147 dfj mx compel comply order re dme3

8/14/2019 147 DFJ Mx Compel Comply Order Re DME3

1/21

USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG

PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDER; MEMORANDUM OF

POINTS & AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.; DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEEEugene D. Lee (SB#: 236812)555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100Los Angeles, CA 90013Phone: (213) 992-3299

Fax: (213) 596-0487email: [email protected]

Attorney for PlaintiffDAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRESNO DIVISION

DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF KERN, et al.,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG

PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF MOTION ANDMOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCEWITH COURT ORDER; MEMORANDUMOF POINTS & AUTHORITIES;DECLARATION OF DAVID F. JADWIN,D.O.; DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE

Date: June 4, 2008Time: 10:00 a.m.Place: U.S. District Court, Crtrm. 3

2500 Tulare St, Fresno, CA ComplaintFiled: January 5, 2007Trial Date: December 3, 2008

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 147 Filed 06/02/2008 Page 1 of 21


2/21



POINTS & AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.; DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

Please take notice that on June 4, or as soon thereafter as the parties may be heard, Plaintiff

DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O. will move this Court, at the United States Courthouse located at 2500 Tulare

Street, Fresno, California 93721 (Phone: (559) 499-5600), Courtroom 3, for an order requiring

Defendants to comply with this Courts order regarding the location of session 3 of Plaintiffs Rule 35

examination by Defendants.

This motion is based on these moving papers, the declarations of Eugene D. Lee and David F.

Jadwin, D.O., and the pleadings and papers on file in this action.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED on June 2, 2008.

/s/ Eugene D. LeeLAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100Los Angeles, CA 90013Phone: (213) 992-3299Fax: (213) 596-0487email: [email protected] for Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.



3/21




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES

I. IssuePlaintiff seeks to enforce the Courts order that the last session of Defendants mental and

psychiatric examination of him occur at a location convenient to him, not at the examiners office as

Defendants now insist.

II. BackgroundAt a telephonic status hearing held before the Court on May 23, 2008, the Court had ordered

Plaintiff David F. Jadwin, D.O. (Plaintiff) to submit to 5 more hours of defense mental and psychiatric

examination (DME) by Defendants expert, Robert Burchuk, M.D. The Court had further ordered that

the parties should meet and confer as to how the 5 hours should be allocated over two days. Finally, the

Court had ordered the DME sessions to be held at a location convenient to Plaintiff in light of the

inconvenience caused to Plaintiff as a result of Defendants error in providing Plaintiff with the wrong

address for the first DME session held on May 9, 2008. The error had led to a 2 hour delay during which

Plaintiff spent 40 minutes waiting outside a gate at the address wrongly provided by Defendants, then

another 80 minutes on the freeway driving from his house to the new location provided by Defendants.

The Court had concluded that Plaintiff should subject himself to a third DME session in order to make

up the time lost due to Defendants error.

The parties met and conferred per the Courts order and agreed that DME session 2 would be

held for 3 hours from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. on May 29, 2008 and session 3 would held for 2 hours on June 6,

2008. DME session 2 occurred without a hitch at Dr. Jadwins office in Glendale, CA. However,

Defendants now insist that DME session 3 should be held at Dr. Burchuks office in Woodland Hills,

CA. Woodland Hills is a considerable distance from Glendale, CA, particularly considering morning

rush hour traffic.

III. Meet and Confer ProcessPlaintiff attempted to meet and confer with Defendants regarding this dispute over location of

DME session 3. However, Plaintiff early terminated the meet and confer process when defense counsel

engaged in unprofessional communication. (See Lee Decl., Exh. 1).



4/21




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IV. ArgumentDefendants do not dispute that the Court had ordered the remaining DME sessions be held at a

location convenient to Plaintiff. On May 23, 2008, the parties submitted a jointly proposed order which

stated:

Plaintiff shall submit to 5 more hours of mental and psychiatric examination by Dr.Robert Burchuk, to occur over two separate dates at a location convenient to Plaintiff.(Doc. 143, Lee Decl. Exh. 2, 2:12-14)(emphasis added).

Later that day, a full 6 days before DME session 2 was to be held, Plaintiff sent an email to

Defendants stating:

[Plaintiff] will be travelling out of state during the week of June 6 so June 2 is not apossibility. He returns on June 5.Also, out of consideration to Dr. Jadwins tightschedule, wed like the DME to be held at Dr. Jadwins conference room at 1010 N.Central Ave., 3rd Floor, Glendale, CA.(Lee Decl., Exh. 3).

That same day, Defendants responded that Plaintiff would need to go to Dr. Burchuks office for the last

DME session.

At 9 a.m. on May 29, four hours before DME session 2 was due to start, Plaintiff reiterated his

request to have DME session 3 held at his office. Defendants replied that they would discuss the matter

with Dr. Burchuk.

At the end of DME session 2, which ran from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Dr. Burchuk attempted to secure

Plaintiffs agreement to have DME session 3 held at his office rather than at a location convenient to Dr.

Jadwin:

DR. BURCHUCK: So Ill see you where we met last time. I think thats set up for10:00 a.m. on the 6th is - is the date in my head but -EXAMINEE: Its the 6th I think, yeah.(See Jadwin Decl., Exh. A, 78:22-23.5).

As evidenced by the transcript, Plaintiff intention was to confirm only the date scheduled for

session 3. Plaintiff was not agreeing, and did not intend to agree, to the DME session 3 location or time.

Defendants contend based solely on this exchange that Dr. Burchuk had successfully obtained

Plaintiffs binding stipulation to having DME session 3 at Dr. Burchuks office.

It should be noted that this is not the first time Dr. Burchuk has attempted to take advantage of

Plaintiff while in the absence of his attorneys. At DME session 1, Dr. Burchuk directed Plaintiff to sign



5/21




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

two HIPPA releases permitting Dr. Burchuk to obtain privileged psychotherapy notes from Plaintiffs

two treating psychiatrists in direct contravention of the Scheduling Order (Doc. 29).

V.

CONCLUSIONFor the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff prays that the Court order Defendants to comply with this

Courts Order that Plaintiffs Rule 35 examination be held at a location convenient to Plaintiff.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED on June 2, 2008.

/s/ Eugene D. LeeLAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100Los Angeles, CA 90013Phone: (213) 992-3299Fax: (213) 596-0487email: [email protected] for Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.



6/21




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DECLARATION OF DAVID F. JADWIN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION

The undersigned hereby declares:

1. I am the Plaintiff in this action.

2. I am making this declaration in support of Plaintiffs motion to compel Defendants

compliance with the Courts Order. The facts stated herein are personally known to me and if called as a

witness, I could and would competently testify to the truth of the facts set forth in this declaration.

3. Dr. Burchuks office in Woodland Hills, CA, is a considerable distance from my office in

Glendale, CA, particularly considering morning rush hour traffic.

4. I will be travelling out of state during the week of June 6, 2008. I will be returning late at

night on June 5, 2008. I therefore asked my attorneys to ask Defendants to have the last DME session at

my office in Glendale, CA (rather than at Dr. Burchuks office) in the afternoon of June 6, 2008 (rather

than the morning).

5. I attended DME session 1, conducted by Robert Burchuk, M.D., from 12 p.m. to 2 p.m.

on May 19, 2008, at Dr. Burchuks office in Woodland Hills, CA. Due to Defendants giving my

attorney the wrong address, I spent 40 minutes waiting outside the gate at the wrong address, and

another 80 minutes driving to, then from, my house to the new address which Defendants gave to my

attorney.

6. I attended DME session 2, conducted by Robert Burchuk, M.D., from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. on

May 29, 2008, at my office conference room at 1010 N. Central Ave., 3rd Floor, Glendale, CA.

7. I tape recorded DME session 2. A true and correct written transcript of a portion of the

DME session 2 oral examination and oral statements made by me and by Dr. Burchuk is attached hereto

as Exhibit A.

8. My work and travel schedule has been and continues to be exceedingly demanding. As

such, my strong preference is that the last DME session be held in the afternoon of June 6, 2008, at my

office conference room at 1010 N. Central Ave., 3rd Floor, Glendale, CA.

9. At the end of DME session 2, Dr. Burchuk asked me to confirm the date, time and place

of the last DME session. My intention was to confirm only that session 3 was scheduled for June 6,

2008. I absolutely was not agreeing, and did not intend to



7/21

05/01/2008 22:12 18182443550 JADWIN CHA PAGE 02/02

agree in the ahsence of my attorneys, to the DM E session location or time suggested by Dr. Burchuk.2 10. At DME session I, on May 19,2008, Dr. Burchuk directedme to sign two HIPPA3 releas


8/21


PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER;

MOTION TO QUASH TWO RECORDS SUBPOENAS RE PLAINTIFFS PSYCHIATRIC RECORDS.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

EXHIBIT A



9/21

DEFENSE MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O. 78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DR. BURCHUCK: Uh huh.

EXAMINEE: Interestingly enough she was at the hospital that I had been the chair of pathology -

DR. BURCHUCK: Huh.

EXAMINEE: - and it had been several years now and I saw people and I just sort of sat there and noone really recognized me except my daughters doctor and thats because she knew that I was her father-

DR. BURCHUCK: Right.

EXAMINEE: - but the psychiatrist for instance came in had no recollection even though I hadinteracted with him a few times.

DR. BURCHUCK: Mm hm. Huh.

EXAMINEE: I should have turned this off here.

DR. BURCHUCK: Well were gonna finish in just a minute or two.

EXAMINEE: Oh my daughters calling me now.

DR. BURCHUCK: Uh huh.

EXAMINEE: So she was supposed to stay into the inpatient unit for about a week and she didnt wantto do that and the - the psychiatrist came in and he says well youve got an option. He said you caneither go into here willingly or Ill send you some place you dont want to be unwillingly and so shereluctantly signed because she was 18 and she wasnt there a day and they let her go. So she had agreedto go to outpatient counseling. She went once and didnt go back again -

DR. BURCHUCK: Mm.

EXAMINEE: - and I guess - shes always got along with her mother. I mean when she took thisoverdose she came in late at 3:00 or 4:00 in the morning and kissed her mother good night and told hershe loved her and then apparently took these pills and Ann heard her thrashing around some time laterand went into her room and she was sort of vomiting and saying I think I need to go to the hospital so.

DR. BURCHUCK: Mm. Mm. Well times up for now.

EXAMINEE: Okay.

DR. BURCHUCK: So Ill see you where we met last time. I think thats set up for 10:00 a.m. on the6th is - is the date in my head but -

EXAMINEE: Its the 6th I think, yeah.

DR. BURCHUCK: Okay. Okay. Any questions for me?

EXAMINEE: No, no.

DR. BURCHUCK: Okay.

EXAMINEE: But is that - thats the battery you had originally right or no or thats the one she -



10/21




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION

I, Eugene D. Lee, declare and say, as follows:

1.

I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before the Federal and State Courts ofCalifornia and admitted to practice before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

California. I am the attorney representing Plaintiff David F. Jadwin in this matter.

2. I am making this declaration in support of Plaintiff David F. Jadwin, D.O.s motion to

compel Defendants compliance with the Courts Order. The facts stated herein are personally known to

me and if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify to the truth of the facts set forth in

this declaration.

3. At a telephonic status hearing held before the Court on May 23, 2008, the Court had

ordered Plaintiff David F. Jadwin, D.O. (Plaintiff) to submit to 5 more hours of defense mental and

psychiatric examination (DME) by Defendants expert, Robert Burchuk, M.D. The Court had further

ordered that the parties should meet and confer as to how the 5 hours should be allocated over two days.

4. Finally, the Court had ordered the DME sessions to be held at a location convenient to

Plaintiff in light of the inconvenience caused to Plaintiff as a result of Defendants error in providing

Plaintiff with the wrong address for the first DME session held on May 9, 2008. The error had led to a 2

hour delay during which Plaintiff spent 40 minutes waiting outside a gate at the address wrongly

provided by Defendants, then another 80 minutes on the freeway driving from his house to the new

location provided by Defendants. The Court had concluded that Plaintiff should subject himself to a

third DME session in order to make up the time lost due to Defendants error.

5. I met and conferred with defense counsel per the Courts order and agreed that DME

session 2 would be held for 3 hours from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. on May 29, 2008 and session 3 would held for

2 hours on June 6, 2008.

6. DME session 2 occurred without a hitch on May 29, 2008 from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. at Dr.

Jadwins office in Glendale, CA.

7. Defendants now insist that DME session 3 should be held at Dr. Burchuks office in

Woodland Hills, CA. Woodland Hills is a considerable distance from Glendale, CA, particularly



11/21




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

considering morning rush hour traffic.

8. I attempted to meet and confer with defense counsel regarding the dispute over location

of DME session 3. However, I early terminated the meet and confer process when defense counsel

engaged in unprofessional communication via email, stating I do not get this continuing disagreement

over every goddamn detail. Jadwin has confirmed an appointment where they met last time. It seems

clear to Jadwin and Burchuk. It seems clear to me. What is the issue?

9. A true and correct copy of the meet and confer emails exchanged between me and

defense counsel on May 30, 2008, is attached as Exhibit 1.

10. Defendants do not appear to dispute that the Court had ordered the remaining DME

sessions be held at a location convenient to Plaintiff.

11. On May 23, 2008, Defendants approved as to form a proposed order which stated:

Plaintiff shall submit to 5 more hours of mental and psychiatric examination by Dr. Robert Burchuk, to

occur over two separate dates at a location convenient to Plaintiff.

12. A true and correct copy of the proposed order (Doc. 143) is attached as Exhibit 2.

13. Later that day, a full 6 days before DME session 2 was to be held, Plaintiff sent an email

to Defendants stating: [Plaintiff] will be travelling out of state during the week of June 6 so June 2 is

not a possibility. He returns on June 5.Also, out of consideration to Dr. Jadwins tight schedule, wed

like the DME to be held at Dr. Jadwins conference room at 1010 N. Central Ave., 3rd Floor, Glendale,

CA.

14. A true and correct copy of the meet and confer emails exchanged between me and

defense counsel on May 23, 28 and 29 of 2008, is attached as Exhibit 3.

15. That same day, Defendants responded that Plaintiff would need to go to Dr. Burchuks

office on June 6, 2008, for DME session 3. See Exhibit 3.

16. At 9 a.m. on May 29, four hours before DME session 2 was due to start, Plaintiff

reiterated his request to have DME session 3 held at his office. Defendants replied that they would

discuss the matter with Dr. Burchuk. See Exhibit 3.

17. Defendants contend based solely on an exchange between Dr. Burchuk and Plaintiff at

DME session 2 occurring at the end of an exhausting 3 hour DME session, and in the absence of



12/21




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiffs attorneys that Dr. Burchuk had successfully obtained Plaintiffs binding stipulation to

having DME session 3 at Dr. Burchuks office, in variance of the Courts order that it be held at a

location convenient to Dr. Jadwin.

18. It should be noted that this is not the first time Dr. Burchuk has attempted to take

advantage of Plaintiff while in the absence of his attorneys. At DME session 1, Dr. Burchuk directed

Plaintiff to sign two HIPPA releases permitting Dr. Burchuk to obtain privileged psychotherapy notes

from Plaintiffs two treating psychiatrists in direct contravention of the Scheduling Order (Doc. 29).

19. This type of misconduct has been characteristic of Defendants and their counsel

throughout discovery in this action, including blatant discovery obstruction and abuse.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and of the United States that

the foregoing is true and correct.

Dated: June 2, 2008 LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE

By: ____________________________________Eugene D. Lee

Attorney for Defendant

DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.



13/21




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

EXHIBITS TO DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE

EXHIBIT 1. Meet and confer emails between Plaintiffs attorney and Defendants

attorney, dated 5/30/07EXHIBIT 2. [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN

PART PLAINTIFFS MOTIONS FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER; TOQUASH TWO RECORD SUBPOENAS FOR PLAINTIFFSPSYCHIATRIC RECORDS; AND FOR DEFENDANTSCOMPLIANCE WITH THE COURTS ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFSEXAMINATION (Doc. 143)

EXHIBIT 3. Meet and confer emails between Plaintiffs attorney and Defendantsattorney, dated 5/23/08, 5/28/08, 5/29/08



14/21




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

EXHIBIT 1:Meet and confer emails between Plaintiffs attorney and Defendants attorney, dated 5/30/07



15/21

Eugene D. Lee

From: Eugene D. Lee [[email protected]]Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 4:33 PMTo: '[email protected]'Subject: RE: Jadwin's exam with Burchuk

Mark,

Yourconductisunprofessional,ashasbeenthecasethroughoutthisaction.Thismeetandconferisatanend.IwillscheduleastatusconferencewithJudgeWangerseekingtoenforcecompliancewithhisorderthatDMEsessions2and3beheldatalocationconvenienttoDr.Jadwin.Sincerely,

Gene Lee

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

L A W O F F I C E O F E U G E N E L E EE M P L O Y M E N T L A W

5 5 5 W E S T F I F T H S T . , S T E . 3 1 0 0L O S A N G E L E S , C A 9 0 0 1 3

T e l : ( 2 1 3 ) 9 9 2 - 3 2 9 9F a x : ( 2 1 3 ) 5 9 6 - 0 4 8 7E - m a i l : [email protected]

W e b s i t e : www.LOEL.comB l o g : www.CaLaborLaw.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received thistransmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.

From: Mark Wasser [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 3:06 PM

To: [email protected]

Subject: RE: Jadwin's exam with Burchuk

Gene, the last time referenced in this conversation was at Burchuks office. The transcript you quote confirms an

appointment at Burchuks office.

I do not get this continuing disagreement over every goddamn detail. Jadwin has confirmed an appointment where theymet last time. It seems clear to Jadwin and Burchuk. It seems clear to me. What is the issue?



16/21




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

EXHIBIT 2:[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS MOTIONSFOR PROTECTIVE ORDER; TO QUASH TWO RECORD SUBPOENAS FOR PLAINTIFFS

PSYCHIATRIC RECORDS; AND FOR DEFENDANTS COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURTSORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS EXAMINATION (Doc. 143)



17/21

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS MOTIONS FORPROTECTIVE ORDER; TO QUASH TWO RECORD SUBPOENAS FOR PLAINTIFFS PSYCHIATRICRECORDS; AND FOR DEFENDANTS COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURTS ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS

EXAMINATION 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

COUNTY OF KERN; et al.

Defendants.

1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING IN PARTAND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFSMOTIONS FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER; TOQUASH TWO RECORD SUBPOENAS FORPLAINTIFFS PSYCHIATRIC RECORDS; ANDFOR DEFENDANTS COMPLIANCE WITH THECOURTS ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFSEXAMINATION

Doc. 140

The above matter came on regularly for hearing before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger on May

23, 2008 at 12:00 p.m., in Courtroom 3 of the United States Courthouse located at 2500 Tulare Street,

Fresno, California 93721. The Court has read and reviewed the motion, declarations and memorandum

of Plaintiff, and considered the arguments of counsel. Eugene D. Lee of the Law Office of Eugene Lee

appeared telephonically for Plaintiff and Mark A. Wasser of the Law Offices of Mark A. Wasser

appeared telephonically for Defendants, and the matter was heard via ECRO. Good cause appearing, the

Court hereby orders as follows.

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 143 Filed 05/23/2008 Page 1 of 2Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 147 Filed 06/02/2008 Page 17 of 21


18/21

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS MOTIONS FORPROTECTIVE ORDER; TO QUASH TWO RECORD SUBPOENAS FOR PLAINTIFFS PSYCHIATRICRECORDS; AND FOR DEFENDANTS COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURTS ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS

EXAMINATION 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motions for Protective Order; to Quash Two Record

Subpoenas for Plaintiffs Psychiatric Records; and for Defendants Compliance with the Courts Order

re: Plaintiffs Examination is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:

1. Plaintiffs motion for protective order prohibiting Defendants, and their experts, from

seeking discovery of Plaintiffs psychiatric records in violation of the Scheduling Order dated May 31,

2007, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

2. Plaintffs motion to quash Defendants records subpoena for Plaintiffs psychiatric

records kept by Paul Riskin, M.D., is GRANTED.

3. Plaintffs motion to quash Defendants records subpoena for Plaintiffs psychiatric

records kept by Anoshiravan Taheri-Tafreshi, M.D., is GRANTED.

4. Plaintiffs motion for an order requiring Defendants to comply with this Courts modified

schedule regarding Plaintiffs Rule 35 examination is DENIED. Plaintiff shall submit to 5 more hours of

mental and psychiatric examination by Dr. Robert Burchuk, to occur over two separate dates at a

location convenient to Plaintiff. The parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding the setting of these

dates and the allocation of the 5 hours over these dates.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: May , 2008 ______________________________________Honorable Oliver W. Wanger

Judge of the United States District CourtEastern District of California

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 143 Filed 05/23/2008 Page 2 of 2Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 147 Filed 06/02/2008 Page 18 of 21


19/21




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

EXHIBIT 3:Meet and confer emails between Plaintiffs attorney and Defendants attorney, dated 5/23/08, 5/28/08,

5/29/08



20/21

1

Eugene D. Lee

From: Mark Wasser [[email protected]]Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 10:48 AMTo: [email protected]: RE: DME2 & 3

As soon as I have been able to discuss this with Dr. Burchuk, Ill let you know.

From: Eugene D. Lee [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 9:03 AMTo: [email protected]: RE: DME2 & 3

Mark,Aswediscussedyesterday,Dr.JadwinwouldprefertohavetheJune6DMEintheafternoonandathisofficeratherthanatDr.Burchuksoffice.PleaseletmeknowsoonaspossibleasweneedenoughtimetoscheduleastatusconferencewithJudgeWangerincasewecantcometoanagreementonthis.Thankyou.Sincerely,

Gene Lee

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

L A W O F F I C E O F E U G E N E L E E

E M P L O Y M E N T L A W

5 5 5 W E S T F I F T H S T . , S T E . 3 1 0 0

L O S A N G E L E S , C A 9 0 0 1 3T e l : ( 2 1 3 ) 9 9 2 - 3 2 9 9F a x : ( 2 1 3 ) 5 9 6 - 0 4 8 7E - m a i l : [email protected]

W e b s i t e : www.LOEL.comB l o g : www.CaLaborLaw.com


From: Mark Wasser [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 3:12 PMTo: [email protected]: Assistant to Mark A. WasserSubject: RE: DME2 & 3

Gene,



21/21

Dr. Burchuk is available on May 29 from 1:00 to 4:00 (3 hours) and on June 6 from 10:00 to noon (2 hours). Dr. Burchukcan come to Dr. Jadwins conference room on May 29 but Dr. Jadwin will need to go to Burchuks office on June 6.

Mark

From: Eugene D. Lee [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 2:48 PMTo: [email protected]

Subject: DME2 & 3

Mark,IvespokenwithDr.Jadwin.Hedprefertohave3hoursonMay29,2008,and2hoursonJune6,2008.HewillbetravellingoutofstateduringtheweekofJune6soJune2isnotapossibility.HereturnsonJune5.Also,outofconsiderationtoDr.Jadwinstightschedule,wedliketheDMEtobeheldatDr.Jadwinsconferenceroomat1010N.CentralAve.,3rdFloor,Glendale,CA.PleaseletmeknowiftheaboveworksforyouandDr.Burchuk.Sincerely,

Gene Lee

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

L A W O F F I C E O F E U G E N E L E E

E M P L O Y M E N T L A W

5 5 5 W E S T F I F T H S T . , S T E . 3 1 0 0L O S A N G E L E S , C A 9 0 0 1 3

T e l : ( 2 1 3 ) 9 9 2 - 3 2 9 9F a x : ( 2 1 3 ) 5 9 6 - 0 4 8 7E - m a i l : [email protected]

W e b s i t e : www.LOEL.com

B l o g : www.CaLaborLaw.com



147 dfj mx compel comply order re dme3

Documents