Motion In Limine No 1MotionCal. Super. - 2nd Dist.July 14, 2015NO 0 3 O N Un bh W R N PR DN RN N N MN NY RN ) me m em p e s e m e t e m e m oe m ee ~N O N n h R A W ND = D Y 0 N N N RA W N o - o o 28 Bowles & Verna LLP 2121 N. California Suite 875 Walnut Creek 94596 RICHARD A. ERGO (# 110487) CATHLEEN S. HUANG (# 219554) WILLIAM T. NAGLE (# 180162) Bowles & Verna LLP 2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 875 Walnut Creek, California 94596 Telephone: (925) 935-3300 Facsimile: (925) 935-0371 Email: rergo@bowlesverna.com chuang@bowlesverna.com wnagle@bowlesverna.com Attorneys for Defendants Worthington Industries, Inc.; Worthington Cylinders Wisconsin, LLC; and Home Depot U.S.A. Inc. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT JASON LOGAN ABELL, Case No. BC588061 Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 TO PRECLUDE GRIGOR M. Vv. HARUTUNIAN, M.D. FROM TESTIFYING ABOUT ANY TIME HE SAW MR. ABELL WORTHINGTON INDUSTRIES AFTER HE WAS DEPOSED ON MARCH INCORPORATED; WORTHINGTON 29, 2017 OR THE OPINIONS HE FORMED CYLINDERS WISCONSIN, LLC; NEWELL FROM THOSE VISITS RUBBERMAID, INCORPORATED; BERNZOMATIC, INC.; THE HOME DEPOT, Date: September 21,2017 INC.; and DOES 1 through 20, Inclusive, Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept.: 91 Defendants. WORTHINGTON INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED; WORTHINGTON CYLINDERS WISCONSIN, LLC; NEWELL RUBBERMAID, INCORPORATED; BERNZOMATIC. INC.: THE HOME DEPOT, INC. (“Defendants”) deposed Plaintiff JASON LOGAN ABELL'S (“Plaintiff™) expert witness Grigor Michael Harutunian, M.D. on March 29, 2017. Plaintiff visited Dr. Harutunian twice over three years prior to the March 29, 2017 deposition in this action. Plaintiff then made another visit to Dr. Harutunian on April 5, 2017, exactly one week after Dr. Harutunian was deposed. Defendants respectfully request that this Court exclude any and all opinions and/or testimony stemming from this visit or any visit where Dr. Harutunian saw Plaintiff after he was deposed because ] DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. | © vo 0 0 O N n N 1 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Bowles & Verna LLP 2121 N. California Suite 875 Wainut Creek 94596 such evidence would result in unwarranted surprise and cause undue prejudice. Cal. Evid. Code § 352. IL. BACKGROUND Dr. Harutunian disclosed that he was asked to be an expert witness in this case. (Nagle Dec., § 3, Deposition of Grigor Michael Harutunian, M.D. at 7:4-11) He testified that he was not asked to provide any opinions in the case, aside from the opinions he had written in the neurological consultation reports. (Nagle Dec., § 3; Harutunian depo at 17:11-17) This included his opinion about plaintiff's traumatic brain injury on the date of his examination in August 2013 and his follow up visit in September 2013. (Nagle Dec., § 3; Harutunian depo at 18: 11-21) However, Dr. Harutunian did not have an opinion on March 29, 2017 on whether Plaintiff still had a traumatic brain injury because he had not seen Plaintiff in four years. (Nagle Dec., § 3; Harutunian depo at 20:14-24) As Dr. Harutunian did not have an opinion on the current state of plaintiff's brain injury, defendants could not question him any further on this point. Dr. Harutunian examined plaintiff again exactly one week after his deposition. (Nagle Dec., 9 4) The examination was characterized as a follow up visit. (Nagle Dec., §4) It had been over three and a half years since his previous visit on September 16, 2013, which was also a follow up to plaintiff's initial visit in August 2013. This visit allowed Dr. Harutunian to form an opinion about plaintiff's current medical conditions, an opinion he did not have one week prior when defendants deposed him. Allowing Dr. Harutunian to discuss this visit or the opinions he formed from the visit would be unfair and cause undue burden on defendants. HI. LEGAL ARGUMENT A. Dr. Harutunian Testified He Was Retained As An Expert, But Failed to See Mr. Abell Before His Deposition Dr. Harutunian disclosed that he was retained as an expert witness in this case. (Nagle Dec., 3, Harutunian Depo at 7:4-11). Additionally, “A treating physician is not consulted for litigation purposes, but rather is qualified to testify about the plaintiff’s injuries and medical history because of his or her underlying expertise as a physician and his or her physician-patient relationship with the plaintiff. A retained expert, on the other hand, is engaged for the purpose of forming and expressing an opinion in anticipation of the litigation based at least in part on information obtained outside the physician-patient relationship, for the purpose of the litigation rather than the patient’s treatment.” 2 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 SS 0 0 N N O N o A 1 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 og 28 Bowles & Verna LLP 2121 N. California Suite 875 Walnut Creek 94596 Dozier v. Shapiro, 199 Cal. App. 4th 1509, 1520 (2011). Plaintiff retained Dr. Harutunian as an expert for the purpose of forming and expressing an opinion in anticipation of litigation. Plaintiff waited until one week after Dr. Harutunian was deposed before conveniently making another “follow-up” visit, despite it being over three years since his previous visit. The timing suggests plaintiff purposefully wanted to deny defendants the ability to question Dr. Harutunian about his opinion of plaintiff’s present medical condition. There is no other explanation for a “follow up” visit in April 2017 to an initial visit in August 2013, which Just happened to take place shortly after Dr. Harutunian’s deposition. B. Dr. Harutunian Should Not Be Permitted To Testify At Trial About Plaintiff’s Follow-Up Examination After He Was Deposed : “When an expert deponent testifies as to specific opinions and affirmatively states those are the only opinions he intends to offer at trial, it would be grossly unfair and prejudicial to permit the expert to offer additional opinions at trial.” Jones v. Moore, 80 Cal. App. 4th 557, 565 (2000). The need for pretrial discovery is greater with respect to expert witnesses than it is for ordinary fact witnesses because the other parties must prepare to cope with witnesses possessed of specialized knowledge in some scientific or technical field. Id. Dr. Harutunian testified that the opinions he was going to give in this case were comprised of the opinions he had written in the neurological consultation reports. (Nagle Dec., § 3; Harutunian depo at 17:11-17) This included his opinion about plaintiff's traumatic brain injury on the date of his examination and follow up in August and September 2013. (Nagle Dec., § 3; Harutunian depo at 18: 11-21) However, Dr. Harutunian did not have an opinion on March 29, 2017 on whether plaintiff still had a traumatic brain injury because he had not seen plaintiff in four years. (Nagle Dec., 9 3; Harutunian depo at 20:14-24) Plaintiff saw Dr. Harutunian exactly one week after his deposition on April 5, 2017. At this doctor visit, Dr. Harutunian was able to form an opinion he did not have at his deposition. It would be grossly unfair and prejudicial to permit Dr. Harutunian to offer this additional opinion at trial because he testified he did not have an opinion as to Plaintiff’s current medical condition at his deposition. 3 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 wn A W N S 0 0 9 1 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27, 28 Bowles & Verna LLP 2121 N. California Suite 875 Walnut Creek 94596 C. The Findings Of Dr. Harutunian’s Follow- Up Report From April 5, 2017 Are Inconsistent With The Follow-Up Report From September 16, 2013. Dr. Harutunian’s findings in his follow up report three and half years later are inconsistent with the first follow up report. (Nagle Dec., 1 5) In the follow up on September 16, 2013, Dr. Harutunian classifies his impression of plaintiff's issues as “Post-concussion syndrome” and that indicated plaintiff's headaches were resolved. (Nagle Dec., 9 5) In the follow up report on April 5, 2017 Dr. Harutunian reports plaintiff has “Chronic post-traumatic headache,” “Left ear disorder”, and a “concussion.” (Nagle Dec., § 5) After concluding plaintiffs headaches were gone in 2013, he completely changed his opinion and stated plaintiff suffers from chronic post-traumatic headaches. These new findings and opinions were not available prior to plaintiff's second follow-up visit. Thus, defendants could not question Dr. Harutunian about them at his deposition, which conveniently took place one week before this information became available. The first follow up report also states that Dr. Harutunian suspected that plaintiff should continue to improve. (Nagle Dec., § 5) This was not at all what his second follow up report revealed. Defendants were unable to question Dr. Harutunian as to why he thought plaintiff would improve and what he thought were contributing factors to plaintiff's conditions. D. Defendants Were Not Informed Plaintiff Was Planning On Seeing Dr. Harutunian Before The Deposition And Dr. Harutunian’s Testimony Reasonably Led Defendants To Believe He Did Not Expect To See Plaintiff Again. Plaintiff's “follow up” visit one week after Dr. Harutunian’s deposition came as a surprise to defendants. Defense counsel asked Dr. Harutunian if he had seen plaintiff again after the initial follow up and he responded in relevant part “I told him that I would expect his symptoms, in six, seven months, to resolve. If not, he is always welcome to come back and see me. But I didn’t see him after the follow up. So --.” (Nagle Dec., q 3; Harutunian depo at 20:25-21:1 1) This response led defendants to reasonably believe that although the door was open for plaintiff to see Dr. Harutunian again, the most appropriate time frame was six to seven months after the initial follow up if he was still experiencing symptoms. That would have been right around March or April 2014. As set forth in Evidence Code § 352, it is proper for a court to exclude unduly prejudicial evidence: “The Court in its discretion may exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially 4 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 1 || outweighed by the probability that its admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) 2 || create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or misleading the jury.” (Cal. 3 || Evid. Code § 352.) Any and all opinions and/or testimony about anything during the time or times Dr. 4 || Harutunian saw or treated Mr. Abell after he was deposed on March 29, 2017 would result in 5 || unwarranted surprise and undue prejudice to defendants and as such should be excluded. 6 II. CONCLUSION 7 Defendants respectfully move the Court for an order precluding Dr. Harutunian from testifying 8 || about any time he saw Mr. Abell after he was deposed on March 29, 2017 or the opinions he formed 9 || from those visits as it is likely to cause undue prejudice and unwarranted surprise. 10 11 || Dated: August 25, 2017 BOWLES & VERNA LLP 12 13 oo 14 By: L~ a IN Richard A. Ergo 15 William T. Nagle Attorneys for Defendants 16 Worthington Industries, Inc.; Worthington 17 Cylinders Wisconsin, LLC; and Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Bowles & Verna LLP eld Js; Chlikomiz 5 Walnut Creek 94596 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 No [= R V O E N E S| 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Bowles & Verna LLP 2121 N, California Suite 875 Walnut Creek 94596 Declaration of William T. Nagle I, William T. Nagle, declare and state as follows: 1. I am an attorney at law licensed to practice in all courts in California and am one of the attorneys of record for defendants Worthington Industries, Inc.; Worthington Cylinders Wisconsin, LLC; and Home Depot U.S.A, Inc. Ihave personal knowledge of the matters set forth below and believe all those matters to be true. If called to testify as a witness in this matter, I could and would use my own personal knowledge to testify to the facts stated herein. 2. Pursuant to Los Angeles County Local Rule 3.57(a). I have discussed this subject motion with opposing counsel, and opposing counsel has not agreed to the stipulation proposed. Attached as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of the emails exchanged. 3. Plaintiff's expert, Grigor Michael Harutunian, testified on March 29, 2017. 1 was at the deposition and know all of his testimony. A true and correct copy of portions of the transcript is attached as Exhibit “A”, 4. Attached as Exhibit “B” is a true and correct copy of Grigor Harutunian’s evaluation of Jason Abell on 4-5-2017. 5. Attached as Exhibit “C” is a true and correct copy of Grigor Harutunian’s evaluation of Jason Abell on 9-16-2013. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this"? day of August, 2017, at Walnut Creek, California. c a NE Pe 1 William T. Nagle 6 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 O 0 0 3 AA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Bowles & Verna LLP 2121 N. California Blvd Suite 875 Walnut Creek 94596 PROOF OF SERVICE (Abell v. Worthington, et al.; Case No. BC588061) I, the undersigned, declare as follows: [am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years, and not a party to, or interested in the within entitled action. I am an employee of BOWLES & VERNA LLP, and my business address is 2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 875, Walnut Creek, California 94596. On August 30, 2017, I served the following document(s): DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 TO PRECLUDE GRIGOR M. HARUTUNIAN, M.D. FROM TESTIFYING ABOUT ANY TIME HE SAW MR. ABELL AFTER HE WAS DEPOSED ON MARCH 29, 2017 OR THE OPINIONS HE FORMED FROM THOSE VISITS on the following parties in this action addressed as follows: Sean Bral, Esq. Bral & Associates 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1770 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-789-2007 Fax: 310-789-2006 seanbral(@gmail.com BY UNITED STATES MAIL: [enclosed the documents in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses listed above. [ placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. | am readily familiar with this business's practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. XXX BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: [enclosed the documents in an envelope or package provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the persons at the addresses listed above. | placed the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at an office or a regularly utilized drop box of the overnight delivery carrier. BY PERSONAL SERVICE: [ caused to be served each document listed above by hand to each addressee above. Delivery was made to the attorney or at the attorneys office by leaving the documents in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the attorney being served with a receptionist or an individual in charge of the office. BY FAX TRANSMISSION: By use of facsimile machine number (925) 935-0371, I served a copy of the within document(s) on the parties at the facsimile numbers listed above. The transmission was reported as complete, without error and properly issued by the transmitting facsimile machine. BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept service by e-mail or electronic transmission, | caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the e-mail addresses listed above. | did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on August 30, 2017 at Walnut Creek, California. 7 1 PROOF OF SERVICE {00656333.DOC; 1} EXHIBIT 1 Jenny Peterson ERRORS LE Rt ie To: Jenny Peterson Subject: FW: Re: Begin forwarded message: From: Michelle Stone Date: August 21, 2017 at 2:09:03 PM EDT To: William Nagle Cec: Sean Bral Subject: Re: Bill, We will oppose all of them. On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 6:03 PM, William Nagle wrote: Michelle We are writing to inform you that defendants intend on filing the motions in limine below. This email is a meet and confer email. Please let us know within five days if you intend to stipulate to excluding any of the evidence cited below. Otherwise, we will file the motions cited below with the Court to be heard on the first day of trial. Thanks so much. 1) MIL excluding Dr. Harutunian from testifying about anything during the time he saw Mr. Abell after he was deposed on March 29, 2017. 2) MIL excluding any testimony that Dr. Fong used marijuana in the past. 3) MIL excluding any references to a product recall at trial. 4) MIL to exclude Dr. Anderson from testifying any time at trial. 5) MIL to exclude the consumer expectations test from being cited or used at any time at trial. 6) MIL to exclude any evidence or testimony of monetary amounts during trial where plaintiff is seeking any more than $75,000 at trial and precluding plaintiff from seeking over $75,000 at any time during trial. 7) MIL to exclude any evidence, testimony or argument plaintiff has a lost earnings or a lost earnings capacity claim. 8) MIL to exclude any evidence, testimony and arguments regarding irrelevant claims that are in plaintiff's proposed jury instructions, but not in the complaint such as negligence claims, warranty claims, and ultra-hazardous activity claims. 9) MIL to exclude Diana Gardner from testifying at trial. 1 10) MIL to exclude Plaintiff from introducing any evidence relating to expert Anderson's opinion about changes to the cylinder due to a pressure waive. 11) MIL excluding any references or contentions that the cylinder testing was flawed in any way, including prohibiting Dr. Anderson from testifying that product testing was flawed in any way. 12) MIL to exclude any evidence of medical charges/liens in excess of the amounts paid at trial pursuant to California Case law. 13) MIL to exclude any alleged evidence of plaintiff's hearing loss due to the 7/15/13 incident. 14) MIL to exclude any reference to defendants’ refusal to allow plaintiff to deviate from the agreed-on testing protocol. 15) MIL to exclude any reference to or evidence of further testing of the torch and cylinder that plaintiff stated (on 8/11/17) will take place at some point in the future. Best Regards, Michelle Stone, Esq. Bral & Associates 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1770 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Tel 310.789.2007 Ext. 114 Fax 310.789.2006 email: michelle. sbfirm{@ gmail.com web: www.seanbral.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information in this message, and any files transmitted with it, is confidential, may be legally privileged, and intended only for the use of the individual(s) named above. Be aware that the use of any confidential or personal information may be restricted by state and federal privacy laws. If you are not the intended recipient, do not further disseminate this message. If this message was received in error, please notify the sender and delete it. EXHIBIT A Grigor Michael Harutunian, M.D. March 29, 2017 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT JASON LOGAN ABELL, Plaintiff, VS. NO. BC588061 WORTHINGTON INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED; WORTHINGTON CYLINDERS WISCONSIN LLC; NEWELL RUBBERMAID, INCORPORATED; BERNZOMATIC, INC.; THE HOME DEPOT, INC.; and DOES 1 through 20, Inclusive, Defendants. DEPOSITION OF GRIGOR MICHAEL HARUTUNIAN, M.D. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 29, 2017 1:16 P.M. 1215 South Central Ave Glendale, California REPORTED BY: Karine Sepedjian CSR No. 12515, CSR U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT (800) 993-4464 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Grigor Michael Harutunian, M.D. March 29, 2017 APPEARANCES: FOR FOR THE PLAINTIFF: BRAL & ASSOCIATES By: Michelle Stone, Esq. 1875 Century Park East Suite 1770 Los Angeles, California 90067 310.789.2007 michelle.sbfirm@gmail.com THE DEFENDANTS: BOWLES & VERNA, LLP By: William T. Nagle, Esq. 2121 North California Boulevard Suite 875 Walnut Creek, California 94596 925.935.3300 wnagle@bowlesverna.com U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT (BOO) 993-4464 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Grigor Michael Harutunian, M.D. March 29, 2017 Q What kind of cases were those? A Cervical, lumbar pain, disc, radiculopathy type cases, also, traumatic brain injury cases. Q Were you asked to be an expert witness in this case? A I was. Q Okay. Who asked you to be an expert witness? A The plaintiff's attorney. Q Who was that? A Sean Bral. I don't know if she is from the same office, but we just met today. Q When you met today, what did you discuss with Michelle today? | A Just what she had -- I guess she didn't have the follow-up note. So I had to provide that to her, and certain details about the specific case that I wasn't actually aware of either about -- Q What were those details? A That the patient, I guess, as a hobby did skydiving, which I did not know until today, and that he had seen the ENT and what the ENT had said, which I did not have the ENT's report either, which I had referred him to. I recommended him to him after I saw him. Q Who did you recommend him to see? A I recommended Dr. Grosch, who sees patients U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT (800) 993-4464 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Grigor Michael Harutunian, M.D. March 29, 2017 A I have no idea. Q Okay. You have not conducted any studies on that? A Or heard of any. I don't even know. Q Have you had any patients that have dealt with that problem? A None. Q Do you have any opinions on that whatsoever? A None. Q Were you asked to provide any opinions in the case, 1n this case? A For skydiving? Q No, any opinions. A Besides what I wrote here? Q Yes. A No, just what's here. Q Okay. Then you referred. After you first saw him, did you refer him to have any diagnostic tests? A MRI of the brain. Q Why did you refer him to -- A Because the hearing issues weren't the only issues he was having complaints about. Q What were the other issues? U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT S17 (B00) 993-4464 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Grigor Michael Harutunian, M.D. March 29, 2017 A As mentioned in the history of present illness, he was having cognitive issues, headaches that were completely new for him, that he never described before or told me he had before the injury that he sustained in July 2013. So as part of -- Again, I see more traumatic brain injury patients. So as part of my routine work-up, I tend to get a brain imaging to make sure there's nothing missed intracranially that might have been caused by the sheer force of the blast. But it wasn't. The brain MRI was negative. Q Did you render any opinion that he had any traumatic brain injury? A I did. Part of his other symptoms, the cognitive issues, the headaches, are pretty typically seen in somebody who suffers a concussion. A concussion and post-concussion syndrome is a form of a mild TBI or traumatic brain injury. That's pretty much one and the same. Any kind of force that can push a body or shift a head and then shift the brain within the skull, that sheer movement of the brain can lead to certain post -concussive symptoms. Subjectively, they are more of subjective complaints. There's really no phenomenal objective test for me to prove somecne is having a headache or memory problems. But again, that's what the patient tells me U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 18 (800) 993-4464 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Grigor Michael Harutunian, M.D. March 29, 2017 anything wrong, an abnormal brain MRI. Q Did that change any of your opinions regarding traumatic brain injury? A It did not, because if you look at the literate, 95-plus percent of brain MRIs in TBI, the mild versions of TBI, are normal. It's just done as a test, basically, to -- because it's a recommended guideline that you check. So it's done. But given the mild nature, you don't expect it to be abnormal. So I wasn't very shocked or it did not change my -- the imaging result did not change my initial conclusion that he is having some post-concussive symptoms. Q Do you have any opinion today that he has a traumatic brain injury? A I have not seen him in four years. Most post-concussion syndromes, in 75 percent of the people, by literature, by the seventh or eighth month out from the injury resolve, they go away. 15 to 20 percent are refractory, meaning they last longer. How much longer? Only time can tell. I've seen people at one year, two years, three years. I really don't know what his symptoms currently are. It might be all gone, might be still there. I'm not sure. Q Did you ask to see him again? U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT (800) 993-4464 20 10 Jd 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Grigor Michael Harutunian, M.D. March 29, 2017 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) I, Karine Sepedjian, a Certified Shorthand Reporter, do hereby certify: That prior to being examined, the witness named in the foregoing proceedings, was by me duly affirmed to testify the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; That said proceedings were taken before me at the time and place therein set forth and were taken down by me in shorthand and thereafter transcribed into typewriting under my direction and supervision; I further certify that I am neither counsel for, nor related to, any party to said proceedings, nor in anywise interested in the outcome thereof. In witness whereof, I have hereunto subscribed my name. Dated: April 14, 2017 [aruns Ap 7 Karine Sepedjian, CSR No. 12515 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT (800) 993-4464 55 EXHIBIT B evescns La wl EL GRIGOR M. HARUTUNIAN, M.D. BOARD CERTIFIED NEUROLOGIST & CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGIST Law offices of Sean Bral 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1770 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Patient: Jason Abell Date of birth: 09-29-1988 Date of Injury: 07-15-2013 Evaluation date: 4-5-2017 FOLLOW-UP EVALUATION Jason Abell presented to my office on April 5, 2017 for a follow up visit. He was last seen on 9/16/2013. Since the last visit, he reports that he does get headaches that last 15-20 minutes occurring once or twice per week. He does relate some of these headaches to the chronic left ear discomfort that he started to have after the blast injury he suffered on 7/15/2013. The headaches are over the left temple area and they do spread to involve the entire head. Triggers for these headaches include loud noises and physical exertion. He also reports that he has experienced multiple headaches per day especially with one of the triggers. He takes ibuprofen, which helps alleviate the headache completely. He continues to work as a sound engineer but he avoids areas with loud noises. He endorses trouble focusing and concentrating during a headache. Neurological Exam: Mental status: Alert and oriented to person, place, time, and situation. Has fluent speech and language in English. No dysarthria noted. Able to name, repeat, and recall. Cranial nerves: II: Pupils are equal, round, and reactive to light. Visual fields full. l1/IV/VI: Extraocular movements are intact. No nystagmus or diplopia. V: Face strength intact without asymmetry. VII: Sensation intact to touch and temperature. VII}: Hearing decreased to finger rub in the left ear. IX/X: Uvula midline, palate elevates symmetrically with phonation. XI: Strenocleidomastoid and trapezius function intact. XII: Tongue protrudes in the midline, no atrophy or fasciculations noted. Motor: Normal tone, bulk, and strength throughout bilaterally. No pronator drift. No atrophy or fasciculations noted. Right ring finger missing. 1215 S. Central Ave. // Glendale, CA 91204 // P: 818.937.9944 // F: 888.980.1149 GRIGOR M. HARUTUNIAN, M.D. BOARD CERTIFIED NEUROLOGIST & CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGIST Sensory: Intact to primary modalities including light touch, temperature, and pinprick. No evidence of a sensory level. Deep tendon reflexes: 2+ equal and symmetric. Toes plantar flexion response bilaterally. No evidence of clonus or spasticity. Coordination: No evidence of dysmetria on finger to nose testing. Gait: Normal tandem, heel, and toes walk. Romberg negative. Diagnostic Studies/Medical Records Review: MRI Brain (8/26/13): Impression: 1} Normal. Assessment: His current headache symptoms are likely secondary to a combination of posttraumatic headaches and left ear canal dysfunction. He originally found headache relief from the combination of over the counter Magnesium Oxide and Riboflavin, which | recommended to him during our initial encounter on 8/15/2013. The transient trouble focusing and concentrating he endorses is in relation to the headaches and left ear discomfort. Screening brain MRI is normal. It is my impression that the left ear canal dysfunction is the root of his current symptoms for which he was evaluated by ENT. Impression: ¢ Chronic post-traumatic headache (G44.321) ¢ left ear disorder (H91.92) ® Concussion (506.0) Recommendations: 1. Magnesium Oxide and Riboflavin for headache prophylaxis. 2. Continue ibuprofen as needed for breakthrough headaches. 3. Defer further management and/or treatment, if any, of the left ear issues to its respective specialist. 1215 S. Central Ave. // Glendale, CA 91204 // P: 818.937.9944 // F: 888.980.1149 gl 8.3 6 5 0 5 5 by : S a y T L i « o e va a O E E l u o GRIGOR M. HARUTUNIAN, M.D. BOARD CERTIFIED NEUROLOGIST & CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGIST Respectfully, Grigor M. Harutunian, M.D. Board Certified Neurologist Board Certified Clinical Neurophysiologist California License Number: A111421 Disclaimer: The above report is for medical/legal assessment of injuries and is not to be construed as a complete physical examination for general health purposes. Only those symptoms which are believed to have been involved in the injury or that might relate to the injury have been assessed. sesesevecnnas Pelle arAaA ev IAL AL basa IVOER BIO aS BMrheastdissbb snares aneassansaanrteaeas BAO r et io nR ste a aris testers sraenttseriatuse 1215 8S. Central Ave. // Glendale, CA 91204 // P: 818.937.9944 // F: 888.980.1149 EXHIBIT C GRIGOR M. HARUTUNIAN, M.D. BOARD CERTIFIED NEUROLOGIST & CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGIST Law offices of Sean Bral 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1770 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Patient: Jason Abell Date of birth: 09-29-1988 Date of Injury: 07-15-2013 Evaluation date: 09-16-2013 NEUROLOGICAL CONSULTATION REPORT Dear Mr. Bral, Mr. Jason Abell presented to my office on September 16, 2013 for a follow up visit. This evaluation is in reference to injuries sustained by Mr. Abell on 7/15/2013. Current complaint(s): 1) Ear pressure and pain 2) Memory disturbance 3) Trouble concentrating Interval History: Mr. Jason Abell is a 24-year-old left-handed male with no reported past medical history who was involved in a blast injury on July 15, 2013. He presented to me initially on 8/15/2013 for a neurological evaluation for complaints of ear pressure and pain, headaches, and memory loss since the incident on 7/15/13. At that visit, | diagnosed him with a postconcussive syndrome and ordered an MRI of the brain, which was normal. He states today that his headaches have resolved. However, his main issue remains the discomfort and pressure like sensation in his ears. He also states that the memory issues have been improving, however, he still has trouble concentrating. He mentions today that he was seen and evaluated by an otolaryngologist who stated that his tympanic membranes were intact and that it will take time for the ear symptoms to improve. No new symptoms reported today. Past Medical History: Patient denies any prior medical history. a er et a th tl rt TE es rate rd IE batt rrr Err ret aaa ar areas tains asae st irs easaear intoansestectsnnrtnttsansaasasiansssossaisannnss 1215 S. Central Ave. // Glendale, CA 91204 // P: 818.937.9944 // F: 888.980.1149 GRIGOR M. HARUTUNIAN, M.D. BOARD CERTIFIED NEUROLOGIST & CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGIST Past Surgical History: Amputation of right ring finger when he was a child. Allergies: Patient denies any known drug allergies. Current medications: 1) Multivitamins Neurological Exam: Mental status: Alert and oriented to person, place, time, and situation. Has fluent speech and language in English. No dysarthria noted. Able to name, repeat, and recall. Cranial nerves: pupils are equal, round, and reactive to light, extraocular movements are intact, face symmetric, sensation intact to touch, tongue midline, shoulder shrug full strength, palate rise symmetric, hearing diminished to finger rub R>L. Motor: Normal tone, bulk, and strength throughout bilaterally. No pronator drift. No atrophy or fasciculations noted. Right ring finger missing. Sensory: intact to primary modalities including light touch, temperature, and pinprick. No evidence of a sensory level. Reflexes: 2+ equal and symmetric. Toes plantar flexion response bilaterally. No evidence of clonus or spasticity. 1+ reflexes at the bilateral ankles. Coordination: fine coordinated movements were fully preserved in both hands. No evidence of ataxia. Gait: normal. Able to tandem, heel, and toe walk. Romberg negative. Diagnostic Studies/Medical Records Review: MRI Brain (8/26/13): Impression: 1) Normal MRI scan of the brain. sdnnsscsannrenae deters ersesnaa Arsvseseserenarenas sere beseseoanssacen Arete srestacas Sesser sesaersteesas trac varesans #rsedscdcensrasnereinEres 1215 S. Central Ave. // Glendale, CA 91204 // P: 818.937.9944 // F: 888.980.1149 GRIGOR M. HARUTUNIAN, M.D. BOARD CERTIFIED NEUROLOGIST & CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGIST Impression: Post-concussion syndrome (PCS) Discussion and plan: Mr. Abell continues to demonstrate certain signs and symptoms of postconcussive syndrome, which include the memory complaints and trouble concentrating. His headaches have resolved and the memory deficits have improved. The MRI of the brain was normal, which is usually the case in most patients with postconcussive syndrome. Treatment of post-concussion syndrome is individualized to the patient's particular complaints. His current main complaints remain the ear discomfort and trouble concentrating. Most patients report improvement in symptoms 2 months out from the concussion, but certain symptoms can linger longer. | suspect that he should continue to improve. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Respectfully, Grigor M. Harutunian, M.D. Board certified Neurologist California License Number: A111421 ssesaesnn de dr ee haa a Ese ttl areas uae E 00a aE NIN ae Nate aN Ia Ease san NIA s eat dara acondRaREtao EERE aS 1215 S. Central Ave. // Glendale, CA 91204 // P: 818.937.9944 // F: 888.980.1149 S d ~N RAR W N = O 0 0 N N N R W NN = S O 0 a N L B W o 28 Bowles & Verna LLP 2121 N. California Suite 875 Walnut Creek 94596 RICHARD A. ERGO (# 110487) CATHLEEN S. HUANG (# 219554) WILLIAM T. NAGLE (# 180162) Bowles & Verna LLP 2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 875 Walnut Creek, California 94596 Telephone: (925) 935-3300 Facsimile: (925) 935-0371 Email: rergo@bowlesverna.com chuang@bowlesverna.com wnagle(@bowlesverna.com Attorneys for Defendants Worthington Industries, Inc.; Worthington Cylinders Wisconsin, LLC; and Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT JASON LOGAN ABELL, Case No. BC588061 Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO EXCLUDE EXPERT WITNESS DR. TIMOTHY W. FONG’S PAST ¥e MARIJUANA USE WORTHINGTON INDUSTRIES Date: September 21, 2017 INCORPORATED; WORTHINGTON Time: 8:30 a.m. CYLINDERS WISCONSIN, LLC; NEWELL Dept.: 91 RUBBERMAID, INCORPORATED; BERNZOMATIC, INC.; THE HOME DEPOT, INC; and DOES 1 through 20, Inclusive, Defendants. Defendants, WORTHINGTON INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED; WORTHINGTON CYLINDERS WISCONSIN, LLC; and THE HOME DEPOT, INC., move the Court, in imine to preclude plaintiff JASON LOGAN ABELL (“Plaintiff™), and Plaintiff's counsel, from introducing any evidence of, or making any reference to, at trial, to any marijuana use of Defendants’ expert witness Dr. Timothy W. Fong. Evidence of his past marijuana use is completely irrelevant, would likely cause undue prejudice, and likely confuse the issues and mislead jurors. Evidence Code §§ 210, 350, 352. Therefore, Defendants respectfully request that the Court prohibit Plaintiff from introducing any evidence of, or making any reference to any marijuana use by Dr. Timothy Fong. ] DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO EXCLUDE EXPERT WITNESS DR. TIMOTHY W. FONG'S PAST MARIMUANA USE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Bowles & Verna LLP 2121 N. California Suite 875 Walnut Creek 94596 IL. DISCUSSION Defendants intend to offer the testimony of their drug addiction expert Dr. Timothy Fong who will testify on the effects of consumption of highly concentrated marijuana. Mr. Abell testified he used Defendants’ product on the day of the incident in his car to ingest medical marijuana. Mr. Abell did something with the torch after ingesting the substance and Abell said he could not remember if he turned the torch off. There is simply no way to separate Plaintiff's claims against the Defendants and their products in this case from his use of medical marijuana in the confined space of his car on the day of the accident. Operating a relatively large torch with a propane canister and manipulating a flame while sitting in the front seat of one’s car would make absolutely no sense to the jury without reference to why Mr. Abell was doing so. Consequently, there is a direct nexus between Plaintiff's medical marijuana use and his product liability claims against the Defendants in this case. And Dr. Fong's testimony is highly relevant. Nonetheless, evidence of Dr. Fong’s use of marijuana is completely irrelevant and would likely cause undue prejudice. Dr. Fong testified that he does not feel that the experience of using marijuana gives him a better understanding of some of the treatment that he provides to his patients that experience cannabis. (See Deposition of Timothy W. Fong at 15:5-8; Nagle Dec. § 2). Dr. Fong explained, “My training and background and understanding the disease of addiction goes all the way back from medical school and residency and required a lot clinical experience, and learning, and knowledge and going to professional organizations to learn that.” (Fong Depo at 15:16-20; Nagle Dec. § 2). Furthermore, “So, it’s not essential, nor is it considered standard, for addiction specialists to have experienced drug abuse in order to diagnosis[sic], assess, treat and manage patients with addictive disorders.” (Fong Depo at 15:21-24; Nagle Dec., 7 2). Evidence of Dr. Fong's marijuana use is irrelevant and inadmissible because such evidence does not tend to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence in this action. Evidence Code §§ 210, 350; see People v. Kelly (1992) 1 Cal.4th 495, 523. Dr. F ong’s use of marijuana does not in any way relate to any disputed facts in this case and is thus completely irrelevant. Additionally, the probative value of any such evidence is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will ““(a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial 2 DEFENDANTS® MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 S O O w 3 1 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Bowles & Verna LLP 2121 N. California Suite §75 Walnut Creek 94596 danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury.” Cal. Evid. Code § 352 (Deering). Evidence of Dr. Fong’s use of marijuana will substantially prejudice the Defendants and will confuse the issues of the case. Marijuana is relevant in the instant case because Plaintiff used Defendants’ product to ingest marijuana in his car before the explosion. He actively used Defendants’ torch and cylinder and does not remember whether or not he had turned the torch off after ingesting the marijuana. Allowing Plaintiff to introduce evidence that Dr. Fong has used marijuana would confuse the issues that the trier of fact is charged with deciding. III. CONCLUSION Defendants respectfully move the Court for an order precluding Plaintiff from offering evidence, testifying at trial, or making reference to any marijuana use by Dr. Timothy Fong, as itis irrelevant, likely to cause undue prejudice, confusion of issues, and undue consumption of time. Dated: August 28, 2017 BOWLES & VERNA LLP ' a By: Lo « Richard A. Ergo William T. Nagle Attorneys for Defendants Worthington Industries, Inc.; Worthington Cylinders Wisconsin, LLC; and Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. 3 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 NO 0 N Y BA W N em N D N D N R N N = m e m em e m e m o m e a o e m ~N N h R W = O w N n RA W N m o 28 Bowles & Verna LLP 2121 N, California Suite 875 Walnut Creek 94596 Declaration of William T. Nagle I, William T. Nagle, declare and state as follows: I'am an attorney at law licensed to practice in all courts in California and am one of the attorneys of record for defendants Worthington Industries, Inc.; Worthington Cylinders Wisconsin, LLC; and Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. 1 have personal knowledge of the matters set forth below and believe all those matters to be true. If called to testify as a witness in this matter, I could and would use my own personal knowledge to testify to the facts stated herein. 1 Pursuant to Los Angeles County Local Rule 3.57(a), I have discussed this subject motion with opposing counsel, and opposing counsel has not agreed to the stipulation proposed. Attached as Exhibit 1 is a copy of my email exchange with opposing counsel. 2. Defendants’ expert Dr. Fong testified on March 29, 2017. 1 was at the deposition and know all of his testimony. A true and correct copy of a portion from his transcript is attached as Exhibit B. [ declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this © * day of August, 2017 at Walnut Creek, California. _ William T. Nagle 4 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 ce ~~ Oo 10 kl 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Bowles & Verna LLP 2121 N. California Bivd Suite 875 Walnut Creek 94596 PROOF OF SERVICE (Abell v. Worthington, et al.; Case No. BC3880(61) I, the undersigned, declare as follows: Iam a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years, and not a party to, or interested in the within entitled action. 1am an employee of BOWLES & VERNA LLP. and my business address is 2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 875, Walnut Creek, California 94596. On August 30, 2017, I served the following document(s): DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO EXCLUDE EXPERT WITNESS DR. TIMOTHY W. FONG’S PAST MARIJUANA USE on the following parties in this action addressed as follows: Sean Bral, Esq. Bral & Associates 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1770 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-789-2007 Fax: 310-789-2006 seanbral@gmail.com BY UNITED STATES MAIL: I enclosed the documents in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses listed above. I placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. | am readily familiar with this business's practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fuily prepaid. XXX_ BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: enclosed the documents in an envelope or package provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the persons at the addresses listed above. | placed the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at an office or a regularly utilized drop box of the overnight delivery carrier. BY PERSONAL SERVICE: | caused to be served each document listed above by hand to each addressee above. Delivery was made to the attorney or at the attorney's office by leaving the documents in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the attorney being served with a receptionist or an individual in charge of the office. BY FAX TRANSMISSION: By use of facsimile machine number (925) 935-0371, I served a copy of the within document(s) on the parties at the facsimile numbers listed above. The transmission was reported as complete, without error and properly issued by the transmitting facsimile machine. BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept service by e-mail or electronic transmission, I caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the e-mail addresses listed above. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on August 30, 2017 at Walnut Creek, California. ERICA DORRINGTON 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 100656333.DOC; 1} EXHIBIT 1 Jenny Peterson a RNs To: Jenny Peterson Subject: FW: Re: Begin forwarded message: From: Michelle Stone Date: August 21, 2017 at 2:09:03 PM EDT To: William Nagle Ce: Sean Bral Subject: Re: Bill, We will oppose all of them. On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 6:03 PM, William Nagle wrote: Michelle We are writing to inform you that defendants intend on filing the motions in limine below. This email is a meet and confer email. Please let us know within five days if you intend to stipulate to excluding any of the evidence cited below. Otherwise, we will file the motions cited below with the Court to be heard on the first day of trial. Thanks so much. 1) MIL excluding Dr. Harutunian from testifying about anything during the time he saw Mr. Abell after he was deposed on March 29, 2017. 2) MIL excluding any testimony that Dr. Fong used marijuana in the past. 3) MIL excluding any references to a product recall at trial. 4) MIL to exclude Dr. Anderson from testifying any time at trial. 5) MIL to exclude the consumer expectations test from being cited or used at any time at trial. 6) MIL to exclude any evidence or testimony of monetary amounts during trial where plaintiff is seeking any more than $75,000 at trial and precluding plaintiff from seeking over $75,000 at any time during trial. 7) MIL to exclude any evidence, testimony or argument plaintiff has a lost earnings or a lost earnings capacity claim. 8) MIL to exclude any evidence, testimony and arguments regarding irrelevant claims that are in plaintiff's proposed jury instructions, but not in the complaint such as negligence claims, warranty claims, and ultra-hazardous activity claims. 9) MIL to exclude Diana Gardner from testifying at trial. 1 10) MIL to exclude Plaintiff from introducing any evidence relating to expert Anderson's opinion about changes to the cylinder due to a pressure waive. 11) MIL excluding any references or contentions that the cylinder testing was flawed in any way, including prohibiting Dr. Anderson from testifying that product testing was flawed in any way. 12) MIL to exclude any evidence of medical charges/liens in excess of the amounts paid at trial pursuant to California Case law. 13) MIL to exclude any alleged evidence of plaintiff’s hearing loss due to the 7/15/13 incident. 14) MIL to exclude any reference to defendants’ refusal to allow plaintiff to deviate from the agreed-on testing protocol. 15) MIL to exclude any reference to or evidence of further testing of the torch and cylinder that plaintiff stated (on 8/11/17) will take place at some point in the future. Best Regards, Michelle Stone, Esq. Bral & Associates 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1770 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Tel 310.789.2007 Ext. 114 Fax 310.789.2006 email: michelle.sbfirm@ gmail.com web: www. seanbral.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information in this message, and any files transmitted with it, is confidential, may be legally privileged, and intended only for the use of the individual(s) named above. Be aware that the use of any confidential or personal information may be restricted by state and federal privacy laws. If you are not the intended recipient, do not further disseminate this message. If this message was received in error, please notify the sender and delete it. EXHIBIT B OW 0 N N O&O Uv BA W w N R N o n N N N NY RE E R R R e H R pa wn H o w N - oo [K el oo ~ aN vu iN w No p= an SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT JASON LOGAN ABELL, Plaintiff, VS. WORTHINGTON INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED; WORTHINGTON CYLINDERS WISCONSIN, LLC; NEWELL RUBBERMAID, INCORPORATED; BERNZOMATIC, INC.; THE HOME DEPOT, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants. NO. BC588061 N d M e S f N N N N N N N A N N Y DEPOSITION OF TIMOTHY W. FONG, M.D. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 29, 2017 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA REPORTED BY: JANNA JOVANELLY CSR 6011 PI DEPOS AGENCY (800) 925-9735 OW 0 ~N O O v i h w N p a a A e T Fo T r r t v i Ah W N R O YU N Y T Dd W N R O APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL: FOR THE PLAINTIFF: BRAL & ASSOCIATES BY: S. SEAN BRAL, ESQ. 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1770 Los Angeles, california 90067 310.789.2007 seanbral@gmail.com FOR THE DEFENDANTS: BOWLES & VERNA, LLP BY: WILLIAM T. NAGLE, ESQ. 2121 North california Boulevard, Suite 875 walnut Creek, california 94596 925.935.3300 whagle@bowlesverna. com PI DEPOS AGENCY (800) 925-9735 WwW 00 ~N oO wv 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A w O N E marijuana in my past and experienced it, but I would not say that I used intentionally to, quote, understand what patients go through or what they may experience. BY MR. BRAL: Q. Do you feel that that experience gives you a better understanding of some of the treatment that you provide to your patients that experience cannabis? A. No, I do not. Q. why is that? A. It's a question I get a lot from drug addicts and families where they'll say, "Don't you have to be addicted to understand what we're going through?" My response is, I don't have to have cancer to know how to treat cancer. I don't have to have HIV to understand HIV. My training and background and understanding the disease of addiction goes all the way back from medical school and residency and required a lot clinical experience, and learning, and knowledge and going to professional organizations to learn that. So it's not essential, nor is it considered standard, for addiction specialists to have experienced drug abuse in order to diagnosis, assess, treat and manage patients with addictive disorders. Q. But do you find your personal experience somehow PTI DEPOS AGENCY (800) 925-9735 15 OO © ~ N oO 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) The undersigned Certified Shorthand Reporter, a court reporter in and for the State of california, does hereby certify: The witness named in the foregoing proceeding was, before the commencement of the proceeding, duly sworn to testify the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; That said proceeding was taken down in stenograph writing by me and thereafter transcribed into typewriting under my direction. The undersigned Certified Shorthand Reporter further certifies to be neither counsel for nor related to any party to said action nor in anywise interested in the outcome thereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, TI have hereunto subscribed my name this 8th day of April, 2017. Certified Shorthand Reporter No. 6011 PI DEPOS AGENCY (800) 925-9735 72