Opposition Defendants Response To Separate Statement Iso Motion To Compel Re Request For Production Set ThreeMotionCal. Super. - 2nd Dist.July 16, 2018Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 07/01/2020 10:05 AM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by M. Mariano,Deputy Clerk ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD & HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES Allison V. Saunders, Bar No. 220010 asaunders @ fordharrison.com Jenny S. Choi, Bar No. 285839 jchoi@fordharrison.com Angela S. Fontana, Bar No. 287398 afontana@fordharrison.com FORD & HARRISON LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: 213-237-2400 Facsimile: 213-237-2401 Nancy L. Patterson nancy.patterson @morganlewis.com MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1000 Louisiana St., Suite 4000 Houston, TX 77002-5005 Telephone: 713-890-5000 Facsimile: 713-890-5001 Attorneys for Defendants WEST HILLS HOSPITAL and HCA HUMAN RESOURCES, LLC (DOE 1) SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SUSAN M. DENARDO, Plaintiff, Vv. WEST HILLS HOSPITAL, a corporation; HCA HEALTHCARE, INC. a corporation; JAMES CROUCH, an individual; ADAM GARDNER, an individual; and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. WSACTIVELLP:11567280.1 CASE NO. BC714017 [Assigned for all purposes to the Hon. Barbara M. Scheper, Dept. 30] DEFENDANT WEST HILLS HOSPITAL'S RESPONSE TO SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET THREE) [Filed concurrently with Opposition to Motion to Compel, Declaration of Jenny S. Choi, and Declaration of Austin Maddox] Hearing Date: July 15, 2020 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept.: 30 Complaint Filed: July 16, 2018 Trial date: January 19, 2021 -1 /CASE No. BC714017 DEFENDANT WEST HILLS HOSPITAL'S RESPONSE TO SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL RE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET THREE ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD & HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES Defendant West Hills Hospital ("Hospital") hereby submits its Separate Statement in Opposition to Plaintiff Susan M. Denardo’s ("Plaintiff") Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set Three, Nos. 3, 5, 17-18, and 20-27. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: All DOCUMENTS evidencing all light duty or transitional work provided at WEST HILLS HOSPITAL from 2014-2018. DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Objection. Responding Party objects to this request as vague and overbroad as to scope and time and terms including "light duty" and "transitional work" so as to make responding unduly burdensome and harassing. Responding Party objects to this request on the basis it violates the constitutional right to privacy of third parties who are not involved in this lawsuit in violation of California Constitution Article 1, Section 1. Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject lawsuit nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. PLAINTIFF'S REASON FOR FURTHER RESPONSE: Request No. 3 seeks light duty or transitional work that was given to employees at West Hills Hospital from 2014-2018. Plaintiff is willing to limit this to the same Department of Imaging as Plaintiff worked in. By way of background, Ms. DeNardo requested light duty for several months starting on August 29, 2017. Despite their stated policy of providing light duty, and it was denied. (A true and correct copy of Defendant's Transitional Work Program, DeNardo 223-227, is attached hereto as Exhibit G.) This information is required for Plaintiff to move forward with the case. In fact, it is the employee's burden to prove available accommodations. The Plaintiff must use discovery to identify possible available accommodations. (Scotch v. Art Inst. of California (2009) 173 Cal. App. 4th 986, 1019 ["In litigation, the employee has discovery tools available to learn what accommodations might have been discussed during the interactive process."]; See also Nadaf-Rahrov v. Neiman WSACTIVELLP:11567280.1 J /CASE No. BC714017 DEFENDANT WEST HILLS HOSPITAL'S RESPONSE TO SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL RE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET THREE ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD & HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES Marcus Grp.,Inc. (2008) 166 Cal. App. 4th 952, 977; Hanson v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 215, 226 ["As long as a reasonable accommodation is available to the employer that could have plausibly enabled a handicapped employee to adequately perform his job, an employer is liable for failing to attempt that accommodation."]; see also Rowe v. City & County of San Francisco (N.D. Cal. 2002) 186 F.Supp.2d 1047.) Plaintiff has to show that they gave light duty to other employees, and the same opportunity was denied to her. Plaintiff has heard that from 2014 - 2018, West Hills Hospital has given light duty to the following employees (same department), but it has not been verified: 1) Cheri Van; 2) George Ramirez; 3) Vahid Hakkakzadeh; and 4) Neta Patel. HOSPITAL'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S POSITION: Plaintiff seeks documents pertaining to light duty / transitional work that were allegedly provided to other employees in the Imaging Department at Hospital from 2014-2018. As a preliminary matter, this time frame is overbroad as James Crouch did not become Director of the department until November 2015. Light duty assignments that may have been provided during a different Director’s tenure are not probative to the issue of whether Mr. Crouch provided light duty assignments. This request also violates the right of privacy of third parties as it seeks confidential health information pertaining to third party employees. At the Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) held on November 25, 2019, this Court provided guidance that documents of third parties such as employee medical or personnel files would not be discoverable. (Choi Decl. 6(a).) Additionally, this information is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff conflates light duty with reasonable accommodation, however they are distinct concepts. A reasonable accommodation means “a modification or adjustment to the workplace that enables the employee to perform the essential functions of the job held or desired.” Cuiellette v. City of Los Angeles, 194 Cal. App.4th 757,766 (2011). As applied to Plaintiff, it would mean a modification or adjustment that would permit her to resume her duties as a Radiologic Technologist (“Rad Tech”). However, this request seeks information pertaining to light duty assignments - temporary tasks assigned to an employee injured at work that may or may not be in WSACTIVELLP: 11567280.1 -3- /CASE No. BC714017 DEFENDANT WEST HILLS HOSPITAL'S RESPONSE TO SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL RE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET THREE ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD & HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES their own department and do not include performance of the employee’s essential functions. There is no legal requirement for an employer to provide light duty assignments. Nealy v. City of Santa Monica, 234 Cal. App.4th 359, 375 (holding that “FEHA does not obligate the employer to accommodate the employee by excusing him or her from the performance of essential functions.”) Therefore, whether or not another employee was provided light duty is not probative as to the issue of whether Hospital reasonably accommodated Plaintiff and disclosure of other employees’ confidential medical information results in nothing more than an unnecessary invasion of their constitutional privacy rights This request is also overbroad as it seeks documents that go beyond the relevant time frame. Specifically, Plaintiff was subject to restrictions starting on August 29, 2017 and was terminated in February 2018. Even if other employees were provided a light duty assignment at other time periods, this does not mean that any such assignments or accommodations were available during the time that Plaintiff was under restrictions. At the IDC, this Court provided guidance that Plaintiff’s requested time frame was overbroad and that the scope of these requests to Plaintiff’s unit should be limited to a one year time frame (i.e. March 2017 to February 2018). However, Plaintiff has refused to narrow the time period and continues to seek documents within a four year time frame (2014-2018). For all of these reasons, Hospital stands by its objections and respectfully requests that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion as to this request. To the extent that this Court is inclined to grant Plaintiff’s Motion, Hospital requests that the scope of the discovery be limited in time and scope for the reasons set forth above. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: All DOCUMENTS evidencing all accommodations provided at WEST HILLS HOSPITAL from 2014-2018. DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Objection. Responding Party objects to this request as vague and overbroad as to scope and time and terms including "accommodations provided" so as to make responding unduly burdensome and harassing. Responding Party objects to this request on the basis it violates the WSACTIVELLP: 11567280.1 -4° /CASE No. BC714017 DEFENDANT WEST HILLS HOSPITAL'S RESPONSE TO SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL RE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET THREE ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD & HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES constitutional right to privacy of third parties who are not involved in this lawsuit in violation of California Constitution Article 1, Section 1. Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject lawsuit nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. PLAINTIFF'S REASON FOR FURTHER RESPONSE: Request No. 5 seeks accommodations that were given to employees at West Hills Hospital from 2014-2018. Plaintiff is willing to limit this to the same Department of Imaging as Plaintiff worked in. By way of background, Ms. DeNardo requested light duty for several months starting on August 29, 2017. Despite their stated policy of providing light duty, and it was denied. (A true and correct copy of Defendant's Transitional Work Program, DeNardo 223-227, is attached hereto as Exhibit G.) This information is required for Plaintiff to move forward with the case. In fact, it is the employee's burden to prove available accommodations. The Plaintiff must use discovery to identify possible available accommodations. (Scotch v. Art Inst. of California (2009) 173 Cal. App. 4th 986, 1019 ["In litigation, the employee has discovery tools available to learn what accommodations might have been discussed during the interactive process."]; See also Nadaf-Rahrov v. Neiman Marcus Grp., Inc. (2008) 166 Cal. App. 4th 952, 977; Hanson v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (1999) 74 Cal. App.4th 215, 226 ["As long as a reasonable accommodation is available to the employer that could have plausibly enabled a handicapped employee to adequately perform his job, an employer is liable for failing to attempt that accommodation."]; see also Rowe v. City & County of San Francisco (N.D. Cal. 2002) 186 F.Supp.2d 1047.) Plaintiff has to show that they gave light duty to other employees, and the same opportunity was denied to her. Plaintiff has heard that from 2014 - 2018, West Hills Hospital has given light duty to the following employees (same department), but it has not been verified: 1) Cheri Van; 2) George Ramirez; 3) Vahid Hakkakzadeh; and 4) Neta Patel. 1" 1" WSACTIVELLP:11567280.1 = = /CASE No. BC714017 DEFENDANT WEST HILLS HOSPITAL'S RESPONSE TO SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL RE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET THREE ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD & HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES HOSPITAL'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S POSITION: Plaintiff seeks documents pertaining to accommodations that were allegedly provided to other employees in the Imaging Department at Hospital from 2014-2018. As a preliminary matter, this time frame is overbroad as Mr. Crouch did not become Director of the department until November 2015. Light duty assignments that may have been provided during a different Director’s tenure are not probative to the issue of whether Mr. Crouch provided light duty or accommodations. Whether an accommodation is granted depends on that particular employee’s individual restrictions, the essential functions of his or her position, as well as other factors including whether the Hospital had the ability to reasonably accommodate the employee at that time. Therefore, documents pertaining to other employees’ accommodations, in order to have any meaning, would require the employee to be performing the same position as Plaintiff and require the same type of accommodations at the same time. Absent these conditions, disclosure of other employees’ confidential medical information results in nothing more than an unnecessary invasion of their constitutional privacy rights. At the IDC held on November 25, 2019, this Court provided guidance that documents of third parties such as employee medical or personnel files would not be discoverable. (Choi Decl. {[6(a).) This request is also overbroad as it seeks documents that go beyond the relevant time frame. Specifically, Plaintiff was subject to restrictions starting on August 29, 2017 and was terminated in February 2018. Even if other employees were provided a reasonable accommodation at other time periods, this does not mean that any such accommodations were available during the time that Plaintiff was under restrictions. At the IDC, this Court provided guidance that Plaintiff’s requested time frame was overbroad and that the scope of these requests to Plaintiff’s unit should be limited to a one year time frame (i.e. March 2017 to February 2018). However, Plaintiff has refused to narrow the time period and continues to seek documents within a four year time frame (2014-2018). This time frame is further inappropriate as it seeks information that predates the time that James Crouch (Plaintiff’s decisionmaker) became Director of the department (November 2015). For all of these reasons, Hospital stands by its objections and respectfully requests that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion as to this request. To the extent that this Court is inclined to grant WSACTIVELLP: 11567280.1 -6- /CASE No. BC714017 DEFENDANT WEST HILLS HOSPITAL'S RESPONSE TO SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL RE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET THREE ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD & HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES Plaintiff’s Motion, Hospital requests that the scope of the discovery be limited in time and scope for the reasons set forth above. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: All DOCUMENTS evidencing the on-call schedule for Radiology Technicians from March 2017 through February 2018. DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: Objection. Responding Party objects to this request as vague and overbroad as to scope and time, including the terms "evidencing" and "on-call schedule," so as to make responding unduly burdensome and harassing Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject lawsuit nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party objects to this request on the basis it violates the constitutional right to privacy of third parties who are not involved in this lawsuit in violation of California Constitution Article 1, Section 1. PLAINTIFF'S REASON FOR FURTHER RESPONSE: Relative to No. 17, Ms. DeNardo's on-call hours were cut after returning from medical leave in January 2018. She complained about this wage loss to Defendant. As such, the on-call schedule would confirm this loss of pay/hours. HOSPITAL'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S POSITION: Hospital produced responsive documents on June 18, 2020. Choi Decl. {[7. Therefore, this request is moot. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: All DOCUMENTS evidencing all time correction form [sic] submitted by Radiology Technicians from March 2017 through February 2018. DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: Objection. Responding Party objects to this request as vague and overbroad as to scope and time, including the term "evidencing" so as to make responding unduly burdensome and harassing. Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject lawsuit nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. WSACTIVELLP: 11567280.1 = = /CASE No. BC714017 DEFENDANT WEST HILLS HOSPITAL'S RESPONSE TO SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL RE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET THREE ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD & HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES Responding Party objects to this request on the basis it violates the constitutional right to privacy of third parties who are not involved in this lawsuit in violation of California Constitution Article 1, Section 1. PLAINTIFF'S REASON FOR FURTHER RESPONSE: Request No. 18 pertains to the time correction forms used in Radiology to correct time punches. Ms. DeNardo was given a counseling on April 4, 2017 (DeNardo 52), despite the fact she did what exactly what other did to adjust their time. These documents will evidence whether other employees were using the time correction forms for the same purpose as Plaintiff. In other word, it will be used to establish pretext. Pretext is established when evidence is submitted in which a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the explanation offered by the employer for the termination is not credible. (Castro- Ramirez v. Dependable Highway Express, Inc. (2016) 2 Cal. App. 5th 1028, 1037; Deschene v. Pinole Point Steel Co. (1999) 76 Cal. App. 4th 33, 46; Horn v. Cushman & Wakefield Western, Inc. (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 798, 807; Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. (2000) 530 U.S. 133.) HOSPITAL'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S POSITION: Plaintiff seeks time correction forms from the Radiology Department for a one year period. As admitted by Plaintiff, the issue pertaining to the time correction form resulted in a counseling, which is not disciplinary. Therefore, these documents are not relevant to any disputed issue. This request is another example of Plaintiff engaging in a fishing expedition for no reason relevant to their claims. While Plaintiff argues that she was treated differently than other individuals by being disciplined, the information sought here has nothing to do with discipline since counselings are not disciplinary under the Collective Bargaining Agreement as Plaintiff admitted during her deposition. At the IDC, this Court’s guidance was that Plaintiff’s forms were certainly relevant, but not necessarily those of other employees. Hospital has already produced time correction forms reflecting requests by Plaintiff to adjust her time (See, e.g., WHH-DENARDO-000302-305). These documents are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and would be unduly burdensome. The reason that Plaintiff was coached was not because WSACTIVELLP: 11567280.1 -8- /CASE No. BC714017 DEFENDANT WEST HILLS HOSPITAL'S RESPONSE TO SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL RE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET THREE ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD & HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES she adjusted her time, but rather because she clocked out late, resulting in unauthorized overtime, and failed to provide an explanation for the request to adjust time. (See, April 4, 2017 Memorandum, attached as Exhibit 3 to Choi Decl.) The records are meaningless unless Plaintiff also obtains the individual time records, work schedules that reflect the hours each individual was scheduled to work, and then an evaluation of each individual’s personnel files to determine if they were disciplined. This not only would violate the right to the third party employees’ right to confidentiality in their employment information, but would also constitute an undue burden given the lack of probative value and simply invites Plaintiff to pursue additional unnecessary discovery. For these reasons, the Motion should be denied as to this request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: All DOCUMENTS and emails of Jennifer Saldana mentioning Plaintiff in 2017-2018. DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: Objection. Responding Party objects to this request as vague and overbroad especially as to the term "mentioning" and phrase "of Jennifer Saldana". Responding Party objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information not in Responding Party's possession, custody or control. Jennifer Saldana was not an employee of Responding Party. Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject lawsuit nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party objects to this request on the basis it violates the constitutional right to privacy of third parties who are not involved in this lawsuit in violation of California Constitution Article 1, Section 1. This request has, in substance, been previously propounded. (See, e.g., Plaintiffs Request for Production, Set One, Request No. 21.) Continuous discovery into the same matter constitutes oppression. (Professional Career Colleges v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 490, 493- 494.) PLAINTIFF'S REASON FOR FURTHER RESPONSE: Jennifer Saldana was Ms. Denardo's union representative. She was involved in Ms. Denardo's grievances of her Corrective Actions and Termination (2017-2018). The emails during this time period mentioning Plaintiff should be discoverable. Ms. Saldana was fighting for Ms. Denardo's job during 2017-2018. WSACTIVELLP: 11567280.1 -9._ /CASE No. BC714017 DEFENDANT WEST HILLS HOSPITAL'S RESPONSE TO SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL RE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET THREE ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD & HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES HOSPITAL'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S POSITION: Plaintiff’s Request for Production, Set One No. 21 sought “All DOCUMENTS and emails of Jennifer Saldana mentioning Plaintiff.” (Choi Decl. {4, Exh. 1.) Hospital responded: Responding Party objects to this request to the extent it seeks information neither relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party objects to this request as vague, ambiguous and overly broad as to subject matter and time. Responding Party objects to this request as unduly burdensome. Responding Party objects to this request to the extent it seeks confidential business or financial information. Responding Party objects to this request to the extent it seeks information that would violate the constitutional privacy rights of third parties. Responding Party objects to this request to the extent it seeks information that would violate HIPAA. Responding Party objects on the basis that Ms. Saldana is not an employee of Responding Party. (Choi Decl. {4, Exh. 1.) On December 13, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel with respect to Hospital's responses to Request for Production, Set One. However, Plaintiff did not seek to compel a further responses for No. 21 regarding Ms. Saldana’s emails. (Choi Decl. 4.) “[I]t would be an absurdity to say that a party who fails to meet the time limits of section 2030 may avoid the consequences of his delay and lack of diligence by propounding the same question again. Such a construction of the statute would obviously encourage delay and provide no incentive to attempt to resolve any dispute with the opposing party. The Legislature has explicitly stated that unless a party moves to compel further response within 45 days of the unsatisfactory response, he waives any right to compel a further responses.” Professional Career Colleges v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 490, 494. Despite this, Plaintiff now seeks to take a second bite at the apple by issuing a nearly identical request in direct contradiction of the legislative intent. The time in which to compel a further response to this request has long lapsed. As such, this continuous request is an abuse of the discovery process and Plaintiff has waived her right to seek a further response. Further, as Plaintiff admits, Ms. Saldana was a Union employee, not an employee of Hospital. As such, Hospital is not the custodian of Ms. Saldana’s emails and has no access to her email account. Hospital has thousands of employees, however Plaintiff has not identified any custodians to which she believes would contain emails from Ms. Saldana. To require Hospital to search the entire Hospital would be an undue burden and would amount to nothing more than a WSACTIVELLP: 11567280.1 -10 - /CASE No. BC714017 DEFENDANT WEST HILLS HOSPITAL'S RESPONSE TO SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL RE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET THREE ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD & HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES fishing expedition. Additionally, Plaintiff requested emails of James Crouch, Adam Gardner, Plaintiff, Edward Richards, and Jonathan Berke. After meeting and conferring as to appropriate search terms, Hospital produced over a thousand pages of responsive documents, which include emails to and from Ms. Saldana. Plaintiff has offered no explanation as to why this prior production is insufficient. As such, this request is duplicative and harassing. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: All DOCUMENTS and emails of Valerie McCan-Murrell mentioning Plaintiff in 2017- 2018. DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: Objection. Responding Party objects to this request as vague and overbroad especially as to the terms "mentioning" and phrase "of Valerie McCan-Murrell". Responding Party objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information not in Responding Party's possession, custody or control. Valerie McCan-Murrell was not an employee of Responding Party. Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject lawsuit nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party objects to this request on the basis it violates the constitutional right to privacy of third parties who are not involved in this lawsuit in violation of California Constitution Article 1, Section 1. Responding Party objects to this request to the extent it seeks information that would violate HIPAA. PLAINTIFF'S REASON FOR FURTHER RESPONSE: Valerie McCan-Murrell was Ms. Denardo's union representative. She was involved in Ms. Denardo's grievances of her Corrective Actions and Termination (2017-2018). The emails during this time period mentioning Plaintiff should be discoverable. Valerie McCan-Murrell was fighting for Ms. Denardo's job during 2017-2018. HOSPITAL'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S POSITION: As Plaintiff admits, Ms. McCan-Murrell was a Union employee, not an employee of Hospital. As such, Hospital is not the custodian of Ms. McCan-Murrell’s emails and has no access to her email account. Hospital has thousands of employees, however Plaintiff has not identified WSACTIVELLP: 11567280.1 11 - /CASE No. BC714017 DEFENDANT WEST HILLS HOSPITAL'S RESPONSE TO SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL RE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET THREE ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD & HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES any custodians to which she believes would contain emails from Ms. McCan-Murrell. Therefore, this request is overbroad. To require Hospital to search the entire Hospital would be an undue burden and would amount to nothing more than a fishing expedition. Additionally, Plaintiff requested emails of James Crouch, Adam Gardner, Plaintiff, Edward Richards, and Jonathan Berke. After meeting and conferring as to appropriate search terms, Hospital produced over a thousand pages of responsive documents, which include emails to and from Ms. McCan-Murrell. Plaintiff has offered no explanation as to why this prior production is insufficient. As such, this request is duplicative and harassing. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: All DOCUMENTS and emails of Diana Steel mentioning Plaintiff in 2017-2018. DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: Objection. Responding Party objects to this request as vague and overbroad as to scope and time, including the term "mentioning" so as to make responding unduly burdensome and harassing. Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject lawsuit nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party objects to this request on the basis it violates the constitutional right to privacy of third parties who are not involved in this lawsuit in violation of California Constitution Article 1, Section 1. Responding Party objects to this request to the extent that it Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that it seeks documents in violation of the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine. Responding Party objects to this request to the extent it seeks confidential business or financial information. Responding Party objects to this request to the extent it seeks information that would violate HIPAA. PLAINTIFF'S REASON FOR FURTHER RESPONSE: Diana Steel was the Director of Human Resources - she was aware of Ms. Denardo's medical leave (2017), accommodation requests (2017-2018), and participated in the discipline (2017-2018) leading to Ms. Denardo's termination. Her emails would bear on knowledge of the protected activities, the reasonableness of the requested accommodations, and the reasons given for the termination. WSACTIVELLP: 11567280.1 ~12 - /CASE No. BC714017 DEFENDANT WEST HILLS HOSPITAL'S RESPONSE TO SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL RE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET THREE ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD & HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES HOSPITAL'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S POSITION: This request is overbroad in scope and violates the right of privacy of third parties. Merely because Plaintiff is mentioned does not necessarily mean that these emails have any bearing on the issues in this case. Plaintiff often served as a union steward for other employees advocating those employees’ positions, and thus responsive emails may violate the privacy rights of these unrelated third parties. Additionally, Ms. Steel is no longer a Hospital employee. As discussed at the November 25,2019 IDC, the cost to search Ms. Steel’s emails and extract potentially relevant emails is unduly burdensome due to the time and expense. (Maddox Decl.) This is especially true given that any relevant documents relevant emails would have already been produced in response to Plaintiff's request for the emails of James Crouch, Adam Gardner, and Plaintiff. Any responsive documents would be duplicative, and Plaintiff has offered no explanation as to why the prior searches are insufficient. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23: All DOCUMENTS and emails of Becky Richmond mentioning Plaintiff in 2017-2018. DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23: Objection. Responding Party objects to this request as vague and overbroad as to scope and time, including the term "mentioning" so as to make responding unduly burdensome and harassing. Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject lawsuit nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party objects to this request on the basis it violates the constitutional right to privacy of third parties who are not involved in this lawsuit in violation of California Constitution Article 1, Section 1. Responding Party objects to this request to the extent that it Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that it seeks documents in violation of the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine. Responding Party objects to this request to the extent it seeks confidential business or financial information. Responding Party objects to this request to the extent it seeks information that would violate HIPAA. WSACTIVELLP:11567280.1 -13 - /CASE No. BC714017 DEFENDANT WEST HILLS HOSPITAL'S RESPONSE TO SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL RE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET THREE ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD & HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES PLAINTIFF'S REASON FOR FURTHER RESPONSE: Becky Richmond worked in Employee Occupational Health, and was involved in the accommodation requests of Ms. Denardo (2017-2018) and her return to work (January - February 2018). We were forced to take her deposition without emails that would have shed light on her role in the accommodation process. It is impossible to conceive of how these emails could not be discoverable. HOSPITAL'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S POSITION: This request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. As Plaintiff stated, Ms. Richmond worked for the Employee Health Department. By Plaintiff’s own testimony, their communications were with respect to a vaccination. Who was the employee health nurse? Rebecca, and I believe her last name is Richmond. When do you first recall having conversation with Rebecca Richmond about returning to work with restrictions in either your department or another department? That was mostly with Annette that I was asking. She was the workers’ comp, and she was the one that was trying to find me accommodations. Did you ever have any discussion with Rebecca Richmond about returning to work with restrictions in either your department or another department? That was with Annette. Rebecca I was talking to about what I needed to do as far as like a flu shot. She was the employee health nurse. (Plaintiff’s Depo. 56:20-57:11, attached as Exhibit 2 to Choi Decl.) Z R x Q E R Q: Did you have any direct communication with Rebecca Richmond about returning to work with restrictions in either your department or another department? I am not sure that I had a direct conversation with her about that. And I know there were communications because of e-mails. Between whom? Oh, I believe it was the HR department, Annette, Rebecca, my director [James Crouch], HR - what’s his title? He would be the labor relations. Is that Adam Gardner? Yes. Were you on these communications between HR, Rebecca, your director, and Annette? A: Yes, I e-mailed to get accommodations many times. (Plaintiff’s Depo. 57:25-58:16.) R E Q ZR ~ Additionally, Ms. Richmond is no longer a Hospital employee. As discussed at the November 25, 2019 IDC, the cost to search these emails and extract potentially relevant emails is unduly burdensome due to the time and expense. (Maddox Decl.) This is especially true given that WSACTIVELLP: 11567280.1 -14- /CASE No. BC714017 DEFENDANT WEST HILLS HOSPITAL'S RESPONSE TO SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL RE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET THREE ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD & HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES any relevant documents relevant emails would have already been produced in response to Plaintiff’s request for the emails of James Crouch, Adam Gardner, and Plaintiff. Any responsive documents would be duplicative, and Plaintiff has offered no explanation as to why the prior searches are insufficient. For these reasons, this request should be denied. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: All DOCUMENTS and emails of Annette Britton Cordero mentioning Plaintiff in 2017- 2018. DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: Objection. Responding Party objects to this request as vague and overbroad as to scope and time, including the term "mentioning" so as to make responding unduly burdensome and harassing. Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject lawsuit nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party objects to this request on the basis it violates the constitutional right to privacy of third parties who are not involved in this lawsuit in violation of California Constitution Article 1, Section 1. Responding Party objects to this request to the extent that it Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that it seeks documents in violation of the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine. Responding Party objects to this request to the extent it seeks confidential business or financial information. Responding Party objects to this request to the extent it seeks information that would violate HIPAA. PLAINTIFF'S REASON FOR FURTHER RESPONSE: Annette Britton Cordero worked in Employee Occupational Health, and was involved in the accommodation requests of Ms. Denardo (2017-2018) and her return to work (January-February 2018). This emails should be turned over. HOSPITAL'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S POSITION: Ms. Britton Cordero is no longer a Hospital employee. As discussed at the November 25, 2019 IDC, the cost to search these emails and extract potentially relevant emails is unduly burdensome due to the time and expense. (Maddox Decl.) This is especially true given that any WSACTIVELLP: 11567280.1 -15 - /CASE No. BC714017 DEFENDANT WEST HILLS HOSPITAL'S RESPONSE TO SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL RE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET THREE ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD & HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES relevant documents relevant emails would have already been produced in response to Plaintiff's request for the emails of James Crouch, Adam Gardner, and Plaintiff. Any responsive documents would be duplicative, and Plaintiff has offered no explanation as to why the prior searches are insufficient. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: All DOCUMENTS and emails of Sydney Kenney mentioning Plaintiff in 2017-2018. DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: Objection. Responding Party objects to this request as vague and overbroad as to scope and time, including the term "mentioning" so as to make responding unduly burdensome and harassing. Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject lawsuit nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party objects to this request on the basis it violates the constitutional right to privacy of third parties who are not involved in this lawsuit in violation of California Constitution Article 1, Section 1. Responding Party objects to this request to the extent that it Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that it seeks documents in violation of the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine. Responding Party objects to this request to the extent it seeks confidential business or financial information. Responding Party objects to this request to the extent it seeks information that would violate HIPAA. PLAINTIFF'S REASON FOR FURTHER RESPONSE: Sydney Kenney was a Human Resources Coordinator who was involved in the accommodation requests of Ms. Denardo (2017-2018), and in her termination (February 2018). These emails would illuminate what occurred in the interactive process, if anything. They would shed light on the legitimacy of the reasons given for the termination. HOSPITAL'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S POSITION: Per Plaintiff’s testimony, her discussions with respect to accommodations were with Ms. Britton Cordero. There are no facts to support her vague, conclusory statement that Ms. Kenney was “involved” in the accommodation requests. Similarly, there is no evidence to suggest that Ms. Kenney had any involvement in her termination. Additionally, Ms. Kenney is no longer a Hospital WSACTIVELLP: 11567280.1 -16 - /CASE No. BC714017 DEFENDANT WEST HILLS HOSPITAL'S RESPONSE TO SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL RE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET THREE ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD & HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES employee. As discussed at the November 25, 2019 IDC, the cost to search these emails and extract potentially relevant emails is unduly burdensome due to the time and expense. (See, e.g., Maddox Decl.) This is especially true given that any relevant documents relevant emails would have already been produced in response to Plaintiff’s request for the emails of James Crouch, Adam Gardner, and Plaintiff. Any responsive documents would be duplicative, and Plaintiff has offered no explanation as to why the prior searches are insufficient. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26: All DOCUMENTS and emails of Janette Daoud mentioning Plaintiff in 2017-2018. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26: Objection. Responding Party objects to this request as vague and overbroad as to scope and time, including the term "mentioning" so as to make responding unduly burdensome and harassing. Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject lawsuit nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party objects to this request on the basis it violates the constitutional right to privacy of third parties who are not involved in this lawsuit in violation of California Constitution Article 1, Section 1. Responding Party objects to this request to the extent that it Responding Party objects to this request on the basis that it seeks documents in violation of the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine. Responding Party objects to this request to the extent it seeks confidential business or financial information. Responding Party objects to this request to the extent it seeks information that would violate HIPAA. PLAINTIFF'S REASON FOR FURTHER RESPONSE: Janette Daoud was a Human Resources Business Partner who was involved in the accommodation requests of Ms. Denardo (2017-2018), and in her termination (February 2018). Again, her involvement in this accommodation and termination are relevant and therefore discoverable. HOSPITAL'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S POSITION: Per Plaintiff’s testimony, her discussions with respect to accommodations were with Ms. Britton Cordero. There are no facts to support her vague, conclusory statement that Ms. Daoud WSACTIVELLP: 11567280.1 = 17 = /CASE No. BC714017 DEFENDANT WEST HILLS HOSPITAL'S RESPONSE TO SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL RE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET THREE ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD & HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES was “involved” in the accommodation requests. Similarly, there is no evidence to suggest that Ms. Kenney had any involvement in her termination. To the extent that there were any communications about either of these topics, they would have been with Mr. Crouch Mr. Gardner, and/or Plaintiff, all of which have already been produced. Any responsive documents would be duplicative, and Plaintiff has offered no explanation as to why the prior searches are insufficient. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27: All DOCUMENTS evidencing any excess insurance coverage policy and declarations page, including but not limited to, excess insurance for this claim provided by Health Care Indemnity, Inc. DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27: Objection. Responding Party objects to this request as vague and ambiguous so as to make responding unduly burdensome and harassing. This request has, in substance, been previously propounded. (See, e.g., Plaintiffs Request for Production, Set One, Request Nos. 61.) Continuous discovery into the same matter constitutes oppression. (Professional Career Colleges v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 490, 493-494.) PLAINTIFF'S REASON FOR FURTHER RESPONSE: Regarding Request No. 27, seeking any excess insurance policy, by statute this information is discoverable. Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.210 provides: A party may obtain discovery of the existence and contents of any agreement under which any insurance carrier may be liable to satisfy in whole or in part a judgment that may be entered in the action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the judgment. This discovery may include the identity of the carrier and the nature and limits of the coverage. A party may also obtain discovery as to whether that insurance carrier is disputing the agreement's coverage of the claim involved in the action, but not as to the nature and substance of that dispute. Information concerning the insurance WSACTIVELLP: 11567280.1 -18 - /CASE No. BC714017 DEFENDANT WEST HILLS HOSPITAL'S RESPONSE TO SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL RE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET THREE ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD & HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES agreement is not by reason of disclosure admissible in evidence at trial. The caselaw agrees that the Code means what it says, the insurance policy is discoverable. In Irvington-Moore, Inc. v. Superior Court (App. 3 Dist. 1993) 14 Cal. App.4th 733, the Court held that insurance policies are subject to discovery requests for production of documents in light of statutory scheme that expressly permits discovery by request for production of documents. HOSPITAL'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S POSITION: Plaintiff’s Request for Production, Set One No. 11 sought “All DOCUMENTS evidencing the full insurance policy providing coverage in the defense of this matter, including the declaration page.” (Choi Decl. (4, Exh. 1.) Hospital responded: Responding Party objects to this request to the extent it seeks information neither relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party objects to this request as vague and ambiguous. Without waiving, subject to said objections, Responding Party responds as follows: Responding Party will produce a certificate regarding self-insurance. (Choi Decl. { 4, Exh. 1.) On December 13, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel with respect to Hospital's responses to Request for Production, Set One. However, Plaintiff did not seek to compel a further responses for Nos. 11 or 61 regarding insurance policies. “[I]Jt would be an absurdity to say that a party who fails to meet the time limits of section 2030 may avoid the consequences of his delay and lack of diligence by propounding the same question again. Such a construction of the statute would obviously encourage delay and provide no incentive to attempt to resolve any dispute with the opposing party. The Legislature has explicitly stated that unless a party moves to compel further response within 45 days of the unsatisfactory response, he waives any right to compel a further responses.” Professional Career Colleges v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal. App.3d 490, 494. Plaintiff now seeks to take a second bite at the apple by issuing a nearly identical request in direct contradiction of the legislative intent. The time in which to compel a further response to this request has long lapsed. As such, this continuous request is oppressive and Plaintiff has waived her right to seek a further response. WSACTIVELLP:11567280.1 -19 - /CASE No. BC714017 DEFENDANT WEST HILLS HOSPITAL'S RESPONSE TO SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL RE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET THREE ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD & HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES Additionally, the purpose of permitting a plaintiff to obtain discovery into insurance policies is to “ascertain the fact of insurance and the limits to permit a settlement to be worked out on the basis of realities. For that purpose, Plaintiff has the right to ascertain whether the insurer claims nonliability.” Additionally, the discoverability of insurance policies pertain to policies governed by Insurance Code section 11580 (for example, auto liability or medical malpractice insurance). Laddon v. Superior Court, 167 Cal.App.2d 391 (1959); Pettie v. Superior Court, 178 Cal.App.2d 681 (1960). Because of that statute, there is a potential contractual relationship that arises between the insurer and an injured third party, which is why common law has recognized a “discoverable interest” in the existence and terms of liability insurance coverage. Catholic Mutual Relief Society v. Superior Court, 42 Cal. 4th 358 (2007). Here, Hospital is self-insured so these principles do not apply to a self-insured defendant in an employment action as there is no third party insurance carrier and instead the defendant is funding its own settlement/judgment. Notwithstanding the above, Hospital will agree to produce a document confirming a self- insured excess “coverage.” Dated: July 1, 2020 Respectfully submitted, FORD & HARRISON LLP By: Allison V. Saunders Jenny S. Choi Angela S. Fontana Attorneys for Defendants WEST HILLS HOSPITAL and HCA HUMAN RESOURCES, LLC (DOE 1) WSACTIVELLP:11567280.1 -20 - /CASE No. BC714017 DEFENDANT WEST HILLS HOSPITAL'S RESPONSE TO SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL RE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET THREE ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD & HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES PROOF OF SERVICE I, Mary Garner, declare: I am a citizen of the United States and employed in Los Angeles County, California. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within-entitled action. My business address is 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2300, Los Angeles, California 90071. On July 1, 2020, I served a copy of the within document(s): DEFENDANT WEST HILLS HOSPITAL'S RESPONSE TO SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET THREE) [] by transmitting via facsimile the document(s) listed above to the fax number(s) set forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m. [] by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Los Angeles, California addressed as set forth below. I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. [] by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed FedEx Overnight envelope and affixing a pre-paid air bill, and causing the envelope to be delivered to a FedEx agent for delivery. [] by personally delivering the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below. by e-mail or electronic transmission. Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by e-mail or electronic transmission, I caused the documents to be sent on the date shown below to the e-mail addresses of the persons listed below. My email address is mgarner@fordharrison.com. I did not receive within a reasonable time after the transmission any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. [x] [SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST] I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on July 1, 2020, at Los Angeles, California. Fez “7 Ae < Zecmy Mary Garner WSACTIVELLP:11567280.1 -21 /CASE No. BC714017 DEFENDANT WEST HILLS HOSPITAL'S RESPONSE TO SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL RE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET THREE ~N O Y a B A W 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORD & HARRISON LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES Susan M. DeNardo v. West Hills Hospital, et al. LASC Case No. BC714017 SERVICE LIST Attorneys for Plaintiff: Jeffrey A. Rager James Y. Yoon Ashley Garay-Bowman The Rager Law Firm 2321 Rosecrans, Suite 4255 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: ~~ 310-527-6994 Facsimile: 310-527-6800 Email: jeff @ragerlawoffices.com james @ragerlawoffices.com ashley @ragerlawoffices.com alana@ragerlawoffices.com Melanie Savarese Savarese Law Firm 37 W. Sierra Madre Blvd. Sierra Madre, CA 91024 Telephone: 626-355-3264 Facsimile: 626-355-3491 Email: melanie @savareselawfirm.com Counsel Pro Hac Vice for Defendant HCA Healthcare, Inc.: George A. Shannon, Jr. Megan D. Richardson Carlos A. Mattioli Shannon, Martin, Finkelstein, Alvarado & Dunne, P.C. 1001 McKinney Street, Suite 1100 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: 713-646-5500 Facsimile: 713-752-0337 Email: gshannon@smfadlaw.com mrichardson @smfadlaw.com cmattioli@smfadlaw.com WSACTIVELLP: 11567280.1 22 /CASE No. BC714017 DEFENDANT WEST HILLS HOSPITAL'S RESPONSE TO SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL RE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET THREE