© 00 9 O N Un BA W N ND ND ND N N N N N ND E E Em Em e m e m e m e s e m c o NN O N Wn BA W N = © OO 0 NN O N B R A W N = O LAW OFFICES OF STEPHENSON, ACQUISTO & No Filing Fee Required COLMAN, INC. Per Cal. Gov't Code § MELANIE JOY STEPHENSON-LAWS, ESQ. ELECTRONICALLY FILED (SBN 113755) ° County of Orange BARRY SULLIVAN, ESQ. (SBN 136571) 024072017 at 10:19:00 Abd RICHARD A. LOVICH, ESQ. (SBN 113472) Clerk of the Superior Court DAVID MASTAN, ESQ. (SBN 152109 HIF BCID: IERED Slr 303 N. Glenoaks Blvd., Suite 700 Burbank, CA 91502 (818) 559-4477 (Telephone) (818) 559-5484 (Fax) Attorneys for Plaintiff THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, a public trust corporation, on behalf of THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE MEDICAL CENTER SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE UNLIMITED JURISDICTION THE REGENTS OF THE Case No. 30-2015-00808967-CU-CO- UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, a CJC public trust corporation, on behalf of THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, | [Assigned to Dept. C21, Hon. Mary IRVINE MEDICAL CENTER, Schulte] Plaintiff, 1. UCI MEDICAL CENTER'S OPPOSITION TO KAISER'S vs. MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 ; AND, KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, a California corporation; KAISER 2. DECLARATION OF DAVID FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC., MASTAN. a California corporation; SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE Trial Date: 14 February 2017 MEDICAL GROUP, a California Time: 9:00 a.m. partnership; and DOES 1 THROUGH [Place: Dept. C21 25, INCLUSIVE, opposition to motion in limine #4 - 1 - 1. UCIMEDICAL CENTER'S OPPOSITION TO KAISER'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 ; AND, 2. DECLARATION OF DAVID MASTAN © 00 9 O N Un BA W N N N N N N N N N ND mm e m e m e m e m e m e m e m c o NN O N Wn BA W N = © OO 0 NN O N B R A W N = O Defendants. UCI MEDICAL CENTER'S OPPOSITION TO KAISER'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 IL. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Plaintiff The Regents Of The University Of California, A Public Trust Corporation, on behalf of the University Of California, Irvine Medical Center ("UCI Medical Center") hereby opposes Kaiser Foundation Hospitals and Southern California Permanente Medical Group's (collectively "Kaiser's") motion in limine no. 4 which seeks to bar UCI Medical Center from introducing, offering, or mentioning "any evidence or testimony from Kieley Cockrell." Moving Papers p.1. Kaiser's proffered reasons for such making the instant motion are that, according to Kaiser, Mr. Cockrell: 1) has no personal knowledge about any relevant issues to this case; ii) his testimony is "irrelevant); and, iii) his testimony would be "lacking in probative value." Id. at p.2. Kaiser bootstraps its argument for this motion in [imine from an argument it first raised in its motion in [imine no. 3, which sought to exclude UCI Medical Center from introducing its business records. In both the instant motion and in its motion in [imine no. 3, Kaiser's premise is that Mr. Cockrell admitted in his deposition that he was not personally the custodian of any of UCI Medical Center's business records and thus, according to Kaiser, he could not authenticate the business records nor show those records fell under an exception to the business records exception to the hearsay rule. For the instant motion Kaiser then builds upon that premise to argue that not only is Mr. Cockrell unqualified to authenticate opposition to motion in limine #4 - 2 - 1. UCIMEDICAL CENTER'S OPPOSITION TO KAISER'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 ; AND, 2. DECLARATION OF DAVID MASTAN © 00 9 O N Un BA W N NN N N N N N N N N m mm e m e m e m p m e m p m e m pe c o NN O N Wn BA W N = © OO 0 NN O N B R A W N = O or prove the admissibility of UCI Medical Center's business records, but because of] that fact Mr. Cockrell thus must not even allowed to testify at all regarding UCI Medical Center's billing regarding the care rendered to the six patients at issue here despite the fact Kaiser admits Mr. Cockrell is a Senior Analyst for the Patient Financial Services Department with 6%2 years of experience. Moving Papers Memorandum of Points and Authorities p.1." As this brief shows, the problem for Kaiser Mr. Cockrell does not need to be a custodian of records to authenticate UCI Medical Center's billing records, nor to prove such business records fall within the business records exception to the hearsay rule, nor to discuss the content of those business records. For those reasons, discussed in full below, Kaiser's instant motion ought to be overruled. II. THE FACT MR. COCKRELL IS NOT A CUSTODIAN OF UCI MEDICAL CENTER'S BILLING RECORDS DOES NOT IMPEDE HIS ABILITY TO AUTHENTICATE THE BILLING RECORDS AT TRIAL Kaiser's instant motion seeks to suppress UCI Medical Center from introducing its business records at trial pertaining to the billing and medical care relating to the six patients whose unpaid or underpaid care is at issue in this action. Contrary to Kaiser's assertions in its instant motion, UCI Medical Center does not intend to call Mr. Cockrell as a witness regarding medical records as to the six patients at issue, only to testify to the billing records for those six patients. opposition to motion in limine #4 - 3 - 1. UCIMEDICAL CENTER'S OPPOSITION TO KAISER'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 ; AND, 2. DECLARATION OF DAVID MASTAN © 00 9 O N Un BA W N N N N N N N N N ND mm e m e m e m e m e m e m e m c o NN O N Wn BA W N = © OO 0 NN O N B R A W N = O The sole basis given by Kaiser seeking such a drastic order is the fact that one of UCI Medical Center's employees, Kieley Cockrell, testified at deposition that he was "not the custodian of records for any documents maintained by UCI Medical Center" and that "he did not personally oversee such claims." Moving Papers Memorandum of Points and Authorities p.2 (emphasis in original). Kaiser then concludes UCI Medical Center should be prevented from putting Mr. Cockrell on the stand at all. Id. at pp.2-5. There are a number of flaws in Kaiser's argument. First, just because Mr. Cockrell is not the custodian of records for any of category UCI Medical Center's business records (billing or medical)® does not prevent him from being able to authenticate its billing records. For purposes of authenticating a business record, UCI Medical Center need only prove that a writing is "what it purports to be." Jazayeri v. Mao, 174 Cal. App. 4™ 301, 321 (2™ Dist. 2009) ("a document is authenticated when sufficient evidence has been produced to sustain a finding that the document is what it purports to be . . .[a]s long as the evidence would support a finding of authenticity, the writing is admissible. "). Thus, a custodian of records is not needed. See Ramos v. Westlake Services, LLC, 242 Cal. App. 4™ 674, 684, (1* Dist. 2015) ("[t]here is no strict requirement as to how a party authenticates a writing."). A subscribing witness "is not required." Cal. Evid. Code § 1411. "[A] writing can be 2 UCI Medical Center will call Ms. Janet Henderson, UCI Medical Center's Director of Health Information Services to testify to the authenticity of the medical records in this case as well as to the foundation needed to qualify them for the business records exception to the hearsay rule. For reference, Ms. Henderson is the custodian of those medical records for UCI Medical Center. opposition to motion in limine #4 -4 - 1. UCIMEDICAL CENTER'S OPPOSITION TO KAISER'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 ; AND, 2. DECLARATION OF DAVID MASTAN © 00 9 O N Un BA W N ND ND ND N N N N N ND E E Em Em e m e m e m e s e m c o NN O N Wn BA W N = © OO 0 NN O N B R A W N = O authenticated by circumstantial evidence and by its contents." People v. Landry, 2 Cal. 5" 52, 87 (2016). By Kaiser's own admission, Mr. Cockrell has been employed by UCI Medical Center's Patient Financial Services Department for over 6%2 years where he is now a "Senior Analyst" in which he was and is responsible for sending and tracking UCI Medical Center's bills. Moving Papers Memorandum of Points and Authorities p.2. He is certainly able to testify as to whether the bills and correspondence to and from Kaiser well reflect UCI Medical Center's internal billing records and data as to the six patients at issue. Second, contrary to what Kaiser implies, Mr. Cockrell does not need to be the custodian of records in order to qualify billing records for the six patients at issue under the business records exception to t he hearsay rule. The business records exception to the hearsay rule permits any "qualified witness" to establish to the conditions of admissibility. Jazayeri v. Mao, 174 Cal. App. 4™ 301, 322 (2™ Dist. 2009). "[T]he witness need not be the custodian or the person who created the record." Id. at 324. "Many business records are prepared through the activities of several persons, and one employee may report facts he or she knows to a second employee, who then records those facts in the regular course of business." Id. "The witness need not have been present at every transaction to establish the business records exception; he or she need only be familiar with the procedures followed . .." Id. at 322 (emphasis added). Nothing in Kaiser's brief or attached deposition testimony remotely suggests Mr. Cockrell somehow is not "familiar with the procedures followed." As a parting note, Kaiser also (wrongly) sub rosa implies UCI Medical Center was supposed to produce Mr. Cockrell as a custodian of records at his deposition and thus UCI Medical Center should be hit with what amounts to an evidentiary sanction. However, Mr. Cockrell appeared as a "person most opposition to motion in limine #4 - 5 - 1. UCIMEDICAL CENTER'S OPPOSITION TO KAISER'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 ; AND, 2. DECLARATION OF DAVID MASTAN © 00 9 O N Un BA W N N N N N N N N N ND mm e m e m e m e m e m e m e m c o NN O N Wn BA W N = © OO 0 NN O N B R A W N = O qualified" regarding three categories of questioning, none of which were as the "custodian of records" for UCI Medical Center's billing records. Declaration of David Mastan { 2, Exhibit A. The three categories were: 1) "the claims at issue in this matter"; ii) "the case management of each of the patients"; and, iii) UCI Medical Center's "determination of [Kaiser's] alleged underpayment . . ." Exhibit A-13. Moreover, if Kaiser felt UCI Medical Center should have produced a custodian of billing records in response to the deposition notice, then Kaiser should have brought a motion to compel. Having failed to do so, Kaiser cannot now try to bring an evidentiary sanction as if Kaiser had brought such a motion: The simple failure to answer, or the giving of an evasive answer, requires the propounding party to pursue an order compelling an answer or further answer-otherwise the right to an answer or further answer 1s waived and an evidence sanction is not available. Saxena v. Goffney, 159 Cal. App. 4" 316, 334 (4™ Dist. 2008). III. MR. COCKRELL'S TESTIMONY WILL BE BOTH RELEVANT AND PROBATIVE The standards governing admissible evidence versus inadmissible evidence are easy to summarize. "No evidence is admissible except relevant evidence." Cal. Evid. Code § 350. Moreover,"[t]he test of relevance is whether the evidence tends, logically, naturally, and by reasonable inference to establish material facts." Coffey v. Shiomoto, 60 Cal.4™ 1198, 1213(2015). In turn, [r]elevant evidence’ means evidence, including evidence relevant to the credibility of a witness or hearsay declarant, having any tendency in reason to opposition to motion in limine #4 - 6 - 1. UCIMEDICAL CENTER'S OPPOSITION TO KAISER'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 ; AND, 2. DECLARATION OF DAVID MASTAN © 00 9 O N Un BA W N N N N N N N N N ND mm e m e m e m e m e m e m e m c o NN O N Wn BA W N = © OO 0 NN O N B R A W N = O prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action." Cal. Evid. Code § 210 (emphasis added). Here, Mr. Cockrell will be testifying to the central core issues of this matter: that according to UCI Medical Center's billing business records UCI Medical Center rendered medical care to six patients belonging to a Kaiser-sponsored health plan, that UCI Medical Center billed Kaiser for such care, and that Kaiser failed to pay at all, or underpaid, what was due under the parties’ contract for such care. Thus, Mr. Cockrell's expected testimony has substantial probative value and relevance to this breach of contract action. "The general rule is that ‘[a]ll facts having rational probative value are admissible, unless some specific rule forbids." Love v. Wolf, 226 Cal. App. 2™ 378, 388 3" Dist. 1964). Under that standard, Mr. Cockrell's must be allowed to take the stand and Kaiser has no right to insist otherwise. IV. CONCLUSION Kaiser's instant motion, as with its motion in /imine no. 3, improperly seeks an evidentiary sanction of unbridled magnitude; namely, Kaiser seeks to prevent a UCI Medical Center Patient Financial Services employee of longstanding tenure from testifying at all regarding the bills and short payments in a breach of contract action. Kaiser does so entirely on the specious basis that Mr. Cockrell was not the "custodian of records" for UCI Medical Center's business records in a deposition in which Kaiser never even asked that the custodian of records be produced. It is simply common sense that "[h]ospital ... records, if properly authenticated, fall within the umbrella of the business record exception [to the hearsay rule]." People v. Nelson, 209 Cal. App. 4™ 698, 710 4" Dist. 2012). "There is no reason to believe that a hospital record is not as truthful as a record kept by a commercial firm[; i]t is a record upon which treatment of the patient is opposition to motion in limine #4 - 7 - 1. UCIMEDICAL CENTER'S OPPOSITION TO KAISER'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 ; AND, 2. DECLARATION OF DAVID MASTAN O© 0 0 3 O N Wn bh W N ~~ ND N N N N N N N N = e k a e d p d a p k e m a pe 0 3 O N LL Ah W N = O O VO 0 0 N D N R A W I N D -= © based, and experience has shown it to be reliable and trustworthy." Id. Ironically, the Nelson case also noted that the object of the business records exception to the hearsay rule is "to eliminate the necessity of calling each witness, and to substitute the record of the transaction or event." Id. at 709. Thus, Kaiser's motion can be seen for what it is: a retrograde attempt to stick every sort of ill-conceived and obsolete procedural hurdle in UCI Medical Center's way simply to stave off having to pay its bills per its promises in its contract with UCI Medical Center. For those, and all the reasons outlined in this brief, UCI Medical Center requests the Court to overrule Kaiser's instant motion. Dated: 08 February 2017 STELHENSON, ACQUISTO & COLMAN JD Jr DAVID MASTAN Attorneys for GENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, a public trust corporation, on behalf of THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE MEDICAL CENTER opposition to motion in limine #4 - 8 - 1. UCI MEDICAL CENTER'S OPPOSITION TO KAISER'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 ; AND, 2. DECLARATION OF DAVID MASTAN © 00 3 O N Un BH WLW N N = DN ND N N N N N NN O N Mm o k md e d p d p d p d p d p k 0 NN O N Ln Bh W N = O VO N N N D R A W N = Oo DECLARATION OF DAVID MASTAN I, David Mastan, declare: I. I am over the age of eighteen years and am not a party to this action. I am an attorney at the firm of Stephenson, Acquisto & Colman, attorneys of record for plaintiff, The Regents of the University of California, a Public Trust Corporation, on behalf of the University Of California, Irvine Medical Center ("UCI Medical Center"). If called upon to testify to the facts within this declaration, I could and would competently so testify because such facts come from my own personal knowledge, or from knowledge gained by review of the case file in this matter. 2, On 11 July 2016, Kaiser took the deposition of UCI Medical Center's "person most qualified." I attended that deposition. Attending to testify on behalf of UCI Medical Center was Mr. Kieley Cockrell. A true and accurate copy of the deposition notice issued by Kaiser's counsel is attached as Exhibit A to this declaration and is incorporated here by that reference as though set forth in full. I declare under the penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on 9 February 2017 in Burbank, California. So Dy fff © DAVID MASTAN/ opposition to motion in limine #4 - 0 - 1.UCI MEDICAL CENTER'S OPPOSITION TO KAISER'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 ; AND, 2. DECLARATION OF DAVID MASTAN EXHIBIT A opposition to motion in limine #4 - 10 - UCIMEDICAL CENTER'S OPPOSITION TO KAISER'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 Y A N G P R O F E S S I O N A L L A W C O R P O R A T I O N 80 S. L A K E A V E N U E , S U I T E 82 0, P A S A D E N A , C A 9 1 1 0 1 T E L E P H O N E : (6 26 ) 92 1- 43 00 FA CS IM IL E: (2 13 ) 59 6- 37 36 nn A W N a 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 YANG PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION Rey S. Yang (Bar No. 186241) E-Mail: ryan angpc.com Hannah Courtney (Bar No. 305873) E-mail: hcourtne g c.com 80 S. Lake Street, Suite 820 Pasadena, CA 91101 (626) 921-4300 Telephone (213) 596-5736 Facsimile Attorneys for Defendants, KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS and SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, a public trust corporation, on behalf of THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE MEDICAL CENTER Plaintiffs, VS. KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, a California corporation; KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC., a California corporation; and SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, a California partnership; and DOES 1 THROUGH 25, INCLUSIVE. Defendants. Case No. 30-2015-00808967-CU-CO-CIJC [Assigned to Hon. Mary Fingal Schulte, Dept. “C21 ”] NOTICE OF CONTINUED DEPOSITION OF PERSON(S) MOST QUALIFIED AT UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE MEDICAL CENTER AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT TIME OF DEPOSITION Date: July 11, 2016 Time: 10:00 a.m. Location.: Yang Professional Law Corporation 80 S. Lake Avenue, Suite 820 Pasadena, CA 91101 Complaint Filed: September 10, 2015 FAC Filed: October 27, 2015 Trial Date: November 14, 2016 1 NOTICE OF CONTINUED DEPOSITION OF PERSON(S) MOST QUALIFIED AT UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE MEDICAL CENTER AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT TIME OF DEPOSITION Exhibit A-11 Y A N G P R O F E S S I O N A L L A W C O R P O R A T I O N 80 S. L A K E AV EN UE , SU IT E 82 0, P A S A D E N A , CA 91 10 1 T E L E P H O N E : (6 26 ) 9 2 1 - 4 3 0 0 F A C S I M I L E : (2 13 ) 5 9 6 - 5 7 3 6 e R NN A n t E W N = NN O N N N N N NN N N O N O m mm mm mm p m p m p m j m em e m 0 Na AN nt A W N E S N N N E W N = o TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the deposition of person most qualified has been continued to July 11, 2016. Accordingly, pursuant to section 2025, et seq., of the Code of Civil Procedure, defendants, KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS and SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP (collectively “defendants™) by and through his attorneys of record, will take the following deposition: DEPONENT: Person(s) Most Qualified at UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE MEDICAL CENTER regarding the six claims at issue in this matter (see categories below). DATE: July 11, 2016 TIME: 10:00 a.m. LOCATION: Yang Professional Law Corporation 80 S. Lake Avenue, Suite 820 Pasadena, CA 91101 The deposition will be taken before a qualified deposition officer as required by section 2025.320 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Pursuant to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.330, Defendant intends to have this deposition recorded by stenographic means, using instantaneous or real time transcription, and by videotape. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2025.220, subdivision (a)(6), and 2025.620, subdivision (d), Defendant reserves the right to use all or part of any video recording of the witness’ deposition testimony at trial, subject to the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.340, subdivision (m). Unless otherwise agreed, said deposition will continue from day to day until completed, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays. If an interpreter is required to translate testimony, 2 NOTICE OF CONTINUED DEPOSITION OF PERSON(S) MOST QUALIFIED AT UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE MEDICAL CENTER AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT TIME OF DEPOSITION Exhibit A-12 Y A N G P R O F E S S I O N A L L A W C O R P O R A T I O N 80 S. L A K E AV EN UE , SU IT E 82 0, P A S A D E N A , CA 91 10 1 TE LE PH ON E: (6 26 ) 92 1- 43 00 FA CS IM IL E: (2 13 ) 59 6- 37 36 wm A W N RX NN A 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 notice of same must be given within five (5) days before the deposition dates and the specific language and/or dialect designated. CATEGORIES OF PERSON(S) MOST QUALIFIED Pursuant to Section 2025.230, Respondents request that Claimant produce the following person(s) most knowledgeable: 1. The person most qualified as to the claims at issue in this matter. A true and accurate copy of the claims which claimant has brought forth in this case are attached hereto as Exhibit “1.” 2. The person most qualified as to the case management of each of the patients listed in Exhibit “1.” 3. The person most qualified as to Claimant’s determination of Respondent’s alleged underpayment of the claims in Exhibit “1.” REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT TIME OF DEPOSITION PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT the deponent is requested to produce the documents and things listed below for inspection and/or copying. Please note the term “writing” is defined as in Section 250 of the Evidence Code to mean all documents, memoranda, correspondence, printing, photographs, videotapes and visible manifestations of information stored in the computer memories. 1. Any and all writings, documents, records, or notes involving the claims at issue in this matter (see Exhibit “1”). 2. Any and all writings, including medical records, relating to the medical care of the patients listed in Exhibit “1.” 3. Any and all writings, documents, records, or notes relating to communications by Claimant’s representatives with any Kaiser representative relating to the medical care of the patients listed in Exhibit “1.” 3 NOTICE OF CONTINUED DEPOSITION OF PERSON(S) MOST QUALIFIED AT UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE MEDICAL CENTER AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT TIME OF DEPOSITION Exhibit A-13 1 4. Any and all writings, documents, records, or notes relating to Claimant’s determination 2 of Respondents alleged underpayment of the claims in Exhibit “1.” 3 4 (| DATED: June 24, 2016 YANG PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 5 By: 7 Rey S. Yang hel Hannah Courtney Z 8 Attorneys for Defendants, KAISER FOUNDATION 0 HOSPITALS and SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA = 9 PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP = _ 10 Siin ge S32 O Ss OU 78 12 = cy SE 13 5 58 5= 14 Z 4s 15 Cit on =< 16 ERT ao 0 19 Z < 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 4 NOTICE OF CONTINUED DEPOSITION OF PERSON(S) MOST QUALIFIED AT UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE 28 MEDICAL CENTER AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT TIME OF DEPOSITION Exhibit A-14 EXHIBIT 1 Exhibit A-15 UC, irvine vs. Kaiser FC 12002 No. FiteNo. LastName FirstName PatieatiD Kaiser Clsim# Admin Discharge Total Charges Total Paid Underpaid 1 [002015555382 [MOREIRA |MASSIEL 15455072 |X20121308 18/22/2011 18/23/2013 §57315.00] 58,600.85 $4505.72] 2 1002024317980 [RAMIREZ {CATALINA 20552366 IX2265181903 [10/18/2012 |10/21/2012 | $77,285.00] $5148.57 $72,136.43 [3 009000352543 |HERWEES LIOSEF 10581058 |X2085061202 [2/24/2012 12/25/2012 $35,373.00, $21,237.73] $12,402.00 + 1009000388976 |TREADWAY |SINCLAIRG [20199273 1601158916 [11/24/2012 11/27/2012 | $118,023.80 $102,853.51 $9,387.12 = lo09000430554 IFUNOKA __ IWAYNE AKIRA [16308480 [X2463295600 11/4/2013 [11/5/2013 $64,691.00 $0.00] $61,521.14 6 1009000445800 {REDMAN _{BREON 16955095 Ix2549384702 [3/7/2014 [3/11/2014 | $135,291.00 $114,018.24] $14,643.50] $215,995.91 Page 1ofl Exhibit A-16 Y A N G P R O F E S S I O N A L L A W C O R P O R A T I O N 80 S. L A K E S T R E E T , S U I T E 82 0, P A S A D E N A , C A 91 10 1 T E L E P H O N E : (6 26 ) 92 1- 43 00 FA CS IM IL E: (2 13 ) 59 6- 57 36 wm A W N eo ® NN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE The Regents of the University of California, on behalf of The University of California, Irvine, Medical Center v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, et al. Orange County Superior Court Case No.: 30-2015-00808967-CU-CO-CJC I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California; I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action; my business address is 80 S. Lake Street, Suite 820, Pasadena, CA 91101. On June 24, 2016, I served the foregoing document described as: NOTICE OF CONTINUED DEPOSITION OF PERSON(S) MOST QUALIFIED AT UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE MEDICAL CENTER AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT TIME OF DEPOSITION on the interested parties as follows: Melanie Joy Stephenson-Laws Barry Sullivan Richard A. Lovich Michael S. Robinson LAW OFFICES OF STEPHENSON, ACQUISTO, & COLMAN, INC. 303 N. Glenoaks Blvd., Suite 700 Burbank, CA 91502 Facsimile: (818) 559-5484 x By mail [State]: I am readily familiar with Yang Professional Law Corporation’s practice for the collection and processing of mail with the United States Postal Service; such envelope will be deposited with the United States Postal Service on the above date in the ordinary course of business at the business address shown below; and such envelope was placed for collection and mailing on the above date according to Yang Professional Law Corporation’s ordinary business practices. ( By facsimile: I caused said document to be transmitted by facsimile to each addressee set forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m. The transmission of this document was complete and without error. LJ By overnight delivery: I caused such envelope to delivered via overnight delivery to the party(ies) listed on the attached mailing list. Executed on June 24, 2016, at Pasadena, California. X [State] I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. a [Federal] I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this Court at whose direction this service was made. abril. Hues. GABRIELA GARCIA, DECLARANT NOTICE OF CONTINUED DEPOSITION OF PERSON(S) MOST QUALIFIED AT UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE MEDICAL CENTER AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT TIME OF DEPOSITION Exhibit A-17 9¢2¢e-20S16 VO Mueqing 004 3UNS pPAIg s)¥eous|D 'N €0€ 0 9 % 01sinbay ‘uosuaydalg JO SS2IUO Me] uosuiqoy 'S ISeydIN ueAl|ing Aueg s m e J - u o s u a y d a l s Aor s i v e l y W O O , | s d u r e l s ; 9 1 0 2 vZ NNT" ‘ 10116 WOY4 I | I fe LOLL6 VO ‘YNIAVYSVYd Soviend sh 0z8 3LINS ‘INNIAY INV 'S 08 5 . 9 0 % 062S0009631078 N O I L Y H O d H O O MV'1 T V N O I S S I 4 0 d d O N V A © 60 J O N Wn hh W D N O N N N ND N N N N mm e m e m e m sm e e e e m e 0 NN OO Wn DAN W N = OO OO O N R E W I N D = O PROOF OF SERVICE I am employed in the county of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 303 North Glenoaks Boulevard, Suite 700, Burbank, California 91502-3226. On February 10, 2017, I served the foregoing document(s) entitled: 1. 2. UCI MEDICAL CENTER'S OPPOSITION TO KAISER’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4; AND DECLARATION OF DAVID MASTAN by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed per the attached Service List. [] [] [] BY U.S. MAIL: 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 United States Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Burbank, 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 day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. [C.C.P. 1013a(3); F.R.C.P. 5(b)] BY FEDERAL EXPRESS: I caused such envelope(s), with overnight Federal Express Delivery Charges to be paid by this firm, to be deposited with the Federal Express Corporation at a regularly maintained facility on the aforementioned date. [C.C.P. 1013(c) 1013(d)] BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I caused the above-stated document(s) to be served by personally delivering a true copy thereof to the individuals identified above. [C.C.P. 1011(a); F.R.C.P. 5(b)] BY EXPRESS MAIL: I caused such envelope(s), with postage thereon fully prepaid and addressed to the party(s) shown above, to be deposited in a facility operated by the U.S. Postal Service and regularly maintained for the receipt of Express Mail on the aforementioned date. [C.C.P. 1013(c)] BY TELECOPIER: Service was effected on all parties at approximately ___: am/pm by transmitting said document(s) from this firm's facsimile machine (818/559-4477) to the facsimile machine number(s) shown above. Transmission to said numbers was successful as evidenced by a OO 00 NN O&O wn hr WLW ND = N O N N N N m e e m e m e e e e e e e m e s Transmission Report produced by the machine indicating the documents had been transmitted completely and without error. C.R.C. 2008(e), Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1013(e). [ X] BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: By emailing true and correct copies to the persons at the electronic notification address(es) shown on the accompanying service list. The document(s) was/were served electronically and the transmission was reported as complete and without error. [ X] State: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on February 10, 2017 in Burbank, California. _ << STEVE KIM skim@sacfirm.com SERVICE LIST Rey S. Yang, Esq. Sally Hosn, Esq. Yang Professional Law Corporation 80 S. Lake Ave, Suite 820 Pasadena, CA 91101 (626) 921-4301 ryang@yangpc.com shosn@yangpc.com cc: Gabriela Garcia goarcia(@yangpc.com