JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.
Pursuant to court order, a Pretrial Conference was held on December 20, 2019 before Judge John Mendez. Douglas L. Gordon appeared as counsel for plaintiff; Neal C. Lutterman appeared as counsel for defendants. After hearing, the Court makes the following findings and orders:
Jurisdiction is predicated upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, and has previously been found to be proper by order of this court, as has venue. Those orders are confirmed.
Both parties have demanded a jury trial.
No later than January 27, 2020, the parties shall E-file a joint statement of the case that may be read to the jury at the beginning of jury selection.
1. The County of Sacramento contracts with the Regents of the University of California Davis to provide Jail Psychiatric Services ("JPS") to inmates housed at RCCC and the Main Jail.
2. On August 15, 2016 plaintiff Luis Alberto Mendez Jimenez ("Mr. Mendez") was detained and arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement federal officers in San Jose, California for being in the United States illegally and was transferred from their local San Jose office to RCCC in the County of Sacramento Jail the same day.
3. Upon arrival at RCCC, Mr. Mendez was seen by County of Sacramento nurse Ming-Huei Wu for medical intake.
4. Nurse Wu referred Mr. Mendez to JPS through a telephone referral to JPS nurse Sandra Venus.
5. Nurse Venus faxed information regarding this referral to the JPS office at RCCC that same night.
6. JPS social worker Danielle Dass met with Mr. Mendez on the morning of August 16, 2016 for the purpose of conducting a Clinical Assessment and Suicide Risk Assessment.
7. Mr. Mendez was also seen on August 16 by County nurse Manjeet Kaur for a Physical Examination.
8. Mr. Mendez was then seen August 22 by JPS nurse Charlene Williams.
9. As a result, Mr. Mendez is now quadriplegic.
1. Whether plaintiff attempted suicide two times in the six months prior to his detention at RCCC, in February 2016 and June 2016.
2. Whether plaintiff had a documented history of two suicide attempts in February 2016 and June 2016, and was on prescribed anti-psychotic medication as of the date of his detention.
3. Whether plaintiff was hospitalized for each such suicide attempt.
4. Whether plaintiff was prescribed Zyprexa (olanzapine), which was effective in treating his mental illness, following each suicide attempt.
5. Whether plaintiff took his prescribed Zyprexa on a daily basis, as prescribed, and refilled his prescription as directed.
6. Whether, at the time of his detention by immigration officers, plaintiff requested permission to retrieve his Zyprexa from his home before being taken away, but such permission was denied.
7. Whether plaintiff contacted a family member from RCCC to have her go to his home to try to identify and/or retrieve his Zyprexa, but she was unable to locate it.
8. Whether the mental health care provided by the Regents to plaintiff fell below the applicable standard(s) of care.
9. Whether the mental health care provided by the Regents caused plaintiff's suicide attempt.
10. Whether JPS did not have a real system of mental health care at all.
11. Whether JPS relied solely on medication and crisis response.
12. Whether JPS social worker Danielle Dass was negligent in her clinical assessments of plaintiff and defendant Regents are responsible for this negligence.
13. Whether JPS social worker Danielle Dass was deliberately indifferent in her clinical assessments of plaintiff.
14. Whether nurse practitioner Charlene Williams was negligent in her clinical assessments of plaintiff and defendant Regents are responsible for this negligence.
15. Whether nurse practitioner Charlene Williams was deliberately indifferent in her clinical assessments of plaintiff.
16. Whether the mental health care that the Regents provided to Plaintiff met the standards of care and contributed to Plaintiff's attempted suicide and resulting physical injuries.
17. Whether CHS nurse Ming-Huei Wu recorded in her chart that plaintiff had attempted suicide 2 times within the past 4-6 months.
18. Whether CHS nurse Ming-Huei Wu recorded in her chart that plaintiff was taking psychiatric medications within the past 30 days.
19. Whether plaintiff told Nurse Wu that he obtained his psychiatric medications from a pharmacy located on Bascom Avenue in San Jose.
20. Whether CHS nurse Ming-Huei Wu recorded in her chart that plaintiff had taken his most recent dose of medication the day before her encounter with him.
21. Whether CHS nurse Ming-Huei Wu recorded in her chart that plaintiff had been hospitalized for psychiatric treatment within the past 30 days.
22. Whether CHS nurse Ming-Huei Wu recorded in her chart that plaintiff had a history of anxiety and panic attacks.
23. Whether CHS nurse Ming-Huei Wu reported to JPS Nurse Sandra Venus that plaintiff had a history of several suicide attempts.
24. Whether CHS nurse Ming-Huei Wu reported to JPS Nurse Sandra Venus that plaintiff was currently on psychiatric medication.
25. Whether CHS nurse Ming-Huei Wu reported to JPS Nurse Sandra Venus that plaintiff had taken his last does of psychiatric medication the day before his encounter with Nurse Wu.
26. Whether Nurse Venus reported to JPS social worker Danielle Dass that plaintiff had a history of several suicide attempts.
27. Whether Nurse Venus reported to JPS social worker Danielle Dass that plaintiff was currently on psychiatric medication.
28. Whether Nurse Venus reported to JPS social worker Danielle Dass that plaintiff had taken his last does of psychiatric medication the day before his encounter with Nurse Wu.
29. Whether plaintiff reported to CHS Nurse Manjeet Kaur that he had a history of anxiety and panic attacks.
30. Whether plaintiff reported to CHS Nurse Manjeet Kaur that he had a history of more than one suicide attempts.
31. Whether Ms. Dass reviewed the chart of Nurse Wu.
32. Whether Ms. Dass reviewed the chart of Nurse Kaur.
33. Whether plaintiff told Ms. Dass he had been taking psychiatric medications.
34. Whether plaintiff told Ms. Dass he felt better on the medications.
35. Whether plaintiff told Ms. Dass he was hearing voices.
36. Whether plaintiff told Ms. Dass he had a history of more than one suicide attempts.
37. Whether Ms. Dass noted in her chart that plaintiff had been taking psychiatric medications.
38. Whether Ms. Dass noted in her chart that plaintiff was hearing voices.
39. Whether Ms. Dass noted in her chart that plaintiff had a history of more than one suicide attempts.
40. Whether Ms. Dass had internal inconsistencies in her chart regarding whether plaintiff had attempted suicide, was on psychiatric medications, had been hospitalized, and was hearing voices, among other inconsistencies.
41. Whether Ms. Dass failed to reconcile inconsistencies and discrepancies between her own information and information contained elsewhere in the eChart system, including from Nurse Wu's chart, from Nurse Kaur's chart, and Nurse Venus's referral note.
42. Whether Ms. Dass obtained an authorization to permit her to inquire with outside pharmacies or health providers regarding plaintiff's psychiatric medications, or whether she attempted to make any inquiry regarding the specific medication he had been prescribed.
43. Whether Ms. Dass performed a suicide risk assessment of plaintiff.
44. Whether Ms. Dass's suicide risk assessment met the applicable standard of care.
45. Whether Ms. Dass rendered any diagnosis of plaintiff.
46. Whether Nurse Charlene Williams reviewed the charts available to her from the eChart system.
47. Whether Ms. Williams reviewed the chart of Nurse Wu.
48. Whether Ms. Williams reviewed the chart of Nurse Kaur.
49. Whether Ms. Williams reviewed the chart of Ms. Dass.
50. Whether plaintiff told Ms. Williams he had been taking psychiatric medications.
51. Whether plaintiff told Ms. Williams he was hearing voices.
52. Whether plaintiff told Ms. Williams he had a history of more than one suicide attempts.
53. Whether Ms. Williams noted in her chart that plaintiff had been taking psychiatric medications.
54. Whether Ms. Williams noted in her chart that plaintiff was hearing voices.
55. Whether Ms. Williams noted in her chart that plaintiff had a history of more than one suicide attempts.
56. Whether Ms. Williams failed to reconcile inconsistencies and discrepancies between her own information and information contained elsewhere in the eChart system, including from Nurse Wu's chart, from Nurse Kaur's chart, from Nurse Venus's referral note and from Ms. Dass's chart.
57. Whether Ms. Williams obtained an authorization to permit her to inquire with outside pharmacies or health providers regarding plaintiff's psychiatric medications, or whether she attempted to make any inquiry regarding the specific medication he had been prescribed.
58. Whether Ms. Williams rendered any diagnosis of plaintiff.
59. Whether Ms. Williams performed a suicide risk assessment of plaintiff.
60. Whether Ms. Williams's suicide risk assessment met the applicable standard of care.
61. Whether Ms. Williams or Ms. Dass prescribed or provided medication or other treatment for plaintiff at any time.
62. Whether Ms. Dass and Ms. Williams knew or should have known that Mr. Mendez had been twice hospitalized for suicide attempts within the past 6 months, that he was being maintained on psychiatric medications, that he was suffering from anxiety and panic attacks and that he was hearing voices.
63. Whether Ms. Dass and Ms. Williams failed to review the mental health information available to them, failed to make any inquiry regarding his prescribed medication, failed to properly document the information they gathered, failed to offer him any treatment and failed to schedule any sort of follow-up regarding his mental health status.
64. Whether the mental health care provided by Ms. Dass and Ms. Williams caused plaintiff to be left without any mental health treatment.
65. Whether the mental health care provided by Ms. Dass and Ms. Williams caused plaintiff's mental health to deteriorate and resulted in worsening of his mental health symptoms.
66. Whether the mental health care provided by Ms. Dass and Ms. Williams caused plaintiff to attempt suicide in October 2016.
67. Whether, as a result of his suicide attempt, Luis Mendez sustained comminuted fractures of his C5-C6 cervical vertebrae and incomplete spinal cord injuries, for which he underwent emergency fusion and corpectomy surgery on October 23, 2016, the date he sustained the injuries. He has Class A tetraplegia which is permanent in nature.
68. There is no significant dispute about the need for future medical care; the parties have offered alternative Life Care Plans which essentially differ regarding the type of attendant/facility care. Plaintiff has had a Life Care Plan prepared which estimates his future medical costs between approximately $6,400,00.00-$12,100,000.00.
1. Whether the mental health care that was delivered to Plaintiff by Danielle Dass, LCSW and Charlene Williams, N.P. was within the standard of care.
2. Whether any failure by Danielle Dass, LCSW and Charlene Williams, N.P. to provide mental health care that was adequate and within the standard of care caused Plaintiff any harm.
3. Whether Defendants Danielle Dass, LCSW and Charlene Williams, N.P. were deliberately indifferent to the serious medical needs of Plaintiff in their delivery of mental health care to him.
4. Whether Danielle Dass, LCSW and Charlene Williams, N.P. failed to protect Plaintiff from harm.
5. Whether Danielle Dass, LCSW and Charlene Williams, N.P. knew or should have known that Plaintiff was suicidal at any time during his detention at the Jail.
6. Whether the standard of care required that Plaintiff be seen and evaluated by a JPS provider or clinician at any time between August 23, 2016 and October 23, 2016.
7. Whether Plaintiff had any suicidal ideation or intent at the commencement of his detention on August 15, 2016.
8. Whether there were any negligent acts, or failures to act, on the part of Danielle Dass, LCSW and Charlene Williams, N.P. in providing care and treatment to Plaintiff during his detention at the Jail.
9. Whether there were any negligent acts, or failures to act, on the part of Danielle Dass, LCSW and Charlene Williams, N.P. in providing care and treatment to Plaintiff during his detention at the Jail which caused Plaintiff any harm.
10. Whether Plaintiff's suicide attempt on October 23, 2016 was foreseeable.
11. Whether Plaintiff's suicide attempt on October 23, 2016 was preventable.
Plaintiff anticipates bringing motions in limine to exclude the following evidence:
1. To exclude evidence regarding plaintiff's immigration status and the reason for his detention, as well as his current and future living in the United States, pursuant to California Evidence Code section 351.2 and FRE 403.
2. To exclude evidence regarding plaintiff's use of methamphetamine prior to his detention, pursuant to FRE 403.
3. To preclude defense expert Joseph Penn, MD from testifying regarding his diagnosis of plaintiff's mental health conditions, pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 and following cases, and also to preclude Dr. Penn from testifying regarding opinions not expressed either in his report or in his deposition, pursuant to FRCP 26(a)(2), FRCP 37(c), and this court's Scheduling Order. Dr. Penn had never examined or interviewed plaintiff Mendez and is thus unqualified to render an opinion regarding his diagnosis. Dr. Penn was provided the June 2016 report of Dr. Bruce Gage, and the November 2016 report of Lindsey Hayes, but failed to discuss those reports or opinions in Dr. Penn's report and was not prepared to discuss them at his deposition.
4. The Court grants Plaintiff's motions in limine identified in the joint pretrial statement as ¶¶ 5C, 5E and 5F (pp. 10-11).
1. Defendants will move to preclude any evidence of, testimony relating to, questioning regarding, or any reference to, Dr. Bruce Gage or his inspection of the Sacramento County Jail, and his report thereafter.
2. Defendants will move to preclude any evidence of, testimony relating to, questioning regarding, or any reference to, Eldon Vail or his inspection of the Sacramento County Jail, and his report thereafter.
3. Defendants will move to preclude any evidence of, testimony relating to, questioning regarding, or any reference to any inspection of the Sacramento County Jail, or any report or letter prepared after such inspection, by Disability Rights California.
4. Defendants will move to preclude or limit the testimony of Phillip Stanley concerning his review of, or reliance on, the Gage and or Vail report.
5. Defendants will move to exclude from evidence all expert witness reports on grounds they constitute hearsay.
6. Defendants will move to preclude any evidence, inference, question and/or argument that Charlene Williams was not legally qualified to practice as a nurse practitioner in a psychiatric setting.
7. Defendants will move to preclude Phillip Stanley from opining on the standard of care, as well as the adequacy of Danielle Dass, LCSW and Charlene Williams, N.P.s' mental health screenings or qualifications to perform such screenings.
Plaintiff seeks economic damages in the amount of his medical expenses, as well as noneconomic damages. Plaintiff is not making any claim for loss of income or wages or punitive damages.
Defendants pray that Plaintiff take nothing by way of his complaint.
Trial briefs may be E-filed with the court no later than January 27, 2020. Any points of law not previously argued to the Court should be briefed in the trial briefs.
A number of defendants have been dismissed following a motion to dismiss (The United States) and motions for summary judgment (County of Sacramento and associated individual defendants; Gregory Sokolov and Andrea Javist of the Regents). Apart from that, plaintiff is not aware of any abandoned issues.
Plaintiff's witness list is attached to this Pretrial Conference Order as Exhibit A.
Defendants' witness list is attached to this Pretrial Conference Order as Exhibit B.
Each party may call a witness designated by the other.
A. No other witnesses will be permitted to testify unless:
(1) The party offering the witness demonstrates that the witness is for the purpose of rebutting evidence which could not be reasonably anticipated at the Pretrial Conference, or
(2) The witness was discovered after the Pretrial Conference and the proffering party makes the showing required in "B" below.
B. Upon the post-Pretrial discovery of witnesses, the attorney shall promptly inform the court and opposing parties of the existence of the unlisted witnesses so that the court may consider at trial whether the witnesses shall be permitted to testify. The evidence will not be permitted unless:
(1) The witnesses could not reasonably have been discovered prior to Pretrial;
(2) The court and opposing counsel were promptly notified upon discovery of the witnesses;
(3) If time permitted, counsel proffered the witnesses for deposition;
(4) If time did not permit, a reasonable summary of the witnesses' testimony was provided opposing counsel.
Plaintiff's Exhibit List is attached to this Pretrial Conference Order as Exhibit C.
Defendants' Exhibit List is attached to this Pretrial Conference Order as Exhibit D.
Each party may use an exhibit designated by the other.
A. No other exhibits will be permitted to be introduced unless:
(1) The party proffering the exhibit demonstrates that the exhibit is for the purpose of rebutting evidence which could not be reasonably anticipated at the Pretrial Conference, or
(2) The exhibit was discovered after the Pretrial Conference and the proffering party makes the showing required in paragraph "B," below.
B. Upon the post-Pretrial discovery of exhibits, the attorneys shall promptly inform the court and opposing counsel of the existence of such exhibits so that the court may consider at trial their admissibility. The exhibits will not be received unless the proffering party demonstrates:
(1) The exhibits could not reasonably have been discovered prior to Pretrial;
(2) The court and counsel were promptly informed of their existence;
(3) Counsel forwarded a copy of the exhibit(s) (if physically possible) to opposing counsel. If the exhibit(s) may not be copied, the proffering counsel must show that he has made the exhibit(s) reasonably available for inspection by opposing counsel.
As to each exhibit, each party is ordered to exchange copies of the exhibit not later than fourteen (14) days before trial. Each party is then granted five (5) days to file and serve objections to any of the exhibits. In making the objection, the party is to set forth the grounds for the objection. The parties shall pre-mark their respective exhibits in accord with the Court's Pretrial Order. Exhibit stickers may be obtained through the Clerk's Office. An original and one (1) copy of the exhibits shall be presented to Harry Vine, Deputy Courtroom Clerk, at 8:30 a.m. on the date set for trial or at such earlier time as may be agreed upon. Mr. Vine can be contacted at (916) 930-4091 or via e-mail at: hvine@caed.uscourts.gov. As to each exhibit which is not objected to, it shall be marked and may be received into evidence on motion and will require no further foundation. Each exhibit which is objected to will be marked for identification only.
The list of Plaintiff's discovery documents (portions of deposition, interrogatories, and responses to requests for admission) they intend to use at trial is attached as Exhibit E.
The list of Defendants' discovery documents (portions of deposition, interrogatories, and responses to requests for admission) they intend to use at trial is attached as Exhibit E.
Pursuant to the court's Status Conference Order, all discovery and law and motion was to have been conducted so as to be completed as of the date of the Pretrial Conference. That order is confirmed. The parties are free to do anything they desire pursuant to informal agreement. However, any such agreement will not be enforceable in this court.
As a result of this October 23, 2016 suicide attempt, Mr. Mendez sustained fractures to his C5 and C6 cervical vertebrae and underwent spinal fracture reduction and fusion surgery. He sustained permanent spinal cord injury, resulting in permanent tetraplegia, with neurogenic bladder and bowel, neurogenic skin, and other sequelae of spinal cord injury.
The parties have stipulated that all records obtained by subpoena in the discovery of this case be deemed authenticated, such that custodians of records need not be called to testify.
The parties also stipulate that the entire Correctional Health Services chart, including all Jail Psychiatric Services charts and notation, may be admitted into evidence.
The parties do not anticipate or request any further amendments or dismissals.
A. Counsel are directed to Local Rule 285 regarding the contents of trial briefs. Such briefs may be E-filed on or before January 27, 2020.
B. Counsel are further directed to confer and to attempt to agree upon a joint set of jury instructions. The joint set of instructions shall be lodged via ECF with the court clerk on or before January 27, 2020 and shall be identified as the "Jury Instructions Without Objection." As to instructions as to which there is dispute the parties shall submit the instruction(s) via ECF as its package of proposed jury instructions also on or before January 31, 2020. This package of proposed instructions should not include the "Jury Instructions Without Objection" and should be clearly identified as "Disputed Jury Instructions" on the proposed instructions.
The parties shall e-mail a set of all proposed jury instructions in word format to the Court's Judicial Assistant, Jane Klingelhoets, at: jklingelhoets@caed.uscourts.gov.
C. It is the duty of counsel to ensure that a hard copy of any deposition which is to be used at trial has been lodged with the Clerk of the Court pursuant to Local Rule 133(j). The depositions shall be lodged with the court clerk no later than January 27, 2020. Counsel are cautioned that a failure to discharge this duty may result in the court precluding use of the deposition or imposition of such other sanctions as the court deems appropriate.
D. The parties are ordered to E-file with the court and exchange between themselves no later than January 27, 2020, a statement designating portions of depositions intended to be offered or read into evidence (except for portions to be used only for impeachment or rebuttal).
E. The parties are ordered to E-file with the court and exchange between themselves no later than January 27, 2020, the portions of Answers to Interrogatories and/or Requests for Admission which the respective parties intend to offer or read into evidence at the trial (except portions to be used only for impeachment or rebuttal).
F. Each party may submit proposed voir dire questions the party would like the court to put to prospective jurors during jury selection. Proposed voir dire should be submitted via ECF no later than January 27, 2020.
G. Each party may submit a proposed verdict form that the party would like the Court to use in this case. Proposed verdict forms should be submitted via ECF no later than January 27, 2020.
H. In limine motions shall be E-filed separately on or before January 23, 2020. Opposition briefs shall be E-filed on or before January 28, 2020. No reply briefs may be filed.
The parties have agreed to a private settlement conference before Honorable Richard Gilbert, retired, on January 15, 2020.
No formal Settlement Conference will be set before a Judge of this Court in this case at this time.
See paragraph III, supra.
Plaintiff and Defendants do not anticipate or request a separate trial of any issues.
None.
The matter of the award of attorneys' fees to prevailing parties pursuant to statute will be handled by motion in accordance with Local Rule 293.
Plaintiff Luis Mendez is tetraplegic and with his current care is presently unable to stay out of town overnight. He resides in San Jose. Plaintiff requests that he be permitted to be absent from the courtroom other than at the time of his testimony. Counsel for the parties have discussed this and it is anticipated they will be able to cooperate on the timing of his testimony to ensure it can be completed in a single day. Plaintiff would also request the assistance of the court in scheduling such testimony, especially if the timing requires taking some witnesses out of order. Plaintiff's requests are granted.
The parties estimate ten (10) to thirteen (13) court days for trial. Trial will commence on or about February 3, 2020, at 9:00 a.m.
Counsel are to call Harry Vine, Courtroom Deputy, at (916) 930-4091, one week prior to trial to ascertain the status of the trial date.
Each party is granted seven (7) days from the date of this Pretrial Order to object or respond to it via ECF.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Plaintiff LUIS ALBERTO MENDEZ JIMENEZ will call the following witnesses to testify at the trial in this matter:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Plaintiff LUIS ALBERTO MENDEZ JIMENEZ intends to offer the following exhibits into evidence at trial in this matter:
1. JPS Policy and Procedure Manual — Bates JPS 1-395
2. JPS Performance Reviews — Bates JPS 396-524
3. Medical Records
4. Medical records/x-rays from Kaiser Permanente
5. Medical records from Santa Clara Valley Medical Center
6. Psychological records from Emergency Psychiatric Services — Santa Clara Valley Medical Center
7. Psychological records from Fremont Hospital
8. Psychological records from Narvaez Behavioral Health
9. Pharmacy records from Valley Specialty Center Pharmacy
10. Cosumnes Fire Department Report
11. CHS County Medical Records — Bates CO_000003-000191
12. CHS Appointment Log — Bates CO_430-444
13. Jail Telephone Calls — audio and transcripts — Bates CO_565
14. Contracts between Sacramento County and UC — Bates CO_192-249
15. Luis Mendez Jimenez court records Re 7/26/13 assault charge
16. Jail videos — CO_000001; CO_000002
17. Plaintiff's Post-Accident photographs 092517
18. Plaintiff's injury photographs
19. Plaintiff's bedsore photographs July 2019
20. Plaintiff's bedsore photographs October 2019
21. Plaintiff's bedsore photographs November 2019
22. Plaintiff's Pre-Accident photographs
23. Plaintiff's injury photograph
24. IME Photographs by Linda Olzack, R.N. 052019
25. Photographs of prescription bottles
26. Control booth photographs-videos from County
27. RCCC inspection photographs 071018
28. RCCC inspection photographs by Phillip Stanley 071018
29. RCCC image from web
30. Report of Bruce Gage, M.D., date June 2016
31. Report of Eldon Vail, dated 2016
32. Report of Lindsay Hayes, dated November 2016
33. Report prepared by Philip Stanley
34. Report prepared by Cheryl Wills, M.D.
35. Report prepared by Linda D. Olazack, R.N.
36. Report prepared by Tamorah Hunt, Ph.D.
37. Report prepared by Amy L. Magnusson, M.D.
38. Report prepared by Joseph V. Penn, M.D.
39. Report prepared by Thomas L. Hedge, Jr., M.D.
40. Report prepared by Scott J. Kush, M.D.
41. Report prepared by Mark Cohen
42. Report prepared by Melissa A. Keddington, R.N.
43. Report prepared by Robert D. Canning, Ph.D.
44. Report prepared by Emily A. Keram, M.D.
45. Report prepared by David E. Raymond, Ph.D.
46. Plaintiff's immigration documents — U.S. Department of Justice, United States Immigration Court
47. County Incident Report — Bates CO_250-276
48. County custody files — Bates CO_277-296
49. PF-11s — Bates CO_351-352
50. PF-5s — Bates CO_353-356
51. Logbooks — Bates CO_357-358
52. County General Orders
53. "Oxford Textbook of Correctional Psychiatry"
54. "Psychiatric Services in Jails and Prisons" — APA
55. "Suicide Prevention Resource Guide" — NCCHC.
A. Excerpts of Luis Mendez Jimenez's Correctional Health Services Records
B. Excerpts of the Jail Psychiatric Services Policy & Procedure Manual
C. Excerpts of Luiz Mendez Jimenez's Santa Clara Valley Medical Center Records
D. Excerpts of Luiz Mendez Jimenez's Fremont Hospital Records
E. Excerpts of Luiz Mendez Jimenez's Kaiser Permanente Records
F. Excerpts of Luis Mendez Jimenez's Narvaez Behavioral Health Records
G. Excerpts of Luis Mendez Jimenez's Emergency Psychiatric Services Records
H. Excerpts of Luis Mendez Jimenez's Consumnes Fire Department Records
I. Defense Expert Mark Cohen's Cost of Care for Luis Mendez Jimenez
J. Defense Expert Melissa Keddington's Side by Side Chart of Future Medical Care Needs and Costs
K. Selected Photographs of Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center's KBN Housing Facility
L. County Incident Report — Bates CO_250-276
M. County custody files — Bates CO_277-296
N. PF-11s — Bates CO_351-352
O. PF-5s — Bates CO_353-356
P. Logbooks — Bates CO_357-358
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Plaintiff LUIS ALBERTO MENDEZ JIMENEZ intends to offer the following discovery documents into evidence at trial in this matter:
Portions of the deposition via video of Mark Wade Hawk, M.D., taken on February 13, 2019, as follows:
5:1-6:4; 6:9-8:20; 9:5-19; 9:23-10:13; 10:18-11:18; 12:24-16:23; 17:1-16; 18:9-22; 19:2-23:5; 23:9-27:13; 27:18-28:23; 29:6-23; 30:7-39:22.
Portions of the deposition via video of Jason A. London, M.D., taken on June 7, 2019, as follows:
4:1-7:16; 8:1-22:2; 22:6-31:19; 31:24-38:20.
Portions of the deposition via video of Pradeep Kumar, M.D., taken on April 17, 2019, as follows:
4:1-17; 4:20-22:16; 22:21-31:16 [removed from 31:10: "from ICE; correct?" and removed from 31:12: "ICE"]; 31:20-33:6 [removed from 32:19: "by ICE"]; 33:21-34:9; 34:12-35:1; 35:11-41:20; 42:1-48:22; 48:25-49:12; 49:15-50:4; 50:20-21 [removed from 50:21: "I represent the County of"]; 50:23-51:1; 51:3-63:25; 64:14-17 [removed from 64:14: "A I remember the question."].
Portions of the deposition via video of Bruce Gage, M.D., taken on September 11, 2019, as follows:
7:7-17; 7:20-17:22; 18:18-19:4; 19:9-21; 20:14-21:16; 21:20-22:23; 23:4-18; 23:21-24:2; 24:18-21; 25:2-5; 26:9-27:1; 27:3-5; 27:9-29:7; 29:9-13; 29:22-30:10; 30:13-33:22; 34:1-35:4 [removed from 35:4: "What were your recommendations for what"]; 35:10-16; 35:21-36:12; 36:21-37:9; 37:17-39:7; 39:10-40:10; 40:13-41:3; 41:18-47:8.
Portions of the deposition via video of Gregory Sokolov, M.D., taken on April 29, 2019, as follows:
6:15-18; 9:7-16; 10:6-25; 11:24-12:16; 13:11-25; 14:23-16:12; 17:4-9; 17:16-24 [removed from 17:24: "So this was an example of a"]; 18:10-16; 19:23-20:10; 24:8-25:11 [removed from 25:11: "One of the"]; 27:9-12; 27:18-22; 30:19-21; 30:25-31:1; 32:16-19; 35:11-15; 35:19-36:1; 37:6-8; 37:11; 37:21-23; 38:1; 40:13-14; 40:17-22; 40:25-41:1; 41:24-42:2; 43:10-14; 43:17-21; 44:1-5; 44:12-19; 45:2-8; 45:14-18; 47:16-48:1; 48:5; 49:21-25 [removed from 49:25: "It is part of"]; 53:14-19; 55:13-22; 56:14-16; 56:19-20; 57:2-7; 58:16-19; 59:4-10; 59:25-60:13; 60:16-22; 60:25-61:18; 67:3-7; 68:1-2; 68:7-11; 68:25-69:4; 70:10-20; 78:1-8; 79:1-6; 80:5-6; 80:9-11 [removed from 80:11: "You are going to have variability in"]; 82:6-12; 85:17-25; 86:17-19; 87:2-6; 94:4-95:10.
Portions of the deposition via video of Andrea Javist taken on May 16, 2018, as follows:
6:14-19; 9:21-23; 11:2; 17:20-19:7; 21:1-6; 22:16-21; 24:7-9; 25:18-24; 26:6-11; 29:14-22 [removed from 29:22: "And so they would formally either go to the"]; 32:18-24; 33:16-23; 35:18-22; 36:4-9; 36:12-19; 37:9-10; 37:20-23; 38:3-8 [removed from 38:8: "So if there's a concern raised from CHS's"]; 39:2-7 [removed from 39:7: "And so it"]; 39:16-21; 42:5-7; 42:12-16 [removed from 42:16: "So that's when this would come — this"]; 43:5-13; 43:21-44:1; 44:6-9 [removed from 44:9: "There are some forms"]; 44:23-45:5; 48:9-12; 48:19-22; 50:11-14; 51:1-6; 51:17-52:15 [removed from 52:15: "Sometime they're"]; 55:3-7; 55:17-56:4 [removed from 56:4: "So whoever's making the"]; 58:6-19; 58:24-59:12; 59:17-20; 60:1-6 [removed from 60:6: "But I can't if they made that"]; 61:7; 61:20-62:1; 62:12-14; 63:6-19; 64:1-2 [removed from 64:2: "And they would —"]; 65:19-66:2; 66:10-21; 67:6-11; 68:9-13; 69:12-19; 70:15-20; 71:9-12; 71:23-72:3 [removed from 72:3: "They also have a desktop at their"]; 73:1-3; 74:2-5; 74:9-19; 75:2-5; 75:22-76:1; 76:5-6; 76:9-12; 76:17-18; 77:17-21; 77:23-78:7; 82:6-19 [removed from 82:19: "And that is, you know, that's a"]; 83:1-2; 84:10-18; 85:7-15; 87:10-23; 88:24-89:8; 92:2-7; 94:5-14; 96:1-2; 96:21-24; 97:5-11; 97:19-24; 99:9-12; 99:16-18; 100:17-23; 101:25-102:4; 104:5-10; 105:9-16; 105:25-106:4; 106:9-16; 106:21-107:1; 107:14-19; 114:4-7 [removed from 114:7: "Well — could you repeat the question?"]; 114:13-15; 114:20-115:1; 117:24-118:10; 120:23-25 [removed from 120:25: "Oh, well, JBCT. We added the JBCT"]; 123:18-124:17; 125:11-21; 126:10-15; 126:24-127:12; 128:8-13; 129:3-6; 131:22-132:13; 135:3-14; 136:15-20; 139:21-24; 142:9-17; 142:23-25; 143:14-18; 144:8-14; 146:6-12.
These are the portions of the above-mentioned transcript that Plaintiff designates to offer at trial via video.
Portions of the deposition of Jerry Elder taken on May 16, 2018, to be read at trial as follows:
5:13-17; 8:24-9:12; 11:11-14; 13:19-25; 16:3-13; 19:9-18; 20:4-11; 20:22-25; 21:1-8; 22:18-23:2; 28:6-14.
These are the portions of the above-mentioned transcripts that Plaintiff designates to offer at trial.
Defendants intend to offer at trial portions of the depositions of the following witnesses:
Defendants intend to offer at trial portions of the depositions of the following witnesses, as necessary for impeachment or rebuttal:
