On 07/07/2015 TIMOTHY JANG M D filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are MICHELLE R. ROSENBLATT, RICHARD E. RICO and DAVID SOTELO. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
MICHELLE R. ROSENBLATT
RICHARD E. RICO
JANG TIMOTHY M.D.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DOES 1 TO 50
HARBOR-UCLA MEDICAL CENTER
LEWIS ROGER M.D.
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DBA HARBOR-UCLA MEDICAL CENTER A PUBLIC ENTITY
BOHM LAW GROUP
BOHM LAWRANCE A
DAVID J. WEISS LAW OFFICES OF
EASSA ROBERT D
WEISS DAVID J
1/4/2018: Minute Order
5/24/2018: DECLARATION OF JONATHAN HIATT, M.D. IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
5/24/2018: DEFENDANT THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA?S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
6/14/2018: PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES AND ROGER LEWIS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY AD
6/19/2018: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL
7/24/2018: REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
8/2/2018: DEFENDANT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES' REPLY RE. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
8/23/2018: JOINT STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND OTHER DATES
8/26/2015: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
9/18/2015: CIVIL DEPOSIT
9/23/2015: Proof of Service
3/30/2016: DEFENDANTS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES AND ROGER LEWIS, M.D.'S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; PROPOSED ORD
5/16/2016: DEFENDANTS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES AND ROGER LEWIS, M.D.'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
6/7/2016: NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT AND OF ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE
11/7/2016: DEFENDANT REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
11/28/2017: Minute Order
at 08:30 AM in Department 17, Richard E. Rico, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by CourtRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 17, Richard E. Rico, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by CourtRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 17, Richard E. Rico, Presiding; Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and VacatedRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 17, Richard E. Rico, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Deposition - Not Held - Clerical ErrorRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 17, Richard E. Rico, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Deposition - Not Held - Vacated by CourtRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 17, Richard E. Rico, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Deposition - Held - ContinuedRead MoreRead Less
Order (ORDER ON TENTATIVE RULING); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Compel Deposition)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Request for Dismissal; Filed by Timothy Jang, M.D. (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
ROGER LEWIS, M.D.'S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; PROPOSED ORDERRead MoreRead Less
Demurrer; Filed by Roger Lewis (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCERead MoreRead Less
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Timothy Jang, M.D. (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Summons; Filed by Timothy Jang, M.D. (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
PLAINTIFF'S VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1) HEALTH & SAFETY CODE 1278.5; ETCRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Timothy Jang, M.D. (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC587400 Hearing Date: January 11, 2021 Dept: 17
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
TIMOTHY JANG, M.D.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES dba HARBOR UCLA MEDICAL CENTER, et al.
Case No.: BC587400
Hearing Date: January 11, 2020
Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is DENIED. CLA is ordered to turn over the video statement of Dr. Fernandez-Frackelton.
On January 17, 2017, Plaintiff Timothy Jang, M.D. (Plaintiff) filed a third amended complaint (TAC) against County of Los Angeles dba Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Roger Lewis M.D., and Regents of the University of California, alleging: (1) violation of Health and Safety Code section 1278.5; (2) violation of Labor Code section 1102.5; (3) violation of Business and Professions Code section 2056; (4) discrimination; (5) retaliation; (6) harassment; and (7) failure to prevent harassment, discrimination, and/or retaliation.
Plaintiff now moves for sanctions against Defendant County of Los Angeles (CLA) for willful refusal to comply with a court order.
Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, the court is empowered to impose monetary, issue, evidence, or terminating sanctions for misuse of the discovery process, which includes, but is not limited to, the following:
(a) Persisting, over objection and without substantial justification, in an attempt to obtain information or materials that are outside the scope of permissible discovery.
(b) Using a discovery method in a manner that does not comply with its specified procedures.
(c) Employing a discovery method in a manner or to an extent that causes unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense.
(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.
(e) Making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery.
(f) Making an evasive response to discovery.
(g) Disobeying a court order to provide discovery.
(h) Making or opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or to limit discovery.
(i) Failing to confer in person, by telephone, or by letter with an opposing party or attorney in a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve informally any dispute concerning discovery, if the section governing a particular discovery motion requires the filing of a declaration stating facts showing that an attempt at informal resolution has been made. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.)
Plaintiff argues that CLA has failed to comply with a court order to provide discovery. Specifically, Plaintiff argues that CLA continues to withhold a video made by Dr. Fernandez-Frackelton as part of CLA’s investigation into clinic shift scheduling. Plaintiff argues that Judge Rico previously ruled that his discovery requests did not intrude upon attorney-client privilege.
In opposition, CLA argues that the video is protected by the attorney-client privilege, and thus is not discoverable. CLA argues that Judge Rico’s previous discussion of privilege applied only to future deposition of panel members, and that Judge Rico “specifically excluded attorney-client communication from those documents that the County was ordered to produce.” (Opp., 11:28-12:2.)
The Court concludes that the video is discoverable for several reasons.
First, the Court is persuaded that Judge Rico did touch on the discoverability of the panel investigations. The transcript of the proceedings reveal that Judge Rico stated that “…if Defendant plans on introducing [the panel letter], then yes Plaintiff is entitled to [information about the panel’s deliberations].” If CLA intends to introduce evidence about the panel’s conclusion, which it appears it does, Plaintiff is entitled to discover evidence about the investigation that produced that conclusion. Dr. Fernandez-Frackelton’s statements were part of the panel’s investigation and therefore are discoverable.
Second, the Court is not persuaded that the video is privileged. In opposition, CLA argues that the video is privileged because Dr. Fernandez- Frackelton stated that it was recorded for the lawyers and, she was therefore “aware that her communication to the County’s attorneys was made for the purpose of giving legal advice to the County.” (Opp., 12:25-28.) However, “[w]hen an employee has been a witness to matters which require communication to the corporate employer's attorney, and the employee has no connection with those matters other than as a witness, he is an independent witness; and the fact that the employer requires him to make a statement for transmittal to the latter's attorney does not alter his status or make his statement subject to the attorney client privilege[.]” (D.I Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court of City and County of San Francisco (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 737.) As such, the fact that Dr. Fernandez-Frackelton made a video that she knew would be transmitted to CLA’s attorney does not, by itself, transform the video statement into a privileged communication. CLA does not present any evidence that Dr. Fernandez- Frackelton had any connection to the underlying litigation. As such, her statements were as a witness, and therefore are not privileged.
While the Court concludes that CLA must turn over Dr. Fernandez-Frackelton’s video statement, the Court declines to award monetary sanctions at this time. CLA presented arguments which, while ultimately unconvincing to this Court, were made in good faith. The transcript from the discovery hearing with Judge Rico leaves room for reasonable interpretation as to the scope of his ruling. Moreover, CLA’s privilege argument is grounded in a reasonable application of law and fact.
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is DENIED. CLA is ordered to turn over the video statement of Dr. Fernandez-Frackelton.
It is so ordered.
Dated: January , 2021
Hon. Jon R. Takasugi Judge of the Superior Court
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at firstname.lastname@example.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.
Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances. Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk. The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect. For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517. Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases