Jane Doe and John Doe v W Kiernan O’Callaghan, MD; Sansum Clinic; Sansum Santa Barbara Medical Clinic, Inc

Case Number

21CV03762

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 02/21/2024 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

1) Defendant’s motion for protective order; and, 2) Plaintiffs motion to compel and request for sanctions.

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs: Jennifer Fiore, Alexandra Hamilton

Defendants: William Clinkenbeard, Cathy Anderson, Maureen Clark

Issues

(1) Defendant’s motion for protective order.

(2) Plaintiffs motion to compel and request for sanctions.

Rulings

For the reasons set out below:

1. Defendants request that this Court grant a protective order to prevent any questioning of Dr. O'Callaghan and/or Dr. Newman in the Jane Doe I case until such time as Defendants have been able to obtain Jane Doe II's deposition testimony is GRANTED.

2. Plaintiffs request for a motion to compel and sanctions, is continued to 3/20/24 at 10am, the same day set for the Court to rule on the Plaintiffs motion to quash subpoenas issued by Defendants.

3. Plaintiffs and Defendants shall meet and confer and notify the Court on or before 3/10/24 whether any of the issues raised in Plaintiffs Motion to Compel or the Motion to Quash have been resolved and if so which ones. There are very experienced lawyers in this case, and it appears to the Court that the issues raised by Plaintiffs might be resolved without the Court’s intervention. No further briefing on the issues on the motion to compel is invited or required. The Court recognizes that the time to brief the motion to quash issues has not yet run.

4. Counsel shall meet and confer before this matter is called on 2/21/24 and agree on a date, time, and place that can be announced on 2/21/24 at 10:00am for the deposition of Jane Doe II. If no agreement, bring your calendars; tell the Court what the competing dates are; the Court will select the date. Time is of the essence. The deposition of Jane Doe II is set for _______________________.

5. The Court confirms the following: The CMCs specially set for 3/8/24 and 4/11/24; the MSC set for 3/29/24 and the Trial Date set for 5/1/24. Do not seek to continue the trial date again. The alleged incident occurred on 9/25/20; the case was filed in 9/2021. The original trial date was set for 1/23/23; it was continued to 9/13/23; it was continued a 3^rd time by joint stipulation and order in July 2023 to 5/1/24. In that stipulation counsel asked the Court to continue the matter to May 1, 2024, and that is precisely the date the Court ordered; it was not selected by the Court it was a date selected by counsel. The discovery now being addressed could have been done before the date the stipulation was requested. The Court does not intend to continue the trial date a 4^th time. The Court has reserved 4 weeks for the trial; virtually the entire month of May.

6. Counsel will meet and confer and set dates for further depositions for Dr. O'Callaghan and/or Dr. Newman on the assumption that those depositions will go forward, and the Court answers the issues in Plaintiffs motion to compel at the hearing on 3/20/24. The medical providers involved in the case and the lawyers involved have impacted calendars The Court urges that the deposition dates be firmly set for the week of March 25, 2024.

7. The Court is aware that the expert witness designation date is almost upon us. Be certain the experts you select do not have conflicts with the trial dates. A copy of those Guidelines is emailed with the tentative ruling. 

Analysis

Defendants Motion for a Protective Order

Filed 1/30/23; set for hearing 3/6/24; advanced by the Court to 2/21/24.

Defendants Position. Summarized. That motion raises a discovery priority issue, related to the depositions to be taken in this case, and whether defense counsel would permit Dr. O’Callaghan and the PMQ Dr. Marjorie Newman, M.D. to testify at depositions taken in this case, with respect to the events related to Jane Doe II (which is assigned to Judge Geck in Dept. 4). Defendants do not want to produce either Dr. O’Callaghan or the entity Defendants’ PMQ to testify as to those events until they have had an opportunity to depose Jane Doe II in that case; they wish to limit the testimony in this case to the events in this case, until they have had that opportunity.

Background. The defense argues this action arises from Plaintiff Jane Doe I's one-time urgent care visit to the Pesetas Urgent Care facility at Sansum Clinic, where she was seen by Defendant W. Kiernan O'Callaghan, M.D. on September 25, 2020. Plaintiff alleges that Dr. O'Callaghan inappropriately touched her during the medical examination on that date, and that the medical entity Defendants are directly and vicariously responsible for the incident, pursuant to theories of negligent retention and supervision, premises liability, and ratification.

Plaintiff Jane Doe I’s attorneys have filed a second and unrelated case against the Defendants herein arising out of an alleged inappropriate contact on behalf of a different patient (case no. 23CV00415, re: "Jane Doe II" filed in 1/2023). This Court declined to order these two cases related.

On December 20, 2023, Dr. O'Callaghan appeared for deposition in the Jane Doe I matter. Prior to the deposition, and during the deposition, Dr. O'Callaghan's attorney [William Clinkenbeard], stated that Dr. O'Callaghan would not be answering questions about Jane Doe II until the Defendants had the opportunity to take the deposition of Jane Doe II.

The deposition of Jane Doe II had been noticed by Defendants on or about August 31, 2023 to take place on November 2, 2023. The deposition was later taken off calendar because Defendants filed demurrers to the complaint and subsequently to the first amended complaint, the latter of which was heard on January 26, 2024.

Due to the unsettled nature of the pleadings, Defendants deferred taking the deposition of Jane Doe II on November 2, 2023, but Defendants re-noticed Plaintiffs’ deposition on December 19, 2023 for February 8, 2024.

Defendants claim they have cooperated in producing Dr. O'Callaghan for deposition in the Jane Doe I case. However, any questioning of Dr. O'Callaghan regarding allegations made by Jane Doe II should be deferred until Defendants have had an opportunity to take the deposition of Jane Doe II.

Plaintiff Jane Doe I’s attorney has taken the position that she will not produce Jane Doe II for deposition in the unrelated case until the deposition of Dr. O'Callaghan in the present case has been concluded.

On December 19, 2023, Defendants produced Marjorie Newman, M.D., as a PMQ witness in response to Plaintiffs’ deposition notice. Dr. Newman was similarly instructed not to answer questions regarding Jane Doe II, for the same reasons set forth hereinabove.

Plaintiff is essentially using the depositions of Dr. O'Callaghan and Dr. Newman in the present case to conduct questioning about Jane Doe II's allegations, thereby circumventing the established sequence of discovery in Jane Doe II.

Defendants request that this Court grant a protective order to prevent any questioning of Dr. O'Callaghan and/or Dr. Newman in Jane Doe I until such time as Defendants have been able to obtain Jane Doe II's deposition testimony.

The defense reports Evidence Code section 1157 issues are being discussed.

Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants Motion for Protective Order

and

Motion to Compel

At the 2/2/23 CMC, Plaintiff’s counsel expressed her intent to file a motion, and set it for hearing on 2/21/24. That motion was filed on 2/9/24, and the declaration in support of the motion was filed at 9:22 p.m. on 2/13/24. [The Court appreciates the effort made to provide a thorough discussion of the issues on such late notice within the time provided.]

Essentially Plaintiffs have combined their opposition to the request for a Protective Order with a Motion to Compel Further Deposition Testimony filed 2/9/24 and 2/13/24; the Court has considered it all but summarized here more for the Court’s benefit then the lawyers.  

Plaintiffs [Jane Doe I and John Doe] move the Court for an order compelling responses to deposition questions, and reasonable follow-up questioning, in connection with the depositions of Defendant Sansum Clinics’ PMQ Dr. Marjorie Newman and Defendant W. Kiernan O’Callaghan. Plaintiffs moves to compel pursuant to C.C.P. § 2025.010, et seq., including Sections 2025.230, 2025.410 and 2025.480, and all applicable California statutory and case law.  Plaintiffs move to compel the conclusions of the depositions of Sansum Clinics’ PMQ and Dr. O’Callaghan before the deposition of Jane Doe II (Case No. 23CV00415); Plaintiffs seek appropriate sanctions, including monetary sanctions, issue and/or evidentiary sanctions under C.C.P. §§ 2023.010, 2023.030 & 2025.480, for inappropriate interference with and misuse of the discovery process.

Supported by Points & Authorities; 21 pages; summarized; Plaintiffs move to compel the further deposition of Sansum Clinic’s PMQ Dr. Marjorie Newman and Dr. O’Callaghan and the conclusions of their depositions before the deposition of Jane Doe II. Plaintiffs seek sanctions against Defendants for the inappropriate interference with and misuse of the discovery process when their counsel instructed Dr. Newman and Dr. O’Callaghan from answering questions regarding the incident involving Jane Doe II – which was a similar incident that occurred 10 months before the sexual assault of Plaintiff and provided the corporate Defendants with sufficient notice of Dr. O’Callaghan’s dangerous propensities. Given the Court’s permission to file the opposition to Defendants’ motion for a protective order within Plaintiffs’ motion to compel since they touch upon the very same issues, the memorandum and accompanying exhibits serve as Plaintiffs’ opposition. 

Plaintiffs claim there is good cause for granting Plaintiffs’ motion and denying Defendants’ motion as Defendants had no justifiable factual or legal basis to impede Plaintiffs’ taking of Dr. Newman and Dr. O’Callaghan’s depositions nearly two months ago – particularly since trial is three months away; claims there is good cause for issuing sanctions for Defendants’ abuse of the discovery process.

Plaintiffs point to the September 25, 2020 incident involving Plaintiff Jane Doe and Dr. O’Callaghan, M.D. at Pesetas Urgent Care and claim during the examination, Dr. O’Callaghan groped her bare breasts with his bare hands; that the sexual assault of Jane Doe in this case occurred 10 months after the prior-known sexual assault of Jane Doe II on November 11, 2018 – when Dr. O’Callaghan inappropriately groped that Jane Doe’s breasts and vagina; that while working at Sansum Clinic, Dr. O’Callaghan also received a complaint around 2011 from a female patient that he improperly exposed her breasts during an examination; that these prior incidents are notice of Dr. O’Callaghan’s inability to be trusted to behave appropriately with female patients at Sansum Clinics and are highly relevant. 

Plaintiffs point out that at no time prior to the morning just before the depositions did Defendants raise any issue with Plaintiffs in this case related to questioning Drs. Newman and O’Callaghan as to the Jane Doe II incident; that Plaintiffs’ counsel met and conferred with respect to their motion and intent to seek limited sanctions; at no time during the meet and confer process initiated by Plaintiffs did Defendants advise that they intended to file the motion for protective order; that during the December 19-20, 2023 depositions, in addition to instructing the doctors not to answer questions as to Jane Doe II, defense counsel improperly instructed the doctors to not answer questions on the basis of Evid. Code § 1157; there are 31 questions that Plaintiffs seek to compel further testimony of Dr. Newman on along with reasonable follow-up questions as set forth is their Separate Statement.

Plaintiffs point out that prior to filing their motion for protective order, Defendants presented no legal basis or legal authority for instructing both Dr. Newman and Dr. O'Callaghan to respond to questions related to Jane Doe II; that Jane Doe's allegations are well known to Defendants and have been since the November 2018 incident; there is no legal basis or legal authority for obstructing the discovery that occurred at those depositions; the only proper basis for instructing a witness not to answer is privilege.

The State Bar of California has promulgated Attorney Guidelines of Civility and Professionalism from engaging in delay tactics; Defendants fail to provide any good cause for requiring Jane Doe II’s deposition to occur first. Any argument as to fundamental fairness weighs heavily in favor of allowing Plaintiffs to be adequately prepared for their May 1, 2024 trial date without the Defendants’ apparent delay and gamesmanship tactics. 

Additionally, Plaintiffs request that Defendants’ motion be denied for failing to adequately meet and confer and give notice of their intention to file the motion. (C.C.P. §§ 2016.040 & 2025.420.) Their “notice” was created in and after they filed their motion.

Plaintiffs have the burden of proof at trial; should be allowed to discover facts such as Complaints from patients or employees about inappropriate conduct by Dr. O'Callaghan or others at Sansum clinics, communications with third parties about allegations of sexual abuse, assault or harassment such as the police or sheriff's department, whether acts were taken outside of the formal Section 1157 review process, the hiring process for practitioners that are the subject of the allegations that is part of administration (such as whether there was a background or reference check on Dr. O'Callaghan before being allowed to work at Sansum Clinics), what Sansum Clinics do to prevent patients from being sexually assaulted; the scope of the peer review privilege is limited; it does not apply to previous denials of privileges, patient medical records, hospital actions based on committee investigations, information known by peer review participants , etc. It only applies to bodies “having the responsibility of evaluation and improvement of the quality of care rendered in the hospital.” (Evid. Code § 1157.) These committees evaluate physicians applying for staff privileges, establish standards and procedures for patient care, assess the performance of physicians currently on staff, and review such matters as the need for and results of each surgery performed in the hospital, the functioning of the patient records system, the control of in-hospital infections, and the use and handling of drugs within the hospital. Defendants have the burden of establishing that the instructions not to answer were proper.

A significant portion of the Plaintiffs brief relates to Section 1157 issues that Plaintiffs did not get answers to at the deposition; contends that during the December 19-20, 2023 depositions, in addition to instructing the doctors not to answer questions as to Jane Doe II, defense counsel improperly instructed the doctors to not answer questions on the basis of Evid. Code § 1157. The 31 questions that Plaintiffs seek to compel further testimony of Dr. Newman on along with reasonable follow-up questions are set forth in the following Topics in their Separate Statement:

Topic 1: What Dr. Newman reviewed in preparation for her deposition?

Topic 2: Dr. Newman’s Communications with the Santa Barbara Police Department & the Police Report.

Topic 3: Background Checks & Reference Checks.

Topic 4: Supervision of Physicians and Prevention of Sexual Assaults.

Topic 5: Policies and Procedures of Adverse Events & Sexual Assaults 

Topic 6: Complaints of Sexual Misconduct and Terminations for Sexual Misconduct. 

Plaintiffs contend that Sansum Clinic’s meet and confer letter of January 24, 2024 is devoid of any information, either in the letter itself or a privilege log, for Plaintiffs to assess Sansum Clinic’s claims of peer review pursuant to Evidence Code § 1157. Courts have recognized a need for supporting factual information specifically as to Evidence Code section 1157 because its protection is limited in scope. Plaintiff argues Defendants are improperly employing an overly broad and restrictive use Section 1157 that is wasting resources and time by having to address unmeritorious assertions; that good cause exists for compelling what Dr. Newman reviewed in preparation for her deposition; that what Dr. Newman reviewed in preparation for the PMQ deposition is discoverable and not automatically protected by Section 1157; good cause exists for compelling Dr. Newman’s communications with the Santa Barbara Police Department and the Police Report and background checks and reference checks; supervision of physicians and prevention of sexual assaults; etc.

Plaintiffs seek appropriate sanctions, including monetary sanctions, issue and/or evidentiary sanctions; Plaintiffs’ counsel was essentially ambushed minutes before appearing at the Sansum Clinics office to take the depositions. Defendants served no timely objection, nor intimated in any way they were going to impede the depositions prior to December 19; defense counsel produced Jane Doe No. II’s records without objection just the day before when Plaintiffs’ counsel stated they were needed before the depositions; support for sanctions is Defendants’ pattern of misusing the discovery process; they hid the identity of a key employee who checked Plaintiff in on the day of the appointment and created the initial chart notes; those notes also were not produced until Ms. Fiore kept pressing for them in December 2023. Ms. Fiore’s billable rate is $900 per hour; Plaintiffs are seeking $600 per hour given this type of motion for approximately 11 hours (5 hours related to this motion and 6 hours travel time), plus travel expenses of $1,000.

Plaintiffs request that the Court order Sansum Clinic’s PMQ Dr. Newman and Dr. O’Callaghan to provide further deposition testimony on the questions at issue, plus any and all reasonable follow-up questions as well as sanctions.

Supported by Plaintiffs Separate Statement for the motion to compel and sanctions.

Defendants Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel

and

In Support of their Motion for Protective Order

Filed 2/15/24; approximately 175 pages in all; summarized here. 

Supported by the Declaration of William Clinkenbeard. Testifies he met and conferred with Plaintiffs’ counsel, Jennifer Fiore, about maintaining the discovery scheme established a notice for Plaintiff’s deposition served in the unrelated the Jane Doe II matter in August to take place on November 2, 2023; deposition was later taken off calendar because demurrers were filed to the complaint and subsequently to the first amended complaint, the latter of which was heard on January 26, 2024.  Due to the unsettled nature of the pleadings, the deposition of Jane Doe II was re-noticed on or about December 19, 2023 for February 8, 2024.  Ms. Fiore refused to produce Jane Doe II for deposition, and Defendants have filed a motion for protective order to prevent Dr. O’Callaghan and Dr. Newman from being questioned about Jane Doe II’s allegations until Jane Doe II is deposed.

On December 18, 2023, Ms. Fiore asked for medical records relating to Jane Doe II; emailed the requested documents to Ms. Fiore on December 18, 2023; Jane Doe I and Jane Doe II are unrelated cases, but he did develop some concerns that Ms. Fiore may question Dr. Newman and/or Dr. O’Callaghan at deposition regarding the allegations made in Jane Doe II; called Ms. Fiore the following morning, December 19, 2023 before the deposition of Dr. Newman at 10:00 a.m., to ask if she wanted to postpone the depositions of Dr. Newman and Dr. O’Callaghan until the issue of questioning about Jane Doe II could be resolved; Ms. Fiore had taken four depositions of Sansum personnel on December 5 and 6, two per day, and all of those depos were done remotely; did not know that Ms. Fiore had planned to travel to Santa Barbara to take the depos of Dr. Newman and Dr. O’Callaghan in person; when Ms. Fiore told him the morning of December 19, 2023 that she was in her hotel in Goleta and that she intended to appear in person for the depositions, he said that of course they would proceed with the depositions as noticed; encouraged Ms. Fiore to complete the depositions with the Jane Doe II issue to be resolved at a later time; re-noticed the deposition of Jane Doe II on December 19, 2023, noticing it to be taken in Fresno on February 8, 2024. Ms. Fiore said that the deposition of Jane Doe II would not go forward until the depositions of Dr. Newman and Dr. O’Callaghan had been concluded (meaning the depositions taken of them in Jane Doe I); he prepared a motion seeking a protective order in Jane Doe I to allow Defendants to proceed with Plaintiff’s deposition in Jane Doe II.

On December 19, 2023, Dr. Newman appeared for deposition in the present matter.  Prior to the deposition, and during the deposition, he advised Ms. Fiore that Dr. Newman would not be answering questions about Jane Doe II until the Defendants had had the opportunity to take the deposition of Jane Doe II.  The same instruction was given to Dr. O’Callaghan, whose deposition was taken on or about December 20, 2023.

In the Defendants Memorandum of Points and Authorities Defendants argue their position as the specific list of Topics that Plaintiffs have identified herein above [pages 4 line 18 through page 14 line 17; then addresses the issue of whether there should be a further deposition of Dr. O’Callaghan [page 14, line 18 through page 15 line 4]; then addresses whether there should be sanctions [page 15, line 5 through page 16, line 21].

The Court has read it all.

Supported by the Declaration of Marjorie Newman, M.D. (February 14, 2014). Sansum Clinic, at all times relevant to the action filed by Jane Doe and John Doe, has been a not-for-profit medical care foundation which makes available professional competence to review healthcare services with respect to medical necessity and quality of care. The medical staff of Sansum Clinic, at all times relevant to the claims asserted herein by Jane Doe and John Doe, has maintained organized committees of the medical staff with the responsibility of evaluating and improving the quality of care within Sansum Clinic as well as oversight of the activities of members of the medical staff.

Supported by the Declaration of Marjorie Newman, M.D. (July 27, 2023) filed ISO motion for protective order. While a member of the staff at Sansum Clinic, she has served on various committees, including the peer review committee. Without confirming whether or not the allegations raised in the 21CV03762 case has been a subject of inquiry for any peer review committee on which she served as a member of the staff of Sansum Clinic, she can state that outside the framework of peer review committees, she was not and has not been involved in any investigation and review of patient complaints, including those asserted by the individual suing under the name Jane Doe in this action, and has no personal knowledge whatsoever concerning the events as alleged by Jane Doe in this action as to Sansum Clinic, Sansum Santa Barbara Medical Clinic, Inc. and Dr. O'Callaghan.

Supported by Exhibits A through H.

Defendants content that Plaintiffs have failed to meet and confer on some of topics related to the Evidence Code Section 1157 challenges.

The Court’s Conclusions

1. Defendants Motion for a Protective Order should be granted. This is a case management issue. The issue of the order of depositions comes up all the time related to whose experts should be deposed first. The Court has a long-standing order that all of Plaintiffs’ experts are taken first on the theory that there is no point in the defense having to speculate about what the Plaintiffs experts will opine. The same thinking relates to whose deposition is taken first when there is a contest about whether it should be Plaintiff and his/her percipient and supporting witnesses or the defense. This Court’s view on that issue is identical to the expert witness deposition scheduling. It makes imminently more sense to take the Plaintiffs depositions and his/her percipient witnesses first since the complaint is very often not verified [as in the very lengthy [5 count] 2^nd amended complaint in the Jane Doe I case and the amended Jane Doe II complaint] and thus it is speculation at best as to what the real facts might be. Even when the complaint is verified there is often gaps in the pleading or simply unintended mistakes. It makes no sense having the Defendant speculate about what happened or what being contended. This Court’s view is that it is total waste of time and judicial resources to take the defense depositions first.

The Court clearly has the authority to manage this case on these types of issues. On 8/2/23 this case was designated as complex litigation [the associated Complex Case fees were waived.] Counsel should see the BenchBook on Complex litigation. It was not designated complex because the issues themselves were complex; the underlying issue is whether the doctor inappropriately touched the Plaintiff on the one examination. These cases become more complicated by the vicarious liability feature which is standard practice in all these cases that this Court has managed and tried. It was designated complex litigation solely because the Court could see the case was very much lagging and the Court found it necessary to be more involved.

Additionally, Code of Civil Procedure §2025.420 provides:

(a) Before, during, or after a deposition, any party, any deponent, or any other affected natural person or organization may promptly move for a protective order. The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.

(b) The Court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party, deponent, or other natural person or organization from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense. This protective order may include, but is not limited to, one or more of the following directions:

(9) That certain matters not be inquired into.

(10) That the scope of the examination be limited to certain matters.

Here, Dr. O'Callaghan and Dr. Newman have appeared for deposition in the present case and responded to questioning regarding their respective backgrounds, their relationships with the entity Defendants, contact with Jane Doe I, as well as related events subsequent to the patient visit and other related issues. Dr. O'Callaghan and Dr. Newman were instructed not to answer questions regarding Jane Doe II, since her deposition has not yet been taken.

The California Attorney Guidelines of Civility and Professionalism, Discovery, §9 state:

When another party notices a deposition for the near future, absent unusual circumstances, an attorney should not schedule another deposition in the same case for an earlier date without opposing counsel's agreement.

The priority in depositions established by the service of deposition notices in Jane Doe II requires that Plaintiff Jane Doe II appear and answer questions before Dr. O'Callaghan and the PMQ witnesses are deposed in that case.

To deny this protective motion would allow Plaintiffs to potentially gain an unfair advantage by using depositions in the present case to leapfrog discovery in the Jane Doe II case.

Here, the priority of discovery in the Jane Doe II case was established by Defendants' service of deposition notice on August 31, 2023 for Jane Doe II's deposition to take place on November 2, 2023.

No other depositions were noticed prior to that time. Plaintiff Jane Doe II's deposition was taken off calendar until the pleadings were settled following a series of demurrers, the last of which was heard on January 26, 2024, and Jane Doe II's deposition was re-set for February 8, 2024.

Plaintiffs should not be allowed to gain an unfair tactical advantage by using depositions in the Jane Doe I case to question the deponents about allegations made by Jane Doe II before Jane Doe II's deposition is taken, since this would essentially allow Plaintiffs to leapfrog the existing scheme of discovery in the Jane Doe II case.

Since Plaintiffs are entitled to take the depositions of Dr. O'Callaghan and Defendants' PMQ witness in the Jane Doe II matter, Plaintiffs would essentially have two opportunities to question Defendants and their witnesses regarding Jane Doe II's allegations, in violation of the "one deposition" rule codified in CCP §2025.610(a).

If the Jane Doe II case had been filed by another law firm, the attorney representing Jane Doe II would have no standing to question witnesses in the Jane Doe I case. The fact that the present attorney is counsel of record in both cases should not provide an unfair tactical [if not strategical] advantage.

2. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel should be continued. It is now not now so urgent; the Deposition of Jane Doe II needs to be taken promptly and is the first order of business today. The Court does not invite any further briefing on the issues having read it all. There are very experienced lawyers in this case and the Court invites them to meet and confer – again - and let the Court know before the hearing date of March 20 what issues have been resolved in that Motion.

3. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Quash Subpoenas. The Court recognizes Plaintiffs Motion to quash the subpoenas for (1) Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Texas; (2) Cottage Hospital – Santa Barbara; (3) Goleta Valley Cottage Hospital; (4) Jackson Medical Group; (5) Goleta Neighborhood Clinic; and (6) CVS Pharmacy are now set for 3/20/24 at 10am in this Department. That would be good date to reset the Motion to Compel.

4. Deposition of Jane Doe II. The Court finds that the Jane Doe II deposition should be set promptly.

5. Alert. The Court has no intention to continue the trial date. There is much to accomplish in a short time.