147 DFJ MX Compel Comply Order Re DME3

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 147 Filed 06/02/2008 Page 1 of 21
1 LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE

Eugene D. Lee (SB#: 236812)
2 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100
Los Angeles, CA 90013
3 Phone: (213) 992-3299
Fax: (213) 596-0487
4 email: elee@LOEL.com
5 Attorney for Plaintiff
DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10 FRESNO DIVISION
11 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG
12 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE
13 v. WITH COURT ORDER; MEMORANDUM
OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES;
14 COUNTY OF KERN, et al., DECLARATION OF DAVID F. JADWIN,
D.O.; DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE
15 Defendants.
Date: June 4, 2008
16 Time: 10:00 a.m.
Place: U.S. District Court, Crtrm. 3
17 2500 Tulare St, Fresno, CA Complaint
Filed: January 5, 2007
18 Trial Date: December 3, 2008
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG
PLAINTIFF’S 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 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

2 Please take notice that on June 4, or as soon thereafter as the parties may be heard, Plaintiff
3 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O. will move this Court, at the United States Courthouse located at 2500 Tulare
4 Street, Fresno, California 93721 (Phone: (559) 499-5600), Courtroom 3, for an order requiring
5 Defendants to comply with this Court’s order regarding the location of session 3 of Plaintiff’s Rule 35
6 examination by Defendants.
7 This motion is based on these moving papers, the declarations of Eugene D. Lee and David F.
8 Jadwin, D.O., and the pleadings and papers on file in this action.
9
10 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED on June 2, 2008.
11
12 /s/ Eugene D. Lee
LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE
13 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100
Los Angeles, CA 90013
14 Phone: (213) 992-3299
Fax: (213) 596-0487
15 email: elee@LOEL.com
Attorney for Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
POINTS & AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.; DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE 1
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES

2 I. Issue
3 Plaintiff seeks to enforce the Court’s order that the last session of Defendant’s mental and
4 psychiatric examination of him occur at a location convenient to him, not at the examiner’s office as
5 Defendants now insist.
6
II. Background
7
At a telephonic status hearing held before the Court on May 23, 2008, the Court had ordered
8
Plaintiff David F. Jadwin, D.O. (“Plaintiff”) to submit to 5 more hours of defense mental and psychiatric
9
examination (“DME”) by Defendants’ expert, Robert Burchuk, M.D. The Court had further ordered that
10
the parties should meet and confer as to how the 5 hours should be allocated over two days. Finally, the
11
Court had ordered the DME sessions to be held at a location convenient to Plaintiff in light of the
12
inconvenience caused to Plaintiff as a result of Defendants’ error in providing Plaintiff with the wrong
13
address for the first DME session held on May 9, 2008. The error had led to a 2 hour delay during which
14
Plaintiff spent 40 minutes waiting outside a gate at the address wrongly provided by Defendants, then
15
another 80 minutes on the freeway driving from his house to the new location provided by Defendants.
16
The Court had concluded that Plaintiff should subject himself to a third DME session in order to make
17
up the time lost due to Defendants’ error.
18
The parties met and conferred per the Court’s order and agreed that DME session 2 would be
19
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,
20
2008. DME session 2 occurred without a hitch at Dr. Jadwin’s office in Glendale, CA. However,
21
Defendants now insist that DME session 3 should be held at Dr. Burchuk’s office in Woodland Hills,
22
CA. Woodland Hills is a considerable distance from Glendale, CA, particularly considering morning
23
rush hour traffic.
24
25 III. Meet and Confer Process
26 Plaintiff attempted to meet and confer with Defendants regarding this dispute over location of
27 DME session 3. However, Plaintiff early terminated the meet and confer process when defense counsel
28 engaged in unprofessional communication. (See Lee Decl., Exh. 1).
1 IV. Argument
2 Defendants do not dispute that the Court had ordered the remaining DME sessions be held at a
3 location convenient to Plaintiff. On May 23, 2008, the parties submitted a jointly proposed order which
4 stated:
5 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.
6 (Doc. 143, Lee Decl. Exh. 2, 2:12-14)(emphasis added).
7 Later that day, a full 6 days before DME session 2 was to be held, Plaintiff sent an email to
8 Defendants stating:
9 [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. Jadwin’s tight
10 schedule, we’d like the DME to be held at Dr. Jadwin’s conference room at 1010 N.
Central Ave., 3rd Floor, Glendale, CA.
11 (Lee Decl., Exh. 3).
12 That same day, Defendants responded that Plaintiff would need to go to Dr. Burchuk’s office for the last
13 DME session.
14 At 9 a.m. on May 29, four hours before DME session 2 was due to start, Plaintiff reiterated his
15 request to have DME session 3 held at his office. Defendants replied that they would discuss the matter
16 with Dr. Burchuk.
17 At the end of DME session 2, which ran from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Dr. Burchuk attempted to secure
18 Plaintiff’s agreement to have DME session 3 held at his office rather than at a location convenient to Dr.
19 Jadwin:
20 DR. BURCHUCK: So I’ll see you where we met last time. I think that’s set up for
10:00 a.m. on the 6th is - is the date in my head but -
21 EXAMINEE: It’s the 6th I think, yeah.
(See Jadwin Decl., Exh. A, 78:22-23.5).
22
As evidenced by the transcript, Plaintiff intention was to confirm only the date scheduled for
23
session 3. Plaintiff was not agreeing, and did not intend to agree, to the DME session 3 location or time.
24
Defendants contend based solely on this exchange that Dr. Burchuk had successfully obtained
25
Plaintiff’s binding stipulation to having DME session 3 at Dr. Burchuk’s office.
26
It should be noted that this is not the first time Dr. Burchuk has attempted to take advantage of
27
Plaintiff while in the absence of his attorneys. At DME session 1, Dr. Burchuk directed Plaintiff to sign
28
1 two HIPPA releases permitting Dr. Burchuk to obtain privileged psychotherapy notes from Plaintiff’s
2 two treating psychiatrists in direct contravention of the Scheduling Order (Doc. 29).
3
V. CONCLUSION
4
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff prays that the Court order Defendants to comply with this
5
Court’s Order that Plaintiff’s Rule 35 examination be held at a location convenient to Plaintiff.
6
7
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED on June 2, 2008.
8
/s/ Eugene D. Lee
9 LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE
555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100
10 Los Angeles, CA 90013
Phone: (213) 992-3299
11 Fax: (213) 596-0487
email: elee@LOEL.com
12 Attorney for Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 DECLARATION OF DAVID F. JADWIN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION

2 The undersigned hereby declares:
3 1. I am the Plaintiff in this action.
4 2. I am making this declaration in support of Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendants’
5 compliance with the Court’s Order. The facts stated herein are personally known to me and if called as a
6 witness, I could and would competently testify to the truth of the facts set forth in this declaration.
7 3. Dr. Burchuk’s office in Woodland Hills, CA, is a considerable distance from my office in
8 Glendale, CA, particularly considering morning rush hour traffic.
9 4. I will be travelling out of state during the week of June 6, 2008. I will be returning late at
10 night on June 5, 2008. I therefore asked my attorneys to ask Defendants to have the last DME session at
11 my office in Glendale, CA (rather than at Dr. Burchuk’s office) in the afternoon of June 6, 2008 (rather
12 than the morning).
13 5. I attended DME session 1, conducted by Robert Burchuk, M.D., from 12 p.m. to 2 p.m.
14 on May 19, 2008, at Dr. Burchuk’s office in Woodland Hills, CA. Due to Defendants’ giving my
15 attorney the wrong address, I spent 40 minutes waiting outside the gate at the wrong address, and
16 another 80 minutes driving to, then from, my house to the new address which Defendants gave to my
17 attorney.
18 6. I attended DME session 2, conducted by Robert Burchuk, M.D., from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. on
19 May 29, 2008, at my office conference room at 1010 N. Central Ave., 3rd Floor, Glendale, CA.
20 7. I tape recorded DME session 2. A true and correct written transcript of a portion of the
21 DME session 2 oral examination and oral statements made by me and by Dr. Burchuk is attached hereto
22 as Exhibit A.
23 8. My work and travel schedule has been and continues to be exceedingly demanding. As
24 such, my strong preference is that the last DME session be held in the afternoon of June 6, 2008, at my
25 office conference room at 1010 N. Central Ave., 3rd Floor, Glendale, CA.
26 9. At the end of DME session 2, Dr. Burchuk asked me to confirm the date, time and place
27 of the last DME session. My intention was to confirm only that session 3 was scheduled for June 6,
28 2008. I absolutely was not agreeing, and did not intend to
05/01/2008 22:12 18182443550 JADWIN CHA PAGE 02/02
agree in the ahsence of my attorneys, to the DME session location or time suggested by Dr. Burchuk.
2 10. At DME session I, on May 19,2008, Dr. Burchuk directed me to sign two HIPPA
3 releas<:'s e1,lthorizing him to obtain psychotherapy notes from my two treating psychiatrists. I was later
4 infonned by my attorneys that this was not consistent with the community standard for forensic
5 psychiatrists and was in contravention of a court order.
6
7 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and ofthe United
8 States that the foregoing is true and correct.
9
Dated: June 2, 2008 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.
10
11
12
By2b~;~· Declarant
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
USDC, ED Case No. 1:07-ov-00026 OWN TAG
PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDER; MEMORANDUM OF
AUTHORITIES: DECLARATION OF DAVID F. JADWIN, 0,0.;
F'OINTS & AUTHORITIES; 0,0.: DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE 6
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
EXHIBIT A
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER;
MOTION TO QUASH TWO RECORDS SUBPOENAS RE PLAINTIFF’S PSYCHIATRIC RECORDS.
1 DR. BURCHUCK: Uh huh.

2 EXAMINEE: Interestingly enough she was at the hospital that I had been the chair of pathology -
3 DR. BURCHUCK: Huh.
4 EXAMINEE: - and it had been several years now and I saw people and I just sort of sat there and no
one really recognized me except my daughter’s doctor and that’s because she knew that I was her father
5 -
6 DR. BURCHUCK: Right.
7 EXAMINEE: - but the psychiatrist for instance came in had no recollection even though I had
interacted with him a few times.
8
DR. BURCHUCK: Mm hm. Huh.
9
EXAMINEE: I should have turned this off here.
10
DR. BURCHUCK: Well we’re gonna finish in just a minute or two.
11
EXAMINEE: Oh my daughter’s calling me now.
12
DR. BURCHUCK: Uh huh.
13
EXAMINEE: So she was supposed to stay into the inpatient unit for about a week and she didn’t want
14 to do that and the - the psychiatrist came in and he says well you’ve got an option. He said you can
either go into here willingly or I’ll send you some place you don’t want to be unwillingly and so she
15 reluctantly signed because she was 18 and she wasn’t there a day and they let her go. So she had agreed
to go to outpatient counseling. She went once and didn’t go back again -
16
DR. BURCHUCK: Mm.
17
EXAMINEE: - and I guess - she’s always got along with her mother. I mean when she took this
18 overdose she came in late at 3:00 or 4:00 in the morning and kissed her mother good night and told her
she loved her and then apparently took these pills and Ann heard her thrashing around some time later
19 and went into her room and she was sort of vomiting and saying I think I need to go to the hospital so.
20 DR. BURCHUCK: Mm. Mm. Well time’s up for now.
21 EXAMINEE: Okay.
22 DR. BURCHUCK: So I’ll see you where we met last time. I think that’s set up for 10:00 a.m. on the
6th is - is the date in my head but -
23
EXAMINEE: It’s the 6th I think, yeah.
24
DR. BURCHUCK: Okay. Okay. Any questions for me?
25
EXAMINEE: No, no.
26
DR. BURCHUCK: Okay.
27
EXAMINEE: But is that - that’s the battery you had originally right or no or that’s the one she -
28
DEFENSE MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O. 78

1 DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION

2
I, Eugene D. Lee, declare and say, as follows:
3
1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before the Federal and State Courts of
4
California and admitted to practice before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
5
California. I am the attorney representing Plaintiff David F. Jadwin in this matter.
6
2. I am making this declaration in support of Plaintiff David F. Jadwin, D.O.’s motion to
7
compel Defendants’ compliance with the Court’s Order. The facts stated herein are personally known to
8
me and if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify to the truth of the facts set forth in
9
this declaration.
10
3. At a telephonic status hearing held before the Court on May 23, 2008, the Court had
11
ordered Plaintiff David F. Jadwin, D.O. (“Plaintiff”) to submit to 5 more hours of defense mental and
12
psychiatric examination (“DME”) by Defendants’ expert, Robert Burchuk, M.D. The Court had further
13
ordered that the parties should meet and confer as to how the 5 hours should be allocated over two days.
14
4. Finally, the Court had ordered the DME sessions to be held at a location convenient to
15
Plaintiff in light of the inconvenience caused to Plaintiff as a result of Defendants’ error in providing
16
Plaintiff with the wrong address for the first DME session held on May 9, 2008. The error had led to a 2
17
hour delay during which Plaintiff spent 40 minutes waiting outside a gate at the address wrongly
18
provided by Defendants, then another 80 minutes on the freeway driving from his house to the new
19
location provided by Defendants. The Court had concluded that Plaintiff should subject himself to a
20
third DME session in order to make up the time lost due to Defendants’ error.
21
5. I met and conferred with defense counsel per the Court’s order and agreed that DME
22
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
23
2 hours on June 6, 2008.
24
6. DME session 2 occurred without a hitch on May 29, 2008 from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. at Dr.
25
Jadwin’s office in Glendale, CA.
26
7. Defendants now insist that DME session 3 should be held at Dr. Burchuk’s office in
27
Woodland Hills, CA. Woodland Hills is a considerable distance from Glendale, CA, particularly
28
1 considering morning rush hour traffic.

2 8. I attempted to meet and confer with defense counsel regarding the dispute over location
3 of DME session 3. However, I early terminated the meet and confer process when defense counsel
4 engaged in unprofessional communication via email, stating “I do not get this continuing disagreement
5 over every goddamn detail. Jadwin has confirmed an appointment where they met “last time.” It seems
6 clear to Jadwin and Burchuk. It seems clear to me. What is the issue?”
7 9. A true and correct copy of the meet and confer emails exchanged between me and
8 defense counsel on May 30, 2008, is attached as Exhibit 1.
9 10. Defendants do not appear to dispute that the Court had ordered the remaining DME
10 sessions be held at a location convenient to Plaintiff.
11 11. On May 23, 2008, Defendants approved as to form a proposed order which stated:
12 “Plaintiff shall submit to 5 more hours of mental and psychiatric examination by Dr. Robert Burchuk, to
13 occur over two separate dates at a location convenient to Plaintiff.”
14 12. A true and correct copy of the proposed order (Doc. 143) is attached as Exhibit 2.
15 13. Later that day, a full 6 days before DME session 2 was to be held, Plaintiff sent an email
16 to Defendants stating: “[Plaintiff] will be travelling out of state during the week of June 6 so June 2 is
17 not a possibility. He returns on June 5.Also, out of consideration to Dr. Jadwin’s tight schedule, we’d
18 like the DME to be held at Dr. Jadwin’s conference room at 1010 N. Central Ave., 3rd Floor, Glendale,
19 CA.”
20 14. A true and correct copy of the meet and confer emails exchanged between me and
21 defense counsel on May 23, 28 and 29 of 2008, is attached as Exhibit 3.
22 15. That same day, Defendants responded that Plaintiff would need to go to Dr. Burchuk’s
23 office on June 6, 2008, for DME session 3. See Exhibit 3.
24 16. At 9 a.m. on May 29, four hours before DME session 2 was due to start, Plaintiff
25 reiterated his request to have DME session 3 held at his office. Defendants replied that they would
26 discuss the matter with Dr. Burchuk. See Exhibit 3.
27 17. Defendants contend based solely on an exchange between Dr. Burchuk and Plaintiff at
28 DME session 2 – occurring at the end of an exhausting 3 hour DME session, and in the absence of
1 Plaintiff’s attorneys – that Dr. Burchuk had successfully obtained Plaintiff’s binding stipulation to
2 having DME session 3 at Dr. Burchuk’s office, in variance of the Court’s order that it be held at a
3 location convenient to Dr. Jadwin.
4 18. It should be noted that this is not the first time Dr. Burchuk has attempted to take
5 advantage of Plaintiff while in the absence of his attorneys. At DME session 1, Dr. Burchuk directed
6 Plaintiff to sign two HIPPA releases permitting Dr. Burchuk to obtain privileged psychotherapy notes
7 from Plaintiff’s two treating psychiatrists in direct contravention of the Scheduling Order (Doc. 29).
8 19. This type of misconduct has been characteristic of Defendants and their counsel
9 throughout discovery in this action, including blatant discovery obstruction and abuse.
10
11 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and of the United States that
12 the foregoing is true and correct.
13
Dated: June 2, 2008 LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE
14
15
By: ____________________________________
16 Eugene D. Lee
Attorney for Defendant
17 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 EXHIBITS TO DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE

2
3 EXHIBIT 1. Meet and confer emails between Plaintiff’s attorney and Defendants’
attorney, dated 5/30/07
4
EXHIBIT 2. [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN
5 PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER; TO
QUASH TWO RECORD SUBPOENAS FOR PLAINTIFF’S
6 PSYCHIATRIC RECORDS; AND FOR DEFENDANTS’
COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT’S ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S
7 EXAMINATION (Doc. 143)
8 EXHIBIT 3. Meet and confer emails between Plaintiff’s attorney and Defendants’
attorney, dated 5/23/08, 5/28/08, 5/29/08
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
EXHIBIT 1:
25 Meet and confer emails between Plaintiff’s attorney and Defendants’ attorney, dated 5/30/07
26
27
28
Eugene D. Lee
From: Eugene D. Lee [elee@LOEL.com]
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 4:33 PM
To: 'mwasser@markwasser.com'
Subject: RE: Jadwin's exam with Burchuk
Mark,

Your conduct is unprofessional, as has been the case throughout this action. This meet and confer is at an end.

I will schedule a status conference with Judge Wanger seeking to enforce compliance with his order that DME sessions 2
and 3 be held at a location convenient to Dr. Jadwin.

Sincerely,
Gene Lee

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EMPLOYMENT LAW
555 WEST FIFTH ST., STE. 3100
LOS ANGELES, CA 90013
Tel: (213)992-3299
Fax: (213)596-0487
E - m a i l : elee@LOEL.com
W e b s i t e : www.LOEL.com
B 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 this
transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.

From: Mark Wasser [mailto:mwasser@markwasser.com]
To: elee@LOEL.com
Subject: RE: Jadwin's exam with Burchuk
Gene, the “last time” referenced in this conversation was at Burchuk’s office. The transcript you quote confirms an
appointment at Burchuk’s office.
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?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
EXHIBIT 2:
24 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS
FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER; TO QUASH TWO RECORD SUBPOENAS FOR PLAINTIFF’S
25 PSYCHIATRIC RECORDS; AND FOR DEFENDANTS’ COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT’S
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S EXAMINATION (Doc. 143)
26
27
28
Case
Case1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document
Document147
143 Filed
Filed06/02/2008
05/23/2008 Page
Page17
1 of 2
21
1
2
3
4
5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
9 Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING IN PART
AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
10 vs. MOTIONS FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER; TO
QUASH TWO RECORD SUBPOENAS FOR
11 PLAINTIFF’S PSYCHIATRIC RECORDS; AND
COUNTY OF KERN; et al. FOR DEFENDANTS’ COMPLIANCE WITH THE
12 COURT’S ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S
Defendants. EXAMINATION
13
(Doc. 140)
14
15
16 The above matter came on regularly for hearing before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger on May
17 23, 2008 at 12:00 p.m., in Courtroom 3 of the United States Courthouse located at 2500 Tulare Street,
18 Fresno, California 93721. The Court has read and reviewed the motion, declarations and memorandum
19 of Plaintiff, and considered the arguments of counsel. Eugene D. Lee of the Law Office of Eugene Lee
20 appeared telephonically for Plaintiff and Mark A. Wasser of the Law Offices of Mark A. Wasser
21 appeared telephonically for Defendants, and the matter was heard via ECRO. Good cause appearing, the
22 Court hereby orders as follows.
23 //
24 //
25 //
26 //
27 //
28 //
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER; TO QUASH TWO RECORD SUBPOENAS FOR PLAINTIFF’S PSYCHIATRIC
RECORDS; AND FOR DEFENDANTS’ COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT’S ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S
EXAMINATION 1
Case
Case1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG
1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document
Document147
143 Filed
Filed06/02/2008
05/23/2008 Page
Page18
2 of 2
21
1 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motions for Protective Order; to Quash Two Record
2 Subpoenas for Plaintiff’s Psychiatric Records; and for Defendants’ Compliance with the Court’s Order
3 re: Plaintiff’s Examination is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:
4 1. Plaintiff’s motion for protective order prohibiting Defendants, and their experts, from
5 seeking discovery of Plaintiff’s psychiatric records in violation of the Scheduling Order dated May 31,
6 2007, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
7 2. Plaintff’s motion to quash Defendants’ records subpoena for Plaintiff’s psychiatric
8 records kept by Paul Riskin, M.D., is GRANTED.
9 3. Plaintff’s motion to quash Defendants’ records subpoena for Plaintiff’s psychiatric
10 records kept by Anoshiravan Taheri-Tafreshi, M.D., is GRANTED.
11 4. Plaintiff’s motion for an order requiring Defendants to comply with this Court’s modified
12 schedule regarding Plaintiff’s Rule 35 examination is DENIED. Plaintiff shall submit to 5 more hours of
13 mental and psychiatric examination by Dr. Robert Burchuk, to occur over two separate dates at a
14 location convenient to Plaintiff. The parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding the setting of these
15 dates and the allocation of the 5 hours over these dates.
16
17 IT IS SO ORDERED.
18 Date: May , 2008 ______________________________________
Honorable Oliver W. Wanger
19 Judge of the United States District Court
Eastern District of California
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER; TO QUASH TWO RECORD SUBPOENAS FOR PLAINTIFF’S PSYCHIATRIC
RECORDS; AND FOR DEFENDANTS’ COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT’S ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S
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
EXHIBIT 3:
26 Meet and confer emails between Plaintiff’s attorney and Defendants’ attorney, dated 5/23/08, 5/28/08,
5/29/08
27
28
Eugene D. Lee
From: Mark Wasser [mwasser@markwasser.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 10:48 AM
To: elee@LOEL.com
Subject: RE: DME2 & 3
As soon as I have been able to discuss this with Dr. Burchuk, I’ll let you know.
From: Eugene D. Lee [mailto:elee@LOEL.com]

Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 9:03 AM
To: mwasser@markwasser.com

Mark,

As we discussed yesterday, Dr. Jadwin would prefer to have the June 6 DME in the afternoon and at his office rather
than at Dr. Burchuk’s office. Please let me know soon as possible as we need enough time to schedule a status
conference with Judge Wanger in case we can’t come to an agreement on this.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Gene Lee

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EMPLOYMENT LAW
Tel: (213)992-3299
Fax: (213)596-0487

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

From: Mark Wasser [mailto:mwasser@markwasser.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 3:12 PM
To: elee@LOEL.com
Cc: Assistant to Mark A. Wasser

Gene,
1
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. Burchuk
can come to Dr. Jadwin’s conference room on May 29 but Dr. Jadwin will need to go to Burchuk’s office on June 6.
Mark
From: Eugene D. Lee [mailto:elee@LOEL.com]

To: mwasser@markwasser.com
Subject: DME2 & 3

Mark,

I’ve spoken with Dr. Jadwin. He’d prefer to have 3 hours on May 29, 2008, and 2 hours on June 6, 2008. He 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. Jadwin’s tight schedule, we’d like the DME to be held at Dr. Jadwin’s conference room
at 1010 N. Central Ave., 3rd Floor, Glendale, CA.

Please let me know if the above works for you and Dr. Burchuk.

Sincerely,
Gene Lee

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EMPLOYMENT LAW
Tel: (213)992-3299
Fax: (213)596-0487

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

147 DFJ MX Compel Comply Order Re DME3

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

147 DFJ MX Compel Comply Order Re DME3

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

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

1 LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE

1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES

1 DECLARATION OF DAVID F. JADWIN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 147 Filed 06/02/2008 Page 7 of 21

1 DR. BURCHUCK: Uh huh.

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

1 DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION

1 considering morning rush hour traffic.

1 EXHIBITS TO DECLARATION OF EUGENE D. LEE

From: Eugene D. Lee [mailto:elee@LOEL.com]

From: Eugene D. Lee [mailto:elee@LOEL.com]

S-ar putea să vă placă și