Motion_in_limine_no6__exclusion_of_argument_and_evidence_that_defendants_had_an_obligation__to_engage_in_the_interactive_processMotionCal. Super. - 2nd Dist.October 11, 2016Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 02/07/2019 05:02 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by C. Coleman,Deputy Clerk PAUL HASTINGS LLP STEPHEN L. BERRY (SB# 101576) stephenberry@paulhastings.com BLAKE R. BERTAGNA (SB# 273069) blakebertagna@paulhastings.com 695 Town Center Drive Seventeenth Floor Costa Mesa, California 92626-1924 Telephone: 1(714) 668-6200 Facsimile: 1(714) 979-1921 Attorneys for Defendants ALLERGAN USA, INC. and ALLERGAN, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES JOHN GLYNN, an individual, CASE NO. BC636862 Plaintiff, Hon. Stephanie M. Bowick Dept. 19 VS. MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6 ALLERGAN, INC., a corporation; and DOES (EXCLUSION OF ARGUMENT AND 1-50, Inclusive, EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANTS HAD AN OBLIGATION TO ENGAGE IN THE Defendants. INTERACTIVE PROCESS WITH OR ACCOMMODATE PLAINTIFF PRIOR TO HIM BEING MEDICALLY CLEARED TO RETURN TO WORK BY HIS DOCTOR) BY DEFENDANTS ALLERGAN USA, INC, AND ALLERGAN, INC. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES AND DECLARATION OF STEPHEN L. BERRY IN SUPPORT THEREOF Date: March 5, 2019 Time: 9:30 a.m. Dept.: 19 Date Action Filed: October 11, 2016 Trial Date: March 19, 2019 LEGAL_US_W # 97403826.1 MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6 (EXCLUSION OF ARGUMENT AND EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANTS HAD AN OBLIGATION TO ENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVE PROCESS WITH OR ACCOMMODATE PLAINTIFF PRIOR TO HIM BEING MEDICALLY CLEARED TO RETURN TO WORK BY HIS DOCTOR) 10 11 (1: 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 23 26 27 28 TO PLAINTIFF JOHN GLYNN AND TO HIS COUNSEL OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on March 5, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 19, located at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012, defendants Allergan USA, Inc. and Allergan, Inc. (collectively, “Allergan”) will and hereby do move the Court in limine for an order prohibiting plaintiff John Glynn (“Glynn”), his attorney, and his witnesses from arguing or introducing evidence that Allergan had an obligation to engage in the interactive process with or accommodate Glynn before his doctor medically cleared him on April 5, 2016, to return to work starting on April 11, 2016. This motion is made on the grounds that such evidence is irrelevant, likely to mislead the jury, and unduly prejudicial to Allergan. See Evid. Code §§ 210, 350, 352. On February 7, 2019, counsel for Allergan satisfied the meet and confer requirements of Local Rule 3.57 by conferring with Glynn's counsel regarding the substance of this motion. Glynn’s counsel has not agreed to limit the evidence at trial in a manner consistent with the limitations requested in this motion. This motion is based on this notice of motion and motion, on the accompanying memorandum of points and authorities, the complete files and records in this action, and on such further oral argument as may be presented at the hearing on this motion. DATED: February 7, 2019 PAUL HASTINGS LLP STEPHEN L. BERRY Attorneys for Defendants ALLERGAN USA, INC. and ALLERGAN, INC. LEGAL_US_W # 97403826.1 2 Tos MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6 (EXCLUSION OF ARGUMENT AND EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANTS HAD AN OBLIGATION TO ENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVE PROCESS WITH OR ACCOMMODATE PLAINTIFF PRIOR TO HIM BEING MEDICALLY CLEARED TO RETURN TO WORK BY HIS DOCTOR) Lo a oO 10 11 12 [3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES A defendant may preclude or limit the introduction of evidence to the jury by a court order granting a motion in limine. See Clemens v. American Warranty Corp., 193 Cal. App. 3d. 444, 451 (1987) (holding that a court has inherent power to grant a motion in limine, which seeks to preclude the admission of “any kind of evidence which could be objected to at trial, either as irrelevant or subject to discretionary exclusion as unduly prejudicial”); Cal. Evid. Code §§ 350, 352; see also Los Angeles County Superior Court Local Rules 3.57. L PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Glynn was a field-based specialty pharmaceutical sales representative for Allergan. In January 2016, Glynn realized something was wrong with his eyes and saw a doctor about it. Glynn Tr, 75:8-14, 76:15-16, 79:18-80:5; Glynn Tr. 487:7-10." The doctor diagnosed him as having a serious eye condition (myopic macular degeneration). Glynn Tr. 75:8-14, 76:15-16. Glynn commenced a medical leave of absence on January 20, 2016. Glynn Tr. 351:7-10. On February 26, 2016, Glynn’s doctor provided a medical certification to Allergan designating his work status as “no work,” and stating the reason for this designation as “can’t safely drive.” Glynn Tr. 440:1-12; Glynn Ex. 132. On April 5, 2016, Glynn provided Allergan with a letter from his doctor that Glynn was able to return to work in a non-driving job as of April 11, 2016. Glynn Tr. 444:14-23; Glynn Ex. 133; Berry Decl. 6, Ex. E. IL. ALLERGAN DID NOT HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO ENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVE PROCESS WITH OR ACCOMMODATE GLYNN BEFORE HIS DOCTOR MEDICALLY CLEARED HIM TO RETURN TO WORK STARTING ON APRIL 11, 2016 Glynn’s claims that Allegan discriminated against him because of his disability, failed to engage in the interactive process, and failed to provide him with a reasonable accommodation all turn on a common threshold requirement that he was a “qualified individual with a disability.” "All deposition testimony relied upon herein will be cited as follows: [deponent last name] Tr, [page]:[line(s)], and deposition exhibits relied upon herein will be cited as: [deponent last name] Ex. [no.]. Excerpts of the deposition transcripts containing the cited testimony and the deposition exhibits are attached to the declaration of Stephen L. Berry filed concurrently herewith. LEGAL_US_W # 97403826.1 -1- MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6 (EXCLUSION OF ARGUMENT AND EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANTS HAD AN OBLIGATION TO ENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVE PROCESS WITH OR ACCOMMODATE PLAINTIFF PRIOR TO HIM BEING MEDICALLY CLEARED TO RETURN TO WORK BY HIS DOCTOR) o e 3 Y n Bb 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 See Faust v. Cal, Portland Cement Co., 150 Cal. App. 4th 864, 886 (2007) (requiring a plaintiff to establish the following for a FEHA claim: “(1) he suffers from a disability; (2) he is otherwise qualified to do his job; and, (3) he was subjected to adverse employment action because of his disability”); Scotch v. Art Inst. of Cal.-Orange Cnty., Inc., 173 Cal. App. 4th 986, 1009-10 (2009) (“The elements of a failure to accommodate claim are (1) the plaintiff has a disability under FEHA, (2) the plaintiff is qualified to perform the essential functions of the position, and (3) the employer failed to reasonably accommodate the plaintiff's disability.”). During the course of this litigation, Glynn has asserted that Allergan failed to engage in the interactive process with him and failed to accommodate him as early as February 2016. See, e.g., Complaint at § 13 (“In early February 2016, Glynn began searching for positions within the company that could accommodate his driving restriction. Glynn asked multiple individuals at Allergan for assistance in this search, but was not provided any assistance from the [sic] Allergan.”). But Glynn is precluded from making that argument because it is undisputed that he went on a medical leave of absence in January 2016 and his doctor did not certify that Glynn was medically cleared to return to work until at least April 11, 2016. Thus, during that period while he was not cleared by his doctor to return to work, he was not a qualified individual with a disability and Allergan had no obligation to engage in the interactive process or accommodate him. Glynn cannot contradict the instructions of his own doctor and certainly cannot insist that Allergan should have acted contrary to those instructions. In Kennedy v. Applause, Inc., 90 F.3d 1477 (9th Cir. 1996), the plaintiff went on medical leave for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. She returned to work after her leave, but was only able to work for about six weeks before taking another medical leave. She submitted a doctor’s note to her employer stating that she had to take another medical leave, and her employer terminated her employment. The plaintiff testified at deposition that she was not totally disabled and could have performed the essential functions of her job with a reasonable accommodation. The Ninth Circuit found that the plaintiff was not a qualified individual and could not establish her prima facie case of disability discrimination. The Court concluded that the plaintiff's own deposition testimony LEGAL_US_W # 97403826.1 =F x MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6 (EXCLUSION OF ARGUMENT AND EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANTS HAD AN OBLIGATION TO ENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVE PROCESS WITH OR ACCOMMODATE PLAINTIFF PRIOR TO HIM BEING MEDICALLY CLEARED TO RETURN TO WORK BY HIS DOCTOR) oS Oo 0 2 A N W n 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2a 26 27 28 that she was not totally disabled and could have worked on a modified work schedule was “uncorroborated and self-serving,” and further, it “flatly contradict{ed] . . . the medical evidence.” Id. at 1481. Likewise, in Jackson v. Simon Prop. Group, Inc., 795 F. Supp. 2d 949 (N.D. Cal. 2011), the plaintiff argued that the defendant failed to accommodate his disability by failing to engage in the interactive process, or by offering him an alternative part-time work schedule or a different position within the company. But the court concluded that this position was “contradicted by the medical evidence submitted to Defendant during the relevant time period,” which showed that the plaintiff was unable to work at all. 7d. at 959. Even if a doctor were to testify later in deposition or at trial that plaintiff was physically able to have performed work with modifications, it would not alter the facts as they were plainly presented to defendant at the time. To rule in favor of plaintiff on this point would be to hold that the employer should have returned plaintiff to work when the professional medical judgment was that he was physically incapacitated. Id at 961. The Kennedy and Jackson decisions are analogous to Glynn’s circumstances. For Glynn to argue that Allegan should have been interacting with him to help him return him to work before he was medically cleared by his doctor to resume working on April 11, 2016 would ask Allergan to disregard his doctor’s “professional medical judgment.” The law does not and should not impose such an obligation on employers. But most importantly, it is clear that Glynn could not be a qualified individual with a disability until his doctor certified that he could return to work. Section 350 of the California Evidence Code provides that “[n]o evidence is admissible except relevant evidence.” Relevant evidence is evidence “having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.” Cal. Evid. Code § 210. Evidence may also be precluded under section 352 when the probative value of such evidence, even if relevant, would be substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will necessitate undue consumption of time or create substantial danger of LEGAL_US_W # 97403826.1 -3. MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6 (EXCLUSION OF ARGUMENT AND EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANTS HAD AN OBLIGATION TO ENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVE PROCESS WITH OR ACCOMMODATE PLAINTIFF PRIOR TO HIM BEING MEDICALLY CLEARED TO RETURN TO WORK BY HIS DOCTOR) 0 9 C d N E 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury. Evid. Code § 352. There can be no relevance to any argument or evidence about Allergan’s purported failure to engage in the interactive process or accommodate Glynn prior to his doctor clearing him, and if it were allowed, it would confuse the jury and substantially prejudice Allergan because the jury would likely view Allergan as doing something wrong as early as January or February 2016 when it had no obligation to Glynn and it would error in concluding that Allergan’s actions (or inaction) in the months prior to Glynn being returned to work are relevant to Glynn’s disability claims. III. CONCLUSION For all the reasons set forth herein, Allergan respectfully requests the Court to grant this motion and bar Glynn, his counsel, and his witnesses from arguing or proffering evidence of Allergan having failed to engage in the interactive process or accommodate him before his doctor medically cleared him to return to work starting on April 11, 2016. DATED: February 7, 2019 PAUL HASTINGS LLP Dp - " STtpHEN L. Vi tl Attorneys for Defendants ALLERGAN USA, INC. and ALLERGAN, INC. LEGAL_US_W # 97403826.1 ila MOTION /N LIMINE NO. 6 (EXCLUSION OF ARGUMENT AND EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANTS HAD AN OBLIGATION TO ENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVE PROCESS WITH OR ACCOMMODATE PLAINTIFF PRIOR TO HIM BEING MEDICALLY CLEARED TO RETURN TO WORK BY HIS DOCTOR) xo N N N Wn BA NO 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF STEPHEN L. BERRY I, Stephen L. Berry, declare and state as follows: 1. [ am an attorney at law licensed to practice and admitted before all courts of the State of California. 1am an attorney with the law firm of Paul Hastings LLP, counsel of record for defendants Allergan USA, Inc., and Allergan, Inc. (collectively, “Allergan™) in this action. | have personal knowledge of the facts contained in this Declaration, or know of such facts by my review of the files maintained by Paul Hastings in the normal course of its business and, if called as a witness, could and would testify as to their accuracy. 2, The specific matter alleged to be inadmissible in Allergan’s motion in limine accompanying this Declaration is any argument or evidence that Allergan had an obligation to engage in the interactive process with or accommodate Glynn prior to him being medically cleared to return to work by his doctor. On February 7, 2019, I met and conferred with Glynn’s counsel, Frank Magnanimo, requesting that Glynn stipulate that he will not seek to introduce testimony, documents, comment, and argument concerning such evidence. Mr. Magnanimo responded that Glynn will not agree to limit the evidence at trial in a manner consistent with the limitations requested in this motion. 2 Allergan will suffer prejudice if this motion is not granted because the evidence sought for exclusion would be used to support a contention that is contrary to California law, is irrelevant, improper opinion testimony, would likely confuse the issues and mislead the jury, and result in an unnecessary consumption of judicial resources. 4, Attached hereto as Exhibit “A” is a true and correct copy of the portions of the transcript of Glynn’s deposition taken on December 21, 2017, that are referred to and relied upon in the memorandum of points and authorities (the “Memorandum”) in support of this motion. 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit “B” is a true and correct copy of the portions of the transcript of Glynn’s deposition taken on February 20, 2018, that are referred to and relied upon in the Memorandum in support of this motion. LEGAL_US_W # 97403826. 1 -5. MOTION /N LIMINE NO. 6 (EXCLUSION OF ARGUMENT AND EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANTS HAD AN OBLIGATION TO ENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVE PROCESS WITH OR ACCOMMODATE PLAINTIFF PRIOR TO HIM BEING MEDICALLY CLEARED TO RETURN TO WORK BY HIS DOCTOR) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6. Attached hereto as Exhibit “C” is a true and correct copy of Exhibit 132 to the deposition of Glynn taken on December 21, 2017, that is referred to and relied upon in the Memorandum. 7 Attached hereto as Exhibit “D” is a true and correct copy of Exhibit 133 to the deposition of Glynn taken on December 21, 2017, that is referred to and relied upon in the Memorandum. 8. Attached hereto as Exhibit “E” is a true and correct copy of an email exchange produced by Glynn to Allergan during the course of discovery in this action, which is bates stamped JG_3210-3212. 8. Allergan will suffer prejudice if this motion is not granted because the evidence sought for exclusion is irrelevant as a matter of law, will confuse or mislead the jury, and unduly prejudice Allergan. [ declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this February 7, 2019, at Costa Mesa, California. " STEPHEN L. BERRY LEGAL_US_W # 97403826.1 af a MOTION /N LIMINE NO. 6 (EXCLUSION OF ARGUMENT AND EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANTS HAD AN OBLIGATION TO ENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVE PROCESS WITH OR ACCOMMODATE PLAINTIFF PRIOR TO HIM BEING MEDICALLY CLEARED TO RETURN TO WORK BY HIS DOCTOR) EXHIBIT “A” 10 11 12 13 14 15 le 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CENTRAL DISTRICT JOHN GLYNN, an Plaintiff, vs. ALLERGAN, INC., and DOES 1-50, Defendants. individual, Case No. BC636862 a corporation; inclusive, VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF: JOHN GLYNN VOLUME I Thursday, December 21, 2017, 9:58 a.m. Costa Mesa, California REPORTED BY: VALERIE E. RASMUSSEN CSR 8900 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2% 22 23 24 25 younger people might want to do it differently. Q And did you ask him if that's what he was saying? A No. Q And that was the only time you ever heard him make a comment like that; is that correct? A That I can recall. Q When did you first learn that you were experiencing that condition? A That IT had difficulty with my right eye, was the fall of 2015. I started -- winter, December -- excuse me -- December about 2015, when I started noticing some changes. Q And then did you act on what you were experiencing, to get a professional diagnosis? A TEE, Q And when did that happen? A I went to see a doctor around the time of VALERIE RASMUSSEN COURT REPORTING **949.888.7858** 75 10 1: 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 December -- November, and -- Q Of 2015? A -- and -- MR. MAGNANIMO: You need to answer out loud. He's asked you if it was December 'l5. You just shook your head. THE WITNESS: It was approximately that time, yes. BY MR. BERRY: Q Okay. All right. I'm sorry. Go ahead. So you were experiencing some symptoms. You sought professional -- from a medical practitioner, a doctor, you sought some consultation about that in approximately November or December of 2015; is that correct? A To the best of my recollection, yes. 0 And is that when you got the diagnosis of myopic macular degeneration in both eyes? A No. Q What diagnosis did you get in January of 20167 A He just assessed. I knew about the myopic macular degeneration -- Q 1 Bee. A -- previously. Q When did you first learn that you had myopic VALERIE RASMUSSEN COURT REPORTING **949,888.7858%** 76 10 11: 12 13 14 10 16 11 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 medical practitioner? A Are you asking -- I don't know what you're particular asking. Q EYE ~~ MR. MAGNANIMO: Did you ever file a lawsuit, anything like that, he's asking. THE WITNESS: No. BY MR. BERRY: 0 Make a claim? A No. Q Enter into settlement negotiations? A No. Q All right. So you researched it, but you never went beyond that? A Yes. Q Did you talk to lawyers about it? A Yeah. VALERIE RASMUSSEN COURT REPORTING **949.888.7858** 79 10 11 12 13 14 19 16 17 18 9 20 21 &% 23 24 25 A I had difficulty walking in crowded areas. I was losing my kids at the park when they were playing; I'd lose track of them and I couldn't find them, when they were just within 10, 15 feet of me. I'd set objects down on tables, and then I couldn't find them even though I hadn't moved them. I started noticing that I was having difficulty driving. And at nighttime, my vision was even substantially worse. Q Anything else? A Not that I can recall at this time. Q When you say "difficulty driving," do you mean, you know, you were -- you felt unsafe because of what you could see; or did it actually impair your ability to operate a vehicle? A As explained to me in 2016, January, my vision had -- was like Swigs cheese, it had holes, and -- that I wasn't aware of, blind spots, because my eye was compensating. So I thought I saw everything, but in reality I was missing things. So I started noticing that things would disappear in front of me. VALERIE RASMUSSEN COURT REPORTING #%949,888.7858** 80 10 3 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 *k% I certify, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct. ,2018 Executed at Dia movy RAR on (Place) VALERIE RASMUSSEN COURT REPORTING *¥949,888,7858* 284 EXHIBIT “B” 10 41 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CENTRAL DISTRICT JOHN GLYNN, an individual, Plaintiff, vs. ALLERGAN, INC., a corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. BC6&36862 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF: VOLUME II Tuesday, February 20, 2018, JOHN GLYNN 10:07 a.m. Costa Mesa, California REPORTED BY: VALERIE E. RASMUSSEN CSR 8900 10 11 13 13 14 1S 16 13 18 x5 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Did you understand that LTD benefits would be available if you happened to be out for 180 consecutive days when you started your leave? A Initially, no. Q At some point, you learned that? A Yes. Q Meaning just now? A No, I hadn't thought about it previously. It's been two years, so I don't recall how I thought about it at the time. Q At some point, during your leave of absence, were you told that your short-term disability benefits would expire and that you would be eligible for long-term disability benefits starting on July 20, 20167? A I don't recall how that conversation took place. Q Did you learn that at some point? A I don't recall how we had that conversation, to be honest with you. 0 I understand you don't recall how it occurred, but do you remember learning, during your leave, that at VALERIE RASMUSSEN COURT REPORTING **949.888.7858** 351 10 5x 13 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 J ¢ ( Q On page 2 of this form, under the second block from the top, it says, "Please explain the factors that prevent the patient from working." Your doctor, or whoever completed this form, wrote, "Can't drive safely. Significant blind spots," and then there's some numbers. "Can't see pedestrians." Did you agree with that statement, as of that date? A As of that time, yes. 0 And on the work status box, at the bottom, it says, "No work. Can't drive safely." Did you agree with that statement as of that date? VALERIE RASMUSSEN COURT REPORTING #%949.888.7858** 440 10 11 12 13 14 18 16 17 18 19 20 dad. 22 23 24 25 BY MR. BERRY: 0 Ien't that true, six? A No, it does not sound true. Q Why did you get a letter dated April 5, Ta you could work? A Because one was requested, and I gave it -- Q By whom? A -- but it hadn't been requested until that 0 By whom? A I don't recall. MR. BERRY: Let me have marked Exhibit 133, a one-page document. \ y L Q And is it true that you asked him to prepare it because you had received information from the company VALERIE RASMUSSEN COURT REPORTING **940.888.7858** 444 10 ued 12 23 14 15 16 9 18 19 20 aL 22 23 24 25 first started experiencing them, did that cause you any stress? A During the brief time I had it, but then it was corrected in 2015. 0 It was corrected in 2015? A You said 2015, Mr. Berry. Q Did you have any stress in 2015 related to your eyesight problems? A I just answered that question, Mr. Berry. 0 I don't think you did, but let's try again. A Yeah, there was, but it was resolved quickly. Q When did it get resolved? A It was about a few weeks afterwards. Q And when did you start having any kind of stress related to your eyes in 2016? A I mean, I -- initially, I went to see the doctor in, I believe -- I believe it was November, and he said I was fine. And I got a second opinion in January. Q And how long did that stress continue related to the diagnosis related to your vision? VALERIE RASMUSSEN COURT REPORTING *%049.888.7858%* 487 10 11 12 13 14 15 l6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Wok W I certify, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at ,2018 (Place) VALERIE RASMUSSEN COURT REPORTING #*949/888,7858%* 517 EXHIBIT “C” Feb 26 2A16 11:29:54 Via Pax -> 18584518566 Matrix fbsence Hanag Page B82 DI BB4 [MATRIX ARSENE E MANASEMEMT & AVERSEGT THE TORI MANIMP Geo HEALTH CARE PROVIDER CERTIFICATION Please Fax Completed Form to Matrix Absence Management ut (B66) 683-9548 ] Maii original to; Matrix Absence Management, ing, 11221 i, 28" Drive, Bldg. €, Ste 100 Phoenix, AZ. 85029 Dear Health Care Provider; The purpose of this farm is to help us determing whether the clinical condition of this patient is disabling. 11 fs necessary for us to document functional impairment, Please complete the following report as completely as possible, and provide us copies of al) ohjective data, If this form is not completed io the approptiate sections, this may delay benefits for your patient, GENERAL INFORMATION - Leave Type : Disability This claim is for {Patient's Name): Cialm No: Employer! John Glynn 2018-01-27-0200 Allegan nea: Date of Birth (Month, Date, Yet): 3/28/87 Laat & digits of patient's scacialgecy Hy pimber: 3/28/67 TREATMENT INFORMATION | BEHAVIORAL LEALTH SECTION ONLY Was the patienl referred to you by another medical practitiones? | is this. bas o a plirent in-person evaluation? {Yes Ifyes, [Yes FR wo : / If 56, pleasa furnish tha name and telephane Huth bet: | date. dak: /. Wik. le. / b/g) o Datta Next Difice Visit: 7 & - p= i ; wy N Ny, Date of INITIAL visit: Sul tl be, is”t hi Condition Wark Related? Dake being placed off of work: ret preteen Total number of visits: CY Data of LAST visit: Ser Ae Duto of NEXT visit: Diagnosis:_<3 bi , Uv / Diagnosis: Ssh ry mde ICDY Code or DSM 1V; CD Codes 2 ; . 1 (plkvege. 5 bd », Ave there any concurrent Ti medical conditions? LN Assessment of Fudctioning Scale; Ciirent GAR: Highest GAF in the past year: Hr rE ra. For praghancy EDC; Patlent’s Name: _ Last Updated: June 2013 “EXHIBIT NO. 132 - DATE: 2/20/2018 Hatrix RCVD via FAX B2/29/2816 WIT: J. GLYNN -V.2 Valerie Rasmussen CSR 8900 Feb 26 2816 11:38:23 Via Fax HY 18584518566 Matrix Absence Haney Page BE3 Of BA4 “Please list current objective finding/symptoms and observotions that support the diagnosis and preclude work: = provide copies of test results and office notes that support findings: //A 00 80/ok 05 29/0 Please explain the factors, witich, in your opinion, prevent this patient from working; Cont ding Safdy ~ Noo pI A ov - Signbssol blwel 50 0<>gp _ Cant sec pedidins TREATMENT INFORMATION BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SECTION ONLY What is your prognosis for expected recovery? Please descrike treatment, recovery plan anid specify £00) medications: . Aol ZF Ay forthe, pat r fined TE 1 7 ct a IE g : eo) "A specific date Is required Whem vas themedication type or dosage [ast changed? % fs Mo DAY YEAR even If it Is sh estimate” / VWhit chwnge vas made? Has your Patient achieved maximurn medical improvement? DX] ves [7] no First Date Patient was unable to work Has the condition J] improved, [_] Stabifized, [[] Retrogressad Is the patient's condition work related? | Yas Pfiis if Yes, please explain; Ey er Aor Lot T= Have you filed a Doctor's Report mftjury? [Jes "No RETURN TO WORK: Even If consiidewalahe questions exists, an estimated date js required to provide benefits Work Status: [1] Regular Work Release Cate Effective; [7] part time _ Hour per Week or Day [] Modified Work Release from; Througiy Hours Dally: Number of hours your patient may work each day? O a-howrs [[] 6-hours [7] snours [J] 10-hours [7] 12-hours [J Other Restrictions: From Through Describe restriction/limitation: From; Through; _ Fno work, why? [] oischerged from Care J ¥es [I No (Fyes, date; Bem sy 0 mt hme ne htm em wg A BB lt tl Ae em ee AM Sit. Patient's Name: Trhy 0 kan) : Last Updatad: Juno 2013 Matrix RCVD via FAX 82/29/2816 Feb 26 2616 11:30:58 Via Fax -> 18584518566 Matrix Absence Manag Page HB4 [if BA4 WORK RESTRICTIONS: Check No Frequent Occasional Seldom Weight: Up to Upto | Upto Appropriate Restriction 34-66% 0-33% 0-68% 1=111(hs. | 201bs, | 351s | 50 (bs. Capabilities 4.7.9 hr. 0-38 hr, 0-1 hr, 200 veps/ day | 22 reps/day 14 Pa reps/day Lifting: of push/Pull: RL vv or Sitting: . Bending/Stoaping: so Climb ming! Ze : Repetitive Work: A y po, 7. Other: Restrletions | fp ale ar 2 HAM En -L0 Ltr (ny Mymber of hours the patient mey work each day; [ J4hours [| 6 hours [] 8hours . []10 hours : J 22h0urs Date Patient may return to work with above noted conditions: -Cpmp-rlsene - Sccopntin to [/P Date you anticipate these conditions may change/end: fh TE Ti PATIENT TREATMENT PLAN Pp Have yout referred the patient for other types of consultations vr tests? [| Yes 7 No if Yes, Tyga: Referred to . aE Taepibore: Tvpa of Test: - : - = HEALTH CARE PROVIDER COMPLETES FOR ANY HOSPITAL CONFINEVIENTS Name and address of hospital _ = Dstelis) trated From/To in the prior 2 years : 2 EM: - TO - “| rRom: To; A person-wha knowingly files a statement ofa clam comtaming false, Incomplete, er misteading Information with the intent to Injures, defraud, or deceive an insurance cagrpany)/ administrator, Is committing 4 fraudutent Insurance act, which is acrime. “i certify that the facts, as Indicated above, aretrie and correct to the best of my knowledge.” Physician's Name oan A oi : Tat Feo gale MD Degree; IAQ - Specialty; [Ze Tonia, - Tax (densification Ne: ABW TAS = Or, License No. lo 297 Physigian's Address: fC 49 Pinte Ch de Bn Lr a, (< FHS 5 ay ~ Physicion’s Signature; Telephone No.: J EP te ) 5 Fax No.: NAA A Date Signed: © mene | "A structured Return to Work Program 1 may | be avaliable for the Injured disabled employee during his/her medical recovery, Clear Return-to-Wark restrictions will énabla us to assist the Employee with a safe return ta work. (f yau have questions or concerns, please contact Matrix Absence Management. Thank you for your cooperation, The Geaelic. Info) mation Nohdissriminaticn Art of 20008 (GINA] péahibits amployets and mths entitios covered iy GINA THES (F fistve regeosting gr tagulriog Braretiy, Iiftrmation of entplsyeas or Whetr famify niembecs, In srder 101 smply with its law, we ste asling they vou sat provide apy genstie mor nston when rERndNg wn this rauuest for madical informntian, "Génntic Iforination, ds defined hy GINA, inclidos on individusl's amily inedleal histey, the results of an individual's or family mambar’s genetic Teal, the fact that anindiddurl or an individual's family meralbige sought or received genete servitas, und genntlc infor malo of i fesus tarried by ar ndividuat ot wn individual's family member or wa smisrvis lawhuily hatd by an fndividist or famify member receiving azsiktive reproductive serviees. Patient's Name: Toh hi G lpm) Last Updated; June 2013 Matrix RCYD via FAX B2/29/2R16 EXHIBIT “D” Stephen D. Henry, MD Diplomate American Board of Internal Medicine Diplomate American Bord of HIV Medicine Diplomate American Board of Emergency Medicine Diplomate American Board of Geriatrics 2319 Fost Washington Bowlevard Peasadena; California 91104 Telephone 626-797-8800 far 626-797-8079 Emvaildrbion ry.staffi@yahon.com April 5, 2016 RE: John Glynn DOB 03/28/1967 To Whom lt May Concern: John Glynn has been on disability. His condition has now stabilized ani ste fo demi wk Begin He is restricted from driving but is able to do any and all office work. He is able to return to time work without any other restriction. Sincerely, Fn, Stephen D Henry, MD EXHIBIT NO. 133 DATE: 2/20/2018 WIT: J. GLYNN -V.2 Valerie Rasmussen CSR 8900 JG_003140 EXHIBIT “E” 0L2£00 Or € 40 | abed =ujedg | = 1 n o d o d s i g | | =piMg | = M a I A I U L G S I B Y Y Y Y S A P A I O V Y Y I N M E H I A D D L O U N S H E X IMP Y Y Y D DO H Y I N M A L L Y MY O H IND Y= W a ) | BWal |e Besss p e a l =|apoLLMaIA JE m o O " SAI N a n o sd uy YI0M 0] u I n s y :3y :193lgng (Woo sooxuUeW @ B [ E A B Z MBIPUY) B[BARZ MBIPUY 99) uuA|o uyor :0p Nd 91:1 9102 ‘02 |udy ‘Aepseaupap) :juss < w o o u e b i a | e @ oulSOIad B l B N B U U Y > S L B W B U L Y 0UISOJad W o l d 0956-652(929) uuh|9 ‘mM uyor ‘Ajp1eouig ‘8|qe|iene aie suonisod Jeym Jnoge Jeay o} sabes wWw,| MSIASI S B U L S Y O J Uelig pue Ino oy 31 payoeyje aA, “im 0} Buiuinjal jo sadoy au up ueioisAyd Aw wioly 5ons| B yons paulelqo Aisnoineid SA, UeASMOH HI0M 0} uinjal 0} uoieUSWNOOop Jo} Jsenbal sy} ul Aejap ay) Jnoge pasnjuod w,| ‘Juawpedsp YH SU} Ul SUOSLWOS WO) 3oeq Jeay o) pe|b w| ‘ B l e a u u y IH Jpdiebeus { H A L) l u p d r o e n e | fo z u l o d u e b i s i f e @ e u u p u w u e L g > wo u e b i a j e @ e u u a b i uel] |< W D S I A B I D E @ B U U S H D W UBL > WOT S I N E I I R @ B U U S I I W UBL |< W O S 0 0 X U I B W @ BIEABZ MBIDUY > (LIOY SOOXLIBW@RIRAEZ MBIPUY) EJRAZZ M a I p U Y f < w o d u e b I a e @ o u i s 0 I a d S U B N B U L Y > AUBLIBULY OUISOISd © | a S l u g ) J u a g Pd SOS 9LOZ/02A PEM uuh|D uyor J O M 01 UIn1ay ay Wd 90:5 ‘ 9 1 / 0 2 u u uyop - 40m 0} Linley a y 112800 Or € jo g b e y =yjedy | =}nododsig | | =pIMg L=MIIALICS IF YY YY STP EIOYYYIABHHAIDDOUNSAHEXIMM YY VDD HY IWMA LY MY YX IND Y= W 2 1 3 Wwayj2 Bessa jy pEaL =IB POLUMAIAL /EMD ALOT BAI §ODIING/7:5d11Y 3 0 m 0] UINISY P a l g n s S l e W a U U Y 0UISCUDd 10] Wd IT: 9T0T ‘07 judy ‘Aepssupapm juss [ w o o y o o p n o @ ® g s n a y I a w o l d : o 3 e w ] uUAjS) uyor t u o s d “IUBPISAld 1 03D ‘SIBpunes juaig wolj abessawl e si BuisoN0; SULT 8107 £0 Aienuef 1onpoid winuimog Bodo] Jo 1ayela “Iu| S o u I l y Saiinbdy uebially AMOLS IHNLYIL w o uebisyep|oq m m m og ©F JOIRdWOY) [BOD [NISMO © JO UoIuYaQ ay] | uebia)y plog u n b i a j | o 88ER-19¢-TOg# aul] d U 998/00 [N A B a E y 2 0 y A L I asudaaiug go 21d upBIe(|Y 1sA[RUY SIyatog IS OUISOIg M y duUy *Afateourg "SUOTIEPOLULLIOIIE AIUSS309U 10 STONIUISaE AUB JO [pAcKlde pup M2121 JO) BUUDY IN UBLY Q) JUS 3 UY] P R O M URIDISAYJ IROA WOH) UOLRWLIOIHT M U SITY | H R Y An0& 10 1 9 3 2g 0) dARL A W IBY) S U O N R P O W I U N I I R 10 SUONIINSAT AUR SUNSH 2104 I O M 0) UINJaI 01 9SBajaL,, B iim Auedwuo)) at) apiaoid 01 UBIDISAY4 Inok poat {1a NOK "ISiLg R U S W d 80:5 ‘'gL/02/P U U A I D U H O L ~ J O M 0} u I n i 8 Y o Y 212800 O r € Jo £ abed = y j e d g | = i n o d o d s r g } FEPIMR = M B I A UN G S R Y YY W S O P E I O Y Y Y Z A I B H I A J D D O U N S I H E X IMM Y Y Y D DO H Y WAIN LY MY A w N D = ( | WBE R1LU51 BES Sa P E S =[0 POWLADIA L /BMO/ALGD BAY 3 DO(ND,/: S A Y "uoNe18do02 INOA 10} SoUBAPE Ul NCA Juey | "wajsAs INoA w o u o b e s s a w si) sjojep ases|d pue lew-s uinjal Ag 101s ay) jo Ajgjelpawiil sn Ajjou aseald “paygiyold Apouls si jiew-a siyj jo ButAdoo Jo ‘uonnquisip ‘UoleulwassIp ‘9sn ‘MalAal Aue ‘10.8 ui JIELU-3 SI} PSAIB0al NOA §| “UoiEdIUNWLWoS pabajiaid Jo [eyuapyuod e aq A e pue ‘uolssiLusuel} ay} Jo Juaidioal papuajul ay} Joy Ajuo Jueaw s| ‘sjuawiyoene Aue Buipnjoul ‘rew-o siy | 0956-55.(979) uuf]n “Aq uyor ‘Al2190U1g "SIY1 YIM J0URISISSE InOK 10] NOA YuRy], ¢ iim Yeads 01 uosiad 1021100 34) 3q 3Y P N O M “ B U U I N O uBLIg yam A I U D JOBIUOD UL UIQ OSJE 94,] 01 }eads 01 uosiad 1931100 Y3 9q UBLIPY UBSS PINOAY (ANIQESIP ULI) LOYS Jo Sumad pue A[alerpawuy }104 01 3uluinial IN0Qe J u a w e d a p YH i U I A OF %[€ [ UBD OyAy "MoKA 0) suonsanb 1031p pinoys | 08 ‘UBSI9[jy 10J 19BIUOD 1011p 1134) 918 NOA Jey] SW PAULIOJUF XINB[A] "YIZ] ARIA 1SBS] 1B [HUN AN[IQRSID UL12) JJOYS UO UIBLIDI P M O [ Jey) SUIUIOw IY) XUIBA AQ pauLofur 1sn{ sem | Q U R I A U Y 1H Wd 20'S ‘gL/0e/Y UUA(D) H O P - YI0M 0} uiniay :8y OO c e 9 NN wn BA W N N N N N N N N N e m e m e m e m e m e e e e e e pa = ) O y W n BE W O N m= C E N D a N Y B Y Wn d W ND e m OO PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA CITY OF COSTA MESA AND COUNTY OF ORANGE I am employed in the City of Costa Mesa and County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18, and not a party to the within action. My business address is 695 Town Center Drive, Seventeenth Floor, Costa Mesa, California 92626-1924. On February 7, 2019, 1 served the foregoing document(s) described as: MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6 (EXCLUSION OF ARGUMENT AND EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANTS HAD AN OBLIGATION TO ENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVE PROCESS WITH OR ACCOMMODATE PLAINTIFF PRIOR TO HIM BEING MEDICALLY CLEARED TO RETURN TO WORK BY HIS DOCTORS) BY DEFENDANTS ALLERGAN USA, INC. AND ALLERGAN, INC. MEMORANDUM OF POINT AND AUTHORITIES AND DECLARATION OF STEPHEN L. BERRY IN SUPPORT THEREOF on the interested parties by placing thereof in a sealed envelope(s) addressed as follows: Frank A. Magnanimo, Esq. T: (818) 305-3450 Lauren A. Dean, Esq. F: (818) 305-3451 MAGNANIMO & DEAN, LLP E: frank@magdeanlaw.com 21031 Ventura Blvd., Suite 803 lauren@magdeanlaw.com Woodland Hills, CA 91364 Attorneys for Plaintiff VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL: By agreement with opposing counsel as equivalent to personal service, personally emailing the aforementioned document(s) in PDF format to the respective email address(es) listed above on February 7, 2019. I did not receive an electronic message indicating any errors in transmission. VIA OVERNIGHT MAIL: VIA UPS: By delivering such document(s) to an overnight mail service or an authorized courier in a sealed envelope or package designated by the express service courier addressed to the person(s) on whom it is to be served. [x] [l I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on February 7, 2019, at Costa Mesa, California. l | a Un A WU Wigan Maren Graham PROOF OF SERVICE LEGAL _US_W # 96780412.1
