HIPAA requirements. See, e.g., Allen v. Woodford, 2007 WL 309485, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2007) (“protective order is adequate under HIPAA to protect third party medical records” because it “(1) [p]rohibits the parties from using or disclosing the protected health information for any purpose other than the litigation or proceeding for which such information was requested; and (2) requires the return of the protected material at the conclusion of the litigation” under 45 C.F.R. § 164.512(e)(v)); Gray v. Cty. of Riverside, 2014 WL 5304915, at *15 n.6 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2014) (noting that parties to the litigation filed all documents related to nonparty medical records under seal pursuant to the protective order issued in the action). ! Defendants, however, have declined Plaintiff’s offer. Given Defendants’ delay in producing even a single document in response to any of the Requests, and the fact that trial is fast approaching, Plaintiff requests that the Court compel immediate production of documents as set forth in the Requests, subject to protections regarding nonparty patient information, such as a prohibition on disclosing protected health information for any purpose other than this litigation and U Haligowski v. Superior Court, 200 Cal. App. 4th 983, 990 n.4 (2011) (Unpublished federal opinions are citable notwithstanding California Rules of Court 8.1115, which only bars citation of unpublished California opinions). 4 MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AN Un BA W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 return (or destruction) of all protected documents at the conclusion of the litigation. See 45 C.F.R. § 164.512(e)(v) (setting forth the requirements of a qualified protective order under HIPAA). IV. Conclusion. The Court should overrule all of Defendants’ objections, grant the motion, and order immediate production of documents. DATED: May 20, 2016 BIENERT, MILLER & KATZMAN, PLC By: /s/Ali Matin Michael R. Williams Attorneys for Plaintiff Lori Y. Nekota 5 MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AN Un BA W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF ALI MATIN I, Ali Matin, declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney at the law firm of Bienert, Miller & Katzman PLC (the “Firm”), attorneys for plaintiff Lori Y. Nekota (“Plaintiff”). I am a member in good standing with the State Bar of California and am admitted to practice in the Courts of California. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this Declaration and, if called as a witness, could and would testify competently to such facts under oath. All terms not specifically defined in the Declaration shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the accompanying motion. 2. On October 7, 2015, Plaintiff served defendants WMC-A, Inc. (“WMC”) and Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (“IHHL,” and together with WMC, the “Defendants”) with identical sets of requests for production numbered 55 through 60 (the “Requests”). Defendants requested (and received) extensions to respond to the Requests, and they served objections on January 4, 2016. 3. Plaintiff has made reasonable and good faith attempts to resolve informally the issues presented by the motion before filing the motion. Specifically, the parties have engaged in numerous written meet and confer communications, and also discussed the issues over the phone. Plaintiff believes that the parties have narrowed issues, but not yet received any documents in response her discovery requests. Attached to this Declaration as Exhibits 1 and 2 are true and correct copies of email communications between Plaintiff’s counsel and Defendants’ counsel. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 20, 2016, at San Clemente, California. /s/Ali Matin Ali Matin 6 MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBIT ¢¢1°’ From: DAV@vv-law.com To: Ali Matin; Michael Williams Subject: RE: Nekota v. HHI, et al. -- Discovery Meet and Confer Date: Monday, May 16, 2016 6:29:58 PM Dear Ali: I understand your frustration and share it. The problem is that the task I undertook pursuant to the consensus we reached was much larger than I anticipated. Here is where we stand: As I said before, I now have what I understand to be the universe of documentation which was present on Ms. Nekota's computer as of the last day she worked. It is extensive and, in order to answer the question of whether or not these can be produced in light of the restrictions on healthcare providers, each of these documents has to be individually examined. One of our paralegals has been tasked with preparing an index of this material; the index so far is 45 pages. What I can tell you is that a large number of the documents which were present have information which I cannot release, because it is protected by patient privacy/confidentiality concerns, HIPAA, or some other prohibition from producing it to third parties. In other words, the reason it is taking quite a while is because this is the protocol we agreed upon. | cannot simply produce a file structure to you because the file names themselves may very well contain this type of sensitive information (i.e. patient identification) and because, to produce the document, I need to understand its contents in any event. With respect to emails, tracking them down has been an arduous task, because the email system which was in use back then has changed. In an earlier email, I told you that it appeared there were a large number of emails, but I could not open the condensed files. This was my misinterpretation; the large number of files I was looking at were not emails. I am told, and this is not the final word on the subject, that it appears Ms. Nekota's emails may very well have been deleted. Thus, I am having my client’s IT people see if they are present in a backup which, at that time, was apparently kept on tape and poorly indexed. The bottom line on emails is this: I have a very few which were apparently already printed in hard copy form. With respect to the balance of them, we are doing our best to retrieve them but my perspective on the odds of that occurring is going downhill. I should have more concrete information for you later on this week. Thank you very much. DAV Donald A. Vaughn Esq. VAUGHN & VAUGHN 501 WEST BROADWAY ST., Suite 1770 SAN DI EGO, CALIFORNIA 92101 TELEPHONE (619) 237-1717 FAX (619) 237-0447 E-mail DAV@vv-law. com The information contained in this electronic mail transmission is confidential and intended to be read only by the stated recipient of the transmission. It is therefore fir Bk oe eC fhm unauthorized use or dissemination by the Ag ient and/or attorney work-product privileges. If Jul are not the intended recipient or the intended recipient's FoR , you are hereby Aoghehe to notify the Law Firm of Vaughn & JaRgu i mme Rel by telephone and to delete Le transmission with any attachments and destroy all copies in any form Any unauthorized review, EXHIBIT "1" EMAILS001 use, dissemination, distribution or hop of this communication or its attachments, if any, is strictly fra we and may result in legal action or prosecution by appropriate authorities Thank you in advance for your cooperation. From: Ali Matin [mailto:amatin@bmkattorneys.com] Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 2:08 PM To: DAV@vv-law.com; Michael Williams Subject: RE: Nekota v. IHHI, et al. -- Discovery Meet and Confer Don, | just spoke to Monica from your office. She indicated that you are out of state, are having technical difficulties with your email, and will be back in California on May 16, at which point you will be available to address the production and discovery issues we've raised below. She also confirmed an extension of the motion to compel deadline from May 16 to May 23. Again, we are making little progress on issues for which we conferred back in February. Ali From: Ali Matin Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 5:03 PM To: 'DAV@vv-law.com'; Michael Williams Subject: RE: Nekota v. IHHI, et al. -- Discovery Meet and Confer Don, Your prior email indicated that we would receive an update on your production last week after you had a chance to conduct an initial review of what you received, but we've not received an update; nor have we received a privilege log. It is also not clear from your email whether you intend to withhold documents that you believe contain privileged information, rather than simply redacting the privileged portion of the document. Although we've been conferring regarding production since at least February, we've made little progress on receiving any actual documents, and our motion to compel deadline is May 16. At this point, we would have expected to have some documents in advance of the depositions we plan to notice. Please let us know what, if any, documents you intend to produce and when that production will be made. With respect to depositions, we intend to notice WMC's Person Most Qualified, Eric Royal, JoAnne Suehs, John Abernatha, and Kim Frazier. My understanding is that Eric Royal still works at [HHI and EMAILS002 is therefore a party-affiliated witness. Please let us know if that information is not up to date. Based on my prior discussions with Jeff Herman, your firm indicated that it would accept service of deposition notices for JoAnne Suehs and John Abernatha, both of whom | believe no longer work at WMC or IHHI. If your firm will not accept service on their behalf, please let us know. Finally, we'd ask for another week extension of the motion to compel deadline to May 23. If we don’t make meaningful progress on the documents this week, it may be that we'll have to let the court address these issues. Thanks. Ali From: DAV@vv-law.com [mailto:dav@vv-law.com] Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 5:53 PM To: Ali Matin; Michael Williams Subject: RE: Nekota v. IHHI, et al. -- Discovery Meet and Confer Dear Mr. Williams and Mr. Matin: I am writing to report upon the status of efforts by my clients and I toward getting our arms around the discovery information and documents which are the subject of our ongoing dialogue. Here is where we stand: L I have received a CD with what I understand to be Ms. Nekota's emails. They came to me in some type of condensed format and I am technically challenged when it comes to extracting them. I expect to enlist the assistance I need to do this early next week, so that I can review the contents to determine if, and to what extent, there are privilege and privacy implications. If I am reading the information correctly, however, there appear to be 2690 emails. 2. I have also received a CD with what I understand to be files from the computer Ms. Nekota used while she was employed. The process of obtaining that material was complicated by the fact that the next pharmacy Director used the same computer. My assumption was that, with respect to any file where the metadata shows a "last modified" date on or prior to February 24, 2014, the document was either generated by, or at least saved to that computer, by Ms. Nekota. There are a large number of files, and some of the ones I have reviewed contain information about other employees and patients which, again, cause privilege and privacy concerns on our end. 3. I have received a box of materials which reportedly were present in Ms. Nekota's office after she left Western Medical Center. The general categories of these materials are set forth below and, again, privacy and privilege concerns are implicated: SPECIFIC INCIDENT AND MEDICATION EVENT REPORTS (containing patient information) MEDICATION ADMINISTRATION RECORDS FOR VARIOUS PATIENTS (containing patient information) DISCREPANCY REPORTS EMPLOYEE/HR COMMUNICATION FORMS EMAILS003 INVOICES FROM A PHARMACY FOR PATIENTS’ PRESCRIPTIONS ANAMOLOUS USAGE REPORTS LETTER OF ADMONISHMENT TO LORI NEKOTA FROM CALIFORNIA BOARD OF PHARMACY CME CERTIFICATIONS FOR LORI NEKOTA POLICIES AND PROCEDURES OF WMC-A MEDICATION SAFETY TEAM MEETING REPORTS/INFORMATION EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE TO AND FROM LORI NEKOTA LORI NEKOTA’S NOTES (we surmise) MEDICATION LISTS/MEDICATION STOCK PYXIS INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTATION DRUG WARNING INFORMATION GENERAL INFORMATION (pamphlets, packets, presentations) FROM VARIOUS HEALTHCARE AGENCIES AND PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES PHARMACY AND HEALTHCARE JOURNALS OTHER MISCELLANEOUS MATERIALS Obviously, as articulated above, we have the same concerns about this material as well. As indicated above, I expect to be able to review the email correspondence early next week, and will continue my review of the materials from your client's computer. Given the volume of this information, it may be that the burden of reviewing it (and redacting private or privileged information) outweighs any utility in the case. I should be able to make that assessment early next week as well. Please give us a call to discuss if you wish to do so. Thank you very much. DAV Donald A. Vaughn Esq. VAUGHN & VAUGHN 501 WEST BROADWAY ST., Suite 1770 SAN DI EGO, CALIFORNIA 92101 TELEPHONE (619) 237-1717 FAX (619) 237-0447 E-mail DAV@uv-law. com The information contained in this electronic mail transmission is confidential and intended to be read only by the stated recipient of the transmission. It is therefore Jrateeien from unauthorized use or dissemination by the REA client and/or iLL BLTey work-product privileges. If wu are not the intended recipient or the intended recipient's AH , you are hereby AEs to notify the Law Firm of Vaughn & a i mme Ly by telephone and to delete this transmission with any attachments and destroy all copies in any form Any unauthorized review, use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication or its attachments, if any, is strictly fra pits and may result in legal action or prosecution by appropriate authorities. Thank you in advance for your cooperation, ) EMAILS004 From: Ali Matin [mailto:amatin@bmkattorneys.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 5:17 PM To: DAV@vv-law.com; Michael Williams Subject: RE: Nekota v. IHHI, et al. -- Discovery Meet and Confer I'm glad that his health is improving. Thank you for the update and the extension to May 16. We'll look forward to receiving the information. Best, Ali From: DAV@vv-law.com [mailto:dav@vv-law.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 5:09 PM To: Ali Matin; Michael Williams Subject: RE: Nekota v. IHHI, et al. -- Discovery Meet and Confer Dear Ali: Thank you so much for your patience. My boy is on the mend. With regard to the additional extension, I'm fine with extending the motion to compel deadline to May 16, although I don't believe you will need the extra time. I do, indeed, anticipate getting you folks information this week. I am told that the CD with Ms. Nekota’s emails on it was overnighted to me today. I will do my best to review it and formulate our response before this week is out. With regard to the box which was in Ms. Nekota's office, we will be providing an inventory, and additional outstanding information, to you this week. Thank you very much. DAV Donald A. Vaughn Esq. VAUGHN & VAUGHN 501 WEST BROADWAY ST., Suite 1770 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101 TELEPHONE (619) 237-1717 FAX (619) 237-0447 E-mail DAV@vv-law.com The information contained in this electronic mail transmission is confidential and intended to be read only by the stated recipient of the transmission. It is therefore firpiastes Th - unauthorized use or dissemination by the hgh ient and/or attorney work-product privileges | f Fl are not the intended recipient or the intended recipient's gas , you are hereby iT to notify the Law Firm of Vaughn & Ja thus i mme hE by telephone and to delete this transmission with any attachments and destroy all copies in any form Any unauthorized review use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication or its EMAILS005 attachments, if any, or prosecution by app cooperation. ) o w n = From: Ali Matin [mailto:amatin@bmkattorneys.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 4:47 PM To: DAV@vv-law.com; Michael Williams Subject: RE: Nekota v. IHHI, et al. -- Discovery Meet and Confer Hi Don, I'm sorry to hear about your son’s accident and hope his recovery goes well. Do you anticipate getting anything to us this week? Given that we're approaching the motion to compel deadline and there hasn't been as much progress as we would have liked, we'd request a further extension of the deadline to May 9. Please confirm if that’s agreeable. Thanks, Ali From: DAV@vv-law.com [mailto:dav@vv-law.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 4:29 PM To: Ali Matin; Michael Williams Subject: Nekota v. IHHI, et al. -- Discovery Meet and Confer Dear Ali: I haven't met the milestones we discussed, and want to explain why that is the case. First, the Director who I need to speak with concerning the matters I am investigating in-house went on vacation the day after we spoke, and will not be back until this Thursday. Second, the IT people who are going over our email system don't work as quickly as I would like. Third, my son had a serious accident last week and just got out of the hospital; we have been picking up the pieces since then. He'll probably be fine, after a lengthy recovery. The upshot of this is that I am working on the issues we discussed, and ought to have answers for you next week. Again, I apologize for the delay; your motion to compel deadline was extended until May 2, 2016. I don't think it will be necessary, but if you need a further extension, just let me know. Thank you very much. EMAILS006 DAV Donald A. Vaughn Esq. VAUGHN & VAUGHN 501 WEST BROADWAY ST., Suite 1770 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101 TELEPHONE (619) 237-1717 FAX (619) 237-0447 E-mail DAV@vv-law. com The information contained in this electronic mail transmission is confidential and intended to be read only by the stated recipient of the transmission. It is therefore [rescued from unauthorized use or dissemination by the he ient and/or attorney work-product privileges. If ie u are not the intended recipient or the intended recipient's ag , you are hereby rE QUES Lot to notify the Law Firm of Vaughn & gaan i mme oa by telephone and to delete this transmission with any attachments and destroy all copies in any form Any unauthorized review, use, dissemination, distribution or capri of this communication or its attachments, if any, is strictly pram ited and may result in legal action or prosecution by appropriate authorities. Thank you in advance for your cooperation, ) From: Ali Matin [mailto:amatin@bmkattorneys.com] Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 1:53 PM To: DAV@vv-law.com; Michael Williams Subject: RE: Nekota v. IHHI, et al. -- Discovery Meet and Confer Hi Don, Per our discussion earlier today, you've agreed to extend the motion to compel deadline to May 2 and provide further responses to certain requests by March 25, in addition to getting more information from your clients about some of the documents we've requested. We've agreed to talk to our client about search terms for emails. And the parties have agreed to revisit many of the document request issues once you've gotten a better sense of what documents your clients have. I've interlineated the main points of our discussion below. Let us know if your understanding of any of the issues is different. Thanks. -Ali From: DAV@vv-law.com [mailto:dav@vv-law.com] Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 7:55 PM To: Michael Williams Cc: Ali Matin Subject: RE: Nekota v. IHHI, et al. -- Discovery Meet and Confer EMAILS007 Dear Mr. Williams: I had committed to get back to you on Friday, February 26, 2016, with response to your inquiries, below. The press of business precluded me from doing so, and I hope this response the business day after I said I would respond does not cause significant inconvenience. Our response to your requests is interlineated below, in different color font. From: Michael Williams [mailto:mwilliams@bmkattorneys.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 6:49 PM To: DAV@vv-law.com Cc: Ali Matin Subject: Nekota v. IHHI, et al. -- Discovery Meet and Confer Donald, | write to meet and confer regarding your responses, on behalf of your clients WMC-A, Inc. and Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc., to plaintiff Lori Nekota’s Special Interrogatories, Set 1 and Requests for Production of Documents, Set 2. Special Interrogatories, Set 1 Special Interrogatory No. 5 asks your clients to identify “by name, employer, and title, all individuals | comprising the ‘staff under [Lori Nekota’s] supervision and control’” as that term was used in your clients” own discovery responses. Your clients failed to provide a substantive response, asserting a series of objections, none of which hold any merit. We will provide a further response to this special interrogatory. We look forward to the further response. For instance, there is nothing privileged about this information, nor is it specialized information that would require expert testimony. There is also nothing “vague, ambiguous, compound, [or] overbroad,” about the question, and it certainly does not require your clients to speculate. We are simply asking your clients, Ms. Nekota’s former employers, who they contend she supervised and controlled while she worked for the company. This would be discoverable information in just about any employment case, but is particularly so here given that your clients have identified Ms. Nekota’s as a purported basis for her | supposed failure to supervise those under her “supervision and contro termination. In response to Special Interrogatory Nos. 7 through 9, which ask for your clients’ positions and the basis for those positions regarding the standard of care applicable to Ms. Nekota while she was employed them, your clients objected that the interrogatories “call[] for expert testimony prior to the time of designation.” While we do not necessarily agree with this statement, we are willing to accept these responses so long as your clients agree that they will not seek to introduce any evidence regarding Ms. Nekota’s job responsibilities other than through expert testimony. Please confirm. EMAILS008 First, you have not accurately captured the question and response to these three interrogatories. For instance, Special Interrogatory number 7 asked my client to describe in detail the standards of care applicable to a Pharmacy Director who is Pharmacist in Charge. To me, this interrogatory specifically calls for expert opinion testimony, because it asks for "standard of care" information without tying that to Ms. Nekota (other than this was the standard during the time she was employed). I believe Special Interrogatory number 8 has a similar defect. This is not to say that the information isn't discoverable, but only that it is within the province of expert opinion, the time for which has not yet arrived. With respect to Special Interrogatory number 9, I see that as somewhat of a different issue, because it asks what my client contends Ms. Nekota should have done, but didn't. The portion of your email above which seeks a stipulation that my client will not seek to introduce any evidence regarding Ms. Nekota's job responsibilities other than through expert testimony is, therefore, inappropriate and respectfully declined. Thus, because Special Interrogatory number 9 actually seeks information from my client concerning Ms. Nekota's performance in her job, we will provide a further response to that question. With respect to Nos. 7 and 8, we don't believe a further response is indicated at this time. I don't, however, want to burden the court with unnecessary law and motion and, therefore, remain willing to discuss these issues with you. Perhaps a telephone call might be more efficient than emailing. Please let me know if you would like to do that and, if so, some dates and times when you are available. Please understand that I'm not saying he you will never receive the information sought in the former to questions, only that it is premature to do so at this time. You've indicated that you will provide a further response to No. 9 and we've agreed that “standard of care” will be addressed through expert discovery. Special Interrogatory No. 14 asks what “discipline and penalties, if any,” your clients sustained as a result of the Letter of Admonishment they have cited as a basis for Ms. Nekota’s termination. “Discipline and penalties,” of course, were terms your clients used in their own responses to prior interrogatories. Though your clients purported to respond to this interrogatory, they provided no actual responsive information. Rather, they only appear to describe the potential discipline and penalties they might have been subject to, as opposed to anything that actually occurred. If your clients sustained any discipline or penalties as a result of the Letter of Admonishment, please describe in detail. If they did not sustain any discipline or penalties, please say so directly. I believe your discussion is mistaken, because it assumes (wrongly in my opinion) that a Letter of Admonishment is not itself "discipline", or a "penalty." I understand your request, however, to be that my client identify discipline or penalties it sustained in addition to the Letter of Admonishment itself. We will provide a further response, or indicate that no additional discipline or penalties were imposed. We disagree on the import of the letter and look forward to the further response. Requests for Production, Set 2 Your clients responded to each of Ms. Nekota’s Request for Production Nos. 55 through 60 solely EMAILS009 with objections. This is improper. These requests seek documents directly relevant to this case, including for instance emails sent or received by Ms. Nekota during the latter period of her employment (RFP No. 55), the contents of her computer hard drive at the time of her termination (RFP No. 56), hard copy documents contained in her office at the time of her termination (RFP No. 57), and the Pandora and Pyxis reports she printed or generated during the last few months of her employment (RFP No. 59). Given that your clients cite as the purported basis for her termination supposed wide-ranging failure on her part to carry out her job responsibilities (including the supposed failure to properly track and report on anomalous drug use), we are entitled to the written evidence of what she was, in fact, doing while employed with your clients. Given that Ms. Nekota did not take any company documents with her when your clients terminated her, that written evidence is solely in your clients’ possession, custody, and control. First, it is not "improper" to respond with objections, if the question is objectionable. I will examine each of the categories encompassed within your request for further response below. Request for Production 55 seeks more than two years of emails sent from or received at Ms. Nekota's email address. There is no limitation on subject, length, purpose, or anything else. To me, this seems overbroad. I don't believe the litigation process exists so that a former employee can get a copy of every email they sent or received over a two-year period. Is there some subset of this material which will suffice for you? You've indicated that you will speak to your clients to determine what emails they have, how those emails can be retrieved, and the range of emails that would need redactions based on HIPAA and patient privacy concerns. In the meantime, we'll talk to our client about email search terms and also see if we can narrow the scope in other ways including, for example, focusing on email “to” and “from” fields. Once that is done, the parties have agreed to revisit this issue to see if they can work on a resolution. Request for Production 56 asks for every document that was on the hard drive of your client's company computer. Our response is far from being "improper." Ms. Nekota worked at a hospital. Among other things, patient data is protected by HIPAA, HITEC, and the Constitutional right of privacy for both financial and personal information. Why on earth would your client be entitled to every single document that was on her computer when she left? If you seek something specific, or some category which is calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, let me know. Otherwise, I think the objections are very well taken. Again, if you accept my invitation for a telephone discussion, perhaps we can revisit this issue. To narrow the scope, we've suggested that your clients provide screenshots of the files and folders on the hard drive so that we can determine what files/folders are relevant. Before that happens, however, you have to speak to your client to determine the status of the hard drive and what's on it. Similar to No. 55, you've expressed concern that there may be HIPAA, HITEC, and patient privacy issues. The parties have agreed to revisit this issue once you've gotten a better idea of the status and contents of the hard drive. Request for Production 57 has the same defect as the previous category. EMAILS010 Similar to Nos. 55-56, you've indicated that you need to speak to your clients to determine the status of hard copy documents, and the parties have agreed to revisit the issue once you've gotten a better sense of that. Request for Production 58 seeks all notes anyone made of any discussion with your client during a period of approximately 7 months. You are correct that any such notes might very well be privileged but, if so, I believe you are in fact entitled to a privilege log identifying them. We will either produce the notes which are in our possession, custody, or control, or identify them on a privilege log. We look forward to either a privilege log and/or documents, assuming there are documents. Request for Production 59 asks for copies of all printouts your client made over a period in excess of two years. To me, this seems overbroad. Moreover, protected patient information, or other private data, might be contained thereon. Still, I understand why you would want at least some of this material. I propose that we make an attempt to work this out on the telephone so that the interests of both sides, and third parties, can be accommodated. Again, this is an issue that the parties have agreed to revisit once you determine the status and number of these reports, including whether they contain patient information. Request for Production 60 utilizes the "any and all" language and, therefore, might encompass materials privileged under the attorney — client and/or attorney work product privileges. With respect to communications from the Board of Pharmacy, I don't have any problem with producing those to you (to the extent they exist, in addition to the Letter of Admonishment). Will that suffice? In order to accommodate a telephonic (or even in — person) meet and confer session on the matters identified above, and to obtain and produce additional responsive materials (if any) as a result of our discussion, some additional time will be necessary. I don't want you folks to be up against a motion to compel deadline, which I previously extended until one week from tomorrow — i.e. March 8, 2016. In order to make sure that deadline is not in danger of imminent expiration, I agree to extend the motion to compel deadline on these matters for an additional month, until April 8, 2016. Please let me know when you would like to discuss these issues. I will be out of the office tomorrow and Wednesday; next week there is availability, and I will do my best to schedule a time which works on your schedule, if you will be kind enough to let me know some suggested dates and times. We believe we are entitled to documents other than just those from the Board of Pharmacy, including, for example, internal communications about the Letter of Admonishment. You've indicated that some of these documents may be privileged, if they exist, but that you need to speak to your clients to get a better sense of what they have. This is another category that we've agreed to revisit once you spoken to your clients. [Balance of your email not copied here]. Thank you very much. EMAILS011 DAV = = ise = S E Olin (<3) © O R W e e = d e = D a s a © a CEE K O N E m a => © “— O n @ i s i o S h O k a S E C u go p e o am S 5 0 I = OD h E © L H D . — O W 0 V D = i ) S i c pgm ed fs T O D ) e a C o n o n C c © O . — B L i c o . O f . = fs Bg E e . n o o N a s S u s © W i e D A D A S S — e e m i m e E e E m . O w n i e iE w k n w o = 4 9 3 O l Ww C a O —_ > = O w 5 © ( © . > = O 0 O u — nn > o E R A c i A E S Si, A E O iid dpi E E G s . 100) O e O h a e E s e — I ) iE O N i ay = E E E = © E E c . _ V r © c H > o © a e V O L L V T V u O O _— e e O n e A T = D = > = — a > S _ a s wn» O T T O wn O e S a @ i e ) = D ) a l OD E C + O a T T S (= R R ] o o = O E D T D i s O O =. O i — © 4 s C a s © Oo v o w 0 Ie a r a Bo m n ome > wv a wv O L O c h i E e T = v o o o _ © CE I i + Be ee i i F o E S D V V D T = O C m 4 (OC UN TT © D a o © a o o D T C C a > = > u n unm Oo E e g y hiss S O O h e e — © Oo [ S y = J o o C a u nn © => > a ~ ~ — c . _ . oc 3S —_ u N > > » << © —_ O O CC ( C . . C — _ — — — D W T CC O The informatio confidential transmission. dissemination EMAILS012 EXHIBIT ¢¢)7? From: DAV@vv-law.com To: Ali Matin; Michael Williams Subject: RE: Nekota v. HHI, et al. -- Discovery Meet and Confer Date: Friday, March 25, 2016 1:50:17 PM Dear Mr. Matin: Your recap below is generally accurate, with the exception that I don't recall specifically indicating that further responses to the three interrogatories we have agreed to supplement would be served today. To the extent that impression was given, it was overly ambitious. My clients are, indeed, in the process of retrieving the information I need to reconsider the objections on the production requests, and to have a further discussion with you folks. With respect to the interrogatories which we have agreed will be supplemented, you may expect service of those by next Friday. I don't believe that creates any time pressure, because the motion to compel deadline was extended until one full month from next Friday. Thank you very much. Have a good holiday weekend. DAV Donald A. Vaughn Esq. VAUGHN & VAUGHN 501 WEST BROADWAY ST., Suite 1770 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101 TELEPHONE (619) 237-1717 FAX (619) 237-0447 E-mail DAV@vv-law. com The information contained in this electronic mail transmission is confidential and intended to be read only by the stated recipient of the transmission. It is therefore proteeied from unauthorized use or dissemination by the RL ient and/or attorney work-product privileges. If you are not the intended recipient or the intended recipient's Agen , you are hereby EO UES i 80 to notify the Law Firm of Vaughn & vaughn I mme Lately by telephone and to delete this transmission with any attachments and destroy all copies in any form Any unauthorized review use, dissemination, distribution or LopY of this communication or its attachments, if any, is strictly prom pie and may result in legal action or prosecution by appropriate authorities. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. From: Ali Matin [mailto:amatin@bmkattorneys.com] Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 1:53 PM To: DAV@vv-law.com; Michael Williams Subject: RE: Nekota v. IHHI, et al. -- Discovery Meet and Confer Hi Don, EXHIBIT "2" EMAILS013 Per our discussion earlier today, you've agreed to extend the motion to compel deadline to May 2 and provide further responses to certain requests by March 25, in addition to getting more information from your clients about some of the documents we've requested. We've agreed to talk to our client about search terms for emails. And the parties have agreed to revisit many of the document request issues once you've gotten a better sense of what documents your clients have. I've interlineated the main points of our discussion below. Let us know if your understanding of any of the issues is different. Thanks. -Ali From: DAV@vv-law.com [mailto:dav@vv-law.com] Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 7:55 PM To: Michael Williams Cc: Ali Matin Subject: RE: Nekota v. IHHI, et al. -- Discovery Meet and Confer Dear Mr. Williams: I had committed to get back to you on Friday, February 26, 2016, with response to your inquiries, below. The press of business precluded me from doing so, and I hope this response the business day after I said I would respond does not cause significant inconvenience. Our response to your requests is interlineated below, in different color font. From: Michael Williams [ mailto: mwilliams@bmkattorneys.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 6:49 PM To: DAV@vv-law.com Cc: Ali Matin Subject: Nekota v. IHHI, et al. -- Discovery Meet and Confer Donald, | write to meet and confer regarding your responses, on behalf of your clients WMC-A, Inc. and Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc., to plaintiff Lori Nekota’s Special Interrogatories, Set 1 and Requests for Production of Documents, Set 2. Special Interrogatories, Set 1 Special Interrogatory No. 5 asks your clients to identify “by name, employer, and title, all individuals comprising the ‘staff under [Lori Nekota’s] supervision and control” as that term was used in your clients’ own discovery responses. Your clients failed to provide a substantive response, asserting a series of objections, none of which hold any merit. We will provide a further response to this special interrogatory. We look forward to the further response. For instance, there is nothing privileged about this information, nor is it specialized information that EMAILS014 would require expert testimony. There is also nothing “vague, ambiguous, compound, [or] overbroad,” about the question, and it certainly does not require your clients to speculate. We are simply asking your clients, Ms. Nekota’s former employers, who they contend she supervised and controlled while she worked for the company. This would be discoverable information in just about any employment case, but is particularly so here given that your clients have identified Ms. Nekota’s supposed failure to supervise those under her “supervision and control” as a purported basis for her termination. In response to Special Interrogatory Nos. 7 through 9, which ask for your clients’ positions and the basis for those positions regarding the standard of care applicable to Ms. Nekota while she was employed them, your clients objected that the interrogatories “call[] for expert testimony prior to the time of designation.” While we do not necessarily agree with this statement, we are willing to accept these responses so long as your clients agree that they will not seek to introduce any evidence regarding Ms. Nekota’s job responsibilities other than through expert testimony. Please confirm. First, you have not accurately captured the question and response to these three interrogatories. For instance, Special Interrogatory number 7 asked my client to describe in detail the standards of care applicable to a Pharmacy Director who is Pharmacist in Charge. To me, this interrogatory specifically calls for expert opinion testimony, because it asks for "standard of care" information without tying that to Ms. Nekota (other than this was the standard during the time she was employed). I believe Special Interrogatory number 8 has a similar defect. This is not to say that the information isn't discoverable, but only that it is within the province of expert opinion, the time for which has not yet arrived. With respect to Special Interrogatory number 9, I see that as somewhat of a different issue, because it asks what my client contends Ms. Nekota should have done, but didn't. The portion of your email above which seeks a stipulation that my client will not seek to introduce any evidence regarding Ms. Nekota's job responsibilities other than through expert testimony is, therefore, inappropriate and respectfully declined. Thus, because Special Interrogatory number 9 actually seeks information from my client concerning Ms. Nekota's performance in her job, we will provide a further response to that question. With respect to Nos. 7 and 8, we don't believe a further response is indicated at this time. I don't, however, want to burden the court with unnecessary law and motion and, therefore, remain willing to discuss these issues with you. Perhaps a telephone call might be more efficient than emailing. Please let me know if you would like to do that and, if so, some dates and times when you are available. Please understand that I'm not saying he you will never receive the information sought in the former to questions, only that it is premature to do so at this time. You've indicated that you will provide a further response to No. 9 and we've agreed that “standard of care” will be addressed through expert discovery. Special Interrogatory No. 14 asks what “discipline and penalties, if any,” your clients sustained as a result of the Letter of Admonishment they have cited as a basis for Ms. Nekota’s termination. “Discipline and penalties,” of course, were terms your clients used in their own responses to prior interrogatories. Though your clients purported to respond to this interrogatory, they provided no EMAILS015 actual responsive information. Rather, they only appear to describe the potential discipline and penalties they might have been subject to, as opposed to anything that actually occurred. If your clients sustained any discipline or penalties as a result of the Letter of Admonishment, please describe in detail. If they did not sustain any discipline or penalties, please say so directly. I believe your discussion is mistaken, because it assumes (wrongly in my opinion) that a Letter of Admonishment is not itself "discipline", or a "penalty." I understand your request, however, to be that my client identify discipline or penalties it sustained in addition to the Letter of Admonishment itself. We will provide a further response, or indicate that no additional discipline or penalties were imposed. We disagree on the import of the letter and look forward to the further response. Requests for Production, Set 2 Your clients responded to each of Ms. Nekota’s Request for Production Nos. 55 through 60 solely with objections. This is improper. These requests seek documents directly relevant to this case, including for instance emails sent or received by Ms. Nekota during the latter period of her employment (RFP No. 55), the contents of her computer hard drive at the time of her termination (RFP No. 56), hard copy documents contained in her office at the time of her termination (RFP No. 57), and the Pandora and Pyxis reports she printed or generated during the last few months of her employment (RFP No. 59). Given that your clients cite as the purported basis for her termination supposed wide-ranging failure on her part to carry out her job responsibilities (including the supposed failure to properly track and report on anomalous drug use), we are entitled to the written evidence of what she was, in fact, doing while employed with your clients. Given that Ms. Nekota did not take any company documents with her when your clients terminated her, that written evidence is solely in your clients’ possession, custody, and control. First, it is not "improper" to respond with objections, if the question is objectionable. I will examine each of the categories encompassed within your request for further response below. Request for Production 55 seeks more than two years of emails sent from or received at Ms. Nekota's email address. There is no limitation on subject, length, purpose, or anything else. To me, this seems overbroad. I don't believe the litigation process exists so that a former employee can get a copy of every email they sent or received over a two-year period. Is there some subset of this material which will suffice for you? You've indicated that you will speak to your clients to determine what emails they have, how those emails can be retrieved, and the range of emails that would need redactions based on HIPAA and patient privacy concerns. In the meantime, we'll talk to our client about email search terms and also see if we can narrow the scope in other ways including, for example, focusing on email “to” and “from” fields. Once that is done, the parties have agreed to revisit this issue to see if they can work on a resolution. Request for Production 56 asks for every document that was on the hard drive of your client's company computer. Our response is far from being "improper." Ms. Nekota worked at a hospital. Among other things, patient data is protected by HIPAA, HITEC, and the EMAILS016 Constitutional right of privacy for both financial and personal information. Why on earth would your client be entitled to every single document that was on her computer when she left? If you seek something specific, or some category which is calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, let me know. Otherwise, I think the objections are very well taken. Again, if you accept my invitation for a telephone discussion, perhaps we can revisit this issue. To narrow the scope, we've suggested that your clients provide screenshots of the files and folders on the hard drive so that we can determine what files/folders are relevant. Before that happens, however, you have to speak to your client to determine the status of the hard drive and what's on it. Similar to No. 55, you've expressed concern that there may be HIPAA, HITEC, and patient privacy issues. The parties have agreed to revisit this issue once you've gotten a better idea of the status and contents of the hard drive. Request for Production 57 has the same defect as the previous category. Similar to Nos. 55-56, you've indicated that you need to speak to your clients to determine the status of hard copy documents, and the parties have agreed to revisit the issue once you've gotten a better sense of that. Request for Production 58 seeks all notes anyone made of any discussion with your client during a period of approximately 7 months. You are correct that any such notes might very well be privileged but, if so, I believe you are in fact entitled to a privilege log identifying them. We will either produce the notes which are in our possession, custody, or control, or identify them on a privilege log. We look forward to either a privilege log and/or documents, assuming there are documents. Request for Production 59 asks for copies of all printouts your client made over a period in excess of two years. To me, this seems overbroad. Moreover, protected patient information, or other private data, might be contained thereon. Still, I understand why you would want at least some of this material. I propose that we make an attempt to work this out on the telephone so that the interests of both sides, and third parties, can be accommodated. Again, this is an issue that the parties have agreed to revisit once you determine the status and number of these reports, including whether they contain patient information. Request for Production 60 utilizes the "any and all" language and, therefore, might encompass materials privileged under the attorney — client and/or attorney work product privileges. With respect to communications from the Board of Pharmacy, I don't have any problem with producing those to you (to the extent they exist, in addition to the Letter of Admonishment). Will that suffice? In order to accommodate a telephonic (or even in — person) meet and confer session on the matters identified above, and to obtain and produce additional responsive materials (if any) as a result of our discussion, some additional time will be necessary. I don't want you folks to be up against a motion to compel deadline, which I previously extended until one week from tomorrow — i.e. March 8, 2016. In order to make sure that deadline is not in danger of EMAILS017 imminent expiration, I agree to extend the motion to compel deadline on these matters for an additional month, until April 8, 2016. Please let me know when you would like to discuss these issues. I will be out of the office tomorrow and Wednesday; next week there is availability, and I will do my best to schedule a time which works on your schedule, if you will be kind enough to let me know some suggested dates and times. We believe we are entitled to documents other than just those from the Board of Pharmacy, including, for example, internal communications about the Letter of Admonishment. You've indicated that some of these documents may be privileged, if they exist, but that you need to speak to your clients to get a better sense of what they have. This is another category that we've agreed to revisit once you spoken to your clients. [Balance of your email not copied here]. Thank you very much. DAV Donald A. Vaughn Esq. VAUGHN & VAUGHN 501 WEST BROADWAY ST., Suite 1770 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101 TELEPHONE (619) 237-1717 FAX (619) 237-0447 E-mail DAV@vv-law.com The information contained in this electronic mail transmission is confidential and intended to be read only by the stated recipient of the transmission. It is therefore froLeeee 25 Giff unauthorized use or dissemination by the CARE Lg ient and/or attorney work-product privileges. If yo u are not the intended recipient or the intended recipient's qe , you are hereby Equa va to notify the Law Firm of Vaughn & yalgtn i mme ately by telephone and to delete this transmission with any attachments and destroy all copies in any form Any unauthorized review, use, dissemination, distribution or FRY of this communication or its attachments, if any, is strictly pras; ited and may result in legal action or prosecution by appropriate authorities. Thank you in advance for your cooperation, Y EMAILS018 AN Ln BA W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 23 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 350, San Clemente, California 92673. I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this Court at whose direction the service was made. On May 20, 2016, I served the foregoing document described as PLAINTIFF LORI Y. NEKOTA’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS IN RESPONSE TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION PROPOUNDED ON (1) DEFENDANT WMC-A, INC. AND (2) DEFENDANT INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, INC. on all interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as stated below: Donald A. Vaughn Jeffrey S. Herman VAUGHN & VAUGHN 501 West Broadway, Suite 750 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (619) 237-1717/Fax: (619) 237-0447 dav@vv-law.com [] BY MAIL - I deposited such envelope in the mail at San Clemente, California. The envelope was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid. I am “readily familiar” with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at San Clemente, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one (1) day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. [X] BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION - Pursuant to California Rules of Court 2.251 a PDF version of this document was transmitted via electronic mail by the court’s electronic service provider to the party(s) identified above at the e-mail address(es) indicated. [X] (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. [ 1 (Federal) Ideclare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 20, 2016, at San Clemente, California. Is Maria L. Taylor Maria L. Taylor 320028-1 1 PROOF OF SERVICE
