Leonard Ortiz vs. William Davis

Reply to Motion

Cal. Super. - 4th Dist.January 26, 2017

A I T K E N 4 A I T K E N 4 C O H N 3 M A C A R T H U R P L A C E , S U I T E 80 0 O O 0 J O o n m B r WL W N D _ - = e m = e e e e e d a N w n A W N = o O 71 4- 43 4- 14 24 71 4- 43 4- 36 00 F A C S I M I L E S A N T A A N A , C A 9 2 7 0 7 D D N o N o [\ ) D N N o n o - _ - - _ a N w h ~ W w NS ] - _ S S © 0 J \ ] ~ 28 £9 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER RICHARD A. COHN, ESQ. (SBN 145156) ATTICUS N. WEGMAN, ESQ. (SBN 273496) AITKEN 4AITKEN 4 COHN 3 MACARTHUR PLACE, SUITE 800 P.0. BOX 2555 SANTA ANA, CA 92707-2555 (714) 434-1424/(714) 434-3600 FAX Attorneys for Plaintiffs Leonard Ortiz and Donna Ortiz SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE CIVIL COMPLEX CENTER Leonard Ortiz, an individual; Donna Ortiz, an individual; Plaintiffs, VS. Dr. William Davis, an individual; Orange County Global Medical Center; and DOES 1-50, inclusive; Defendants. NeNeNe” N e ” N e N e N e N e S e N e N a S e a a N e a S e S N N e S e a N a N N N N CASE NO: 30-2017-00899692 [Hon. Ronald L. Bauer, Dept. CX103] REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM DEFENDANT OC GLOBAL MEDICAL CENTER Date: Time: Dept.: April 2,2018 9:00 a.m. CX103 Complaint Filed: January 26, 2017 Trial Date: July 9, 2018 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 1 REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM DEFENDANT OC GLOBAL MEDICAL CENTER A I T K E N +4 A I T K E N 4 C O H N 3 M A C A R T H U R P L A C E , S U I T E 80 0 N o © 0 N N O N w n B W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 71 4- 43 4- 14 24 71 4- 43 4- 36 00 F A C S I M I L E S A N T A A N A , C A 9 2 7 0 7 23 24 25 26 27 28 £9 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER I PLAINTIFFS WITHDRAW REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION NOS. 4, 6, AND 7 Not until Plaintiffs received Defendant’s Opposition and the Declaration from Terri Othman did they have proof that Defendant William Davis’s application materials are part of the Medical Staff Committee. As such, Plaintiffs withdraw these Requests. II. DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENT THAT PLAINTIFFS’ REQUESTS ARE OVERBROAD IN SCOPE IS UNPERSUASIVE Defendant’s Opposition spendsa significant amount oftime arguing that the scope of Plaintiffs’ requests is overbroad. Defendant notes that if it were to produceits records that it would certainly produce irrelevant information and thus provides an example of decubitis ulcers or a complaint regarding the hospital sanitation as records that might be produced. Of course, pointing to the fact that some information produced might be irrelevant in litigation is not the standard. Plaintiffs must be allowed to prove its claims and Defendant cannot control their access to justice. Further,if the records being requested have little bearing on this case, as Defendant alleges, they should not be worried about their admissibility. Note, Defendant has not argued that the production of such documents would be overly burdensome or ofgreat expense. Not only have Plaintiffs limited the time period of the documents they are requesting to five (5) years, but Defendant certainly has numerous safeguards in place in case Defendant’s prophecy comes true and they produce irrelevant information. F irst, the information will be just that, irrelevant, and thus not admissible. Second, if Defendant is worried about its introduction into evidence it can object any number of ways such as an oral objection or motion in limine. Litigants in this case will be forced to exchange exhibitlists priorto trial and thus Defendant will have a third opportunity to object. III. DEFENDANT INTERPRETS EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 1157 TOO BROADLY Not all of Plaintiffs Requests for Production were objected to based on Evidence Code section 1157. However, each category of documents that Defendant asserts is protected by 2 REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQ UEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM DEFENDANT OC GLOBAL MEDICAL CENT ER A I T K E N 4 A I T K E N 4 C O H N 3 M A C A R T H U R P L A C E , S U I T E 80 0 O S © © N N a w n BR A W N F E A N W n R e Ww W N D 71 4- 43 4- 14 24 71 4- 43 4- 36 00 F A C S I M I L E S A N T A A N A , C A 9 2 7 0 7 N D N o N o N o N o N o N D - - - a N W n ~ W w N o - _ ( a o O 0 J N o ~ 28 &9 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Evidence Code section 1157, is an overbroad misinterpretation of the statue. Evidence Code section 1157 states: (a) Neither the proceedings northe records of organized committees of medical, medical-dental...or of a peer review body, as defined in Section 805 of the Business and Professions Code, having the responsibility of evaluation and improvement of the quality of care rendered in the hospital, or for that peer review body, or medical or dental review...having the responsibility of evaluation and improvement of the quality ofcare, shall be subject to discovery. In Willits v. Superior Court (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 90, the court recognized that medical facilities have a dual structure. First, an administrative governing body takes ultimate responsibility for the quality and performance ofthe medical facility. Second, an organized medical staff entity has responsibility for providing medical services, and is responsible to the governing bodyfor the adequacy, and quality of the medical care rendered to patients in the hospital. Id. at 100. Of the numerous categories of documents of documents requested, Defendant has conveniently made efforts to fit all said documents underthe umbrella of Evidence Code section 1157 a medical committee document. This begs the questions, what documents are used in the regularly course ofbusiness relating to its physicians practices? Defendant admits that Dr. Davis was evaluated by the Medical Staff Committee but still fails to produce any information related thereto. Defendant’s Separate Statement states “there 1s no allegation or evidence that Dr. Davis was not evaluated by the Medical Staff.” Defendants Separate Statement Pg. 8. Defendant cannot be allowed to argue at trial that Defendant William Davis’s care and treatment to Plaintiff was proper and not questioned by other medical professionals, and also preclude Plaintiffs from discovering information that proves he was reviewed by the Medical Staff at the hospital for his improper care ofPlaintiff Leonard Ortiz. 3 REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM DEFENDANT OC GLOBAL MEDICAL CENTER A I T K E N 4 A I T K E N 4 C O H N 3 M A C A R T H U R P L A C E , S U I T E 80 0 O O 0 9 O N w n B A W N -_ - = = = e e e e A N w n A r W D = O 71 4- 43 4- 14 24 71 4- 43 4- 36 00 F A C S I M I L E S A N T A A N A , C A 9 2 7 0 7 N o N o No ) N o N o N o N o p i - _ - _ o N w n E N w D N o - _ o S O o c o a N N o ~ 3 28 €9 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER IV. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 49 Defendant improperly argues to this Court that Evidence Code section 1157 precludes disclosure of information relating to the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB). Defendant’s argumentis not only improper, but it is at odds with the NPDB. The NPDB provides a very strict and narrow path for Plaintiffs to retrieve information. Attached as Exhibit A, the Court will find screenshots taken from the NPDB highlighting the steps that must be taken by Plaintiff. Defendantis prejudicially preventing Plaintiff from complying with these steps. Here, Defendantis asking the Courtto restrict Plaintiffs from attempting to even comply with the NPDB’sinternal policies. Essentially, what is happening is the Defendantis asking the Court to restrict Plaintiff’s ability to receive any information fromitself, also from third parties, like the NPDB. It is worth noting that Defendant in earlier meet and confer letters and responses to discovery indicated that information Plaintiffs are seeking is public and equally available. Unfortunately, when Plaintiffs attemptto retrieve said information, Defendant continues to block them as it is doing here. Vv. CONCLUSION Plaintiffs respectfully ask that this Court grants their Motion. Dated: March 26, 2018 AITKEN 4 AITKEN + COHN RICHARD A. COI ATTICUS N. WEGMAN Attorney for Plaintiffs LEONARD ORTIZ and DONNA ORTIZ 4 REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM DEFENDANT OC GLOBAL MEDICAL CENTER A I T K E N 4 A I T K E N 4+ C O H N 3 M A C A R T H U R P L A C E , S U I T E 80 0 O O 0 3 9 O N w n B A W N = F O a A w n R r WL W N D = O 71 4- 43 4- 14 24 71 4- 43 4- 36 00 F A C S I M I L E S A N T A A N A , C A 9 2 7 0 7 D O N O n N N o N o N o N o - - - a N w i = W w N o - o S o O 0 J N o ~ ~ 28 €9 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am overthe age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 3 MacArthur Place, Suite 800, Santa Ana, California, 92707. On Mach 26, 2018 I served the foregoing documents described as REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM DEFENDANT OC GLOBAL MEDICAL CENTER on the parties herein in this action by placing ( ) the original (x) a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope addressed as indicated on the attached service list. (X) BY MAIL () As follows: Iam "readily familiar" with the firm's practice ofcollection and processing correspondence for mailing. Underthat practice it would be deposited with U.S. postal service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Santa Ana, California in the ordinary course ofbusiness. 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 an affidavit. ( ) By Personal Service: I caused the above-referenced the document(s) to be delivered by hand to the attached addressees. ( X) By Overnight Courier: I caused the above-referenced document(s) to be delivered to an overnight courier service for delivery to the above address(es). ( ) By Facsimile Machine: I caused the above-referenced document(s) to be transmitted to the above-named persons at the following telephone number(s) see attached Proofof Service list. () By Email Transmission: I caused the above-referenced document(s) to be transmitted to the persons listed in the attached Proof of Service lists. Executed on March 26, 2018 at Santa Ana, California. (X) (State) I declare under penalty of perjury underthe laws ofthe State of California that the above is true and correct. #1, . IAB KFistin McCarthy 5 REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM DEFENDANT OC GLOBAL MEDICAL CENTER A I T K E N 4 A I T K E N 4 C O H N 3 M A C A R T H U R P L A C E , S U I T E 80 0 © © 3 9 O o w n B s Ww W N D = -_ - e m e m SA N O n B A W N D = O O 71 4- 43 4- 14 24 71 4- 43 4- 36 00 F A C S I M I L E S A N T A A N A , C A 9 2 7 0 7 R O N N N RN N N m m aA LU BR W N ~~ © WV wo = NS ) ~ 28 €9 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ORTIZ v. DAVIS, ET AL. SERVICE LIST Craig S. Dummit, Esq. Steven E. Kushner, Esq. Cameron D. Aronson, Esq. DUMMIT, BUCHOLZ & TRAPP 11755 Wilshire Blvd., 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90025-0944 (310) 479-0944 (310) 312-3836-fax Attorneys for Defendant Orange County Global Medical Center Terrence J. Schafer, Esq. DOYLE SCHAFER McMAHON, LLP 5440 Trabuco Road Irvine, CA 92620 (949) 727-7077 (949) 727-1284-fax Attorneys for Defendant William Davis, M.D. 6REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FORPRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM DEFENDANT OC GLOBAL MEDICAL CENTER