None

"Joe Barrett" Date: April 24, 2026 1:43:00 PM Subject: Re: Achilles injury - big value? Reply to list Reply to sender Print Attachments: achilles injury brief.docx (5080 K) This is what I’ve written. We’ll see where it goes . . . Joseph M. Barrett, Esq. Trial Lawyers for the People 845 Avenue B Redondo Beach, CA 90277 jmb@thebarrettlawyers.com Cell: (310) 944-5236 Fax: (310) 759-0566 www.TheBarrettLawyers.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it, may contain confidential information that is legally privileged and may be protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC §§ 2510-2521 .  It is intended solely for the recipient addressee listed above and may not be forwarded or sent to any other recipient in any form.  If you are not the intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately advise by replying to JMB@TheBarrettLawyers.com or by calling (310) 944-5236 and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving them in any manner. Thank you. From: Ying Xu (caala-workproduct listserver) <listsender-caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com> Sent: Friday, April 24, 2026 11:23 AM To: CAALA Work Product Discussion List <caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com> Subject: Re: [caala-workproduct] Achilles injury - big value? List: caala-workproduct Sent by: Ying Xu (Reply Privately) Search I remember seeing a case about the pain and suffering for ruptured achilles tendon, I think this article is about the same case. It's from an appellate court in New York where the court concluded, back in 2012, that $450K for 2.5 years of pain and suffering from a ruptured achilles tendon is not excessive as it does not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation. https://www.newyorkinjurycasesblog.com/2012/04/articles/ankle-injurues/achilles-tendon-rupture-damages-evaluated-by-appellate-court/ Ms. Ying Xu, Attorney at Law Law Offices of Eric K Chen 18725 E. Gale Avenue, Suite 228 City of Industry, CA 91748 Tel: 626.810.6163 Fax: 626.810.3732 This email address is used to receive group or subscription emails only. Please reach me at ying@ericchenlaw.com for any other purposes. Thank you This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone. Thank you. On Friday, April 24, 2026 at 10:50:52 AM PDT, David Aiso (caala-workproduct listserver) < listsender-caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com > wrote: List: caala-workproduct Sent by: David Aiso (Reply Privately) Search Joe, Although I do not have any verdicts or settlement information, I think the Sports pages may be helpful. I know you are a great sports fan.  What about the injury sustained by Jayson Tatum of the Boston Celtics.   Tatum had the Achilles tendon attachment surgery performed immediately after sustaining the injury.  The surgery was performed by Dr. Martin O’Malley.   Apparently, there are better results if the surgery is performed soon after the sustaining of the injury.  It appears from an article which appeared in the WSJ yesterday, that the longer you wait to perform the surgery the result is less successful.  I think this is one of the inferences you can draw from reading the article.  I am sorry I do not have a copy of the article to forward to you.. The reason I mention this is I suspect that your client may not have had the reattachment surgery immediately after the incident, and had to wait for an available surgical date, which might have resulted in the surgery being less than successful. There is also the case of Aaron Rogers who, at least from what I can see, does not move as well as he once did in the pocket and does not scramble much anymore.  This may be the result of age, i..e. 40 years plus. Dentists spend a lot of time on their feet and must move around quite a bit.  I don’t know what your client’s dental specialty is, but it would be interesting to find out.  Also, dentists must move from one room to another to see patients and are under time pressure. I’m sure you’ve aware of all this, and I only mention it in passing. David Aiso From: Joseph Barrett (caala-workproduct listserver) < listsender-caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com > Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2026 3:31 PM To: CAALA Work Product Discussion List < caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com > Subject: [caala-workproduct] Achilles injury - big value? List: caala-workproduct Sent by: Joseph Barrett (Reply Privately) Search We have a case involving a dentist in her mid-60’s who suffers a terrible Achilles tendon injury from a dangerous condition in a parking lot. We are demanding a lot of money for this injury. It will affect her earnings as a dentist and also causes pain and weakness, despite surgery. Lifetime issues likely. We expect the defense insurance company to say such an injury can’t be “worth” a million or two. Any verdicts or settlements for Achilles injury for seven figures anyone knows about? Joseph M. Barrett, Esq. – Of Counsel ROBINSON MARKEVITCH & PARKER LLP 8430 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 200 West Hollywood, CA 90069 The Personal Injury Division of RMP LLP CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it, may contain confidential information that is legally privileged and may be protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC §§ 2510-2521 .  It is intended solely for the recipient addressee listed above and may not be forwarded or sent to any other recipient in any form.  If you are not the intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately advise by replying to jmb@robinsonmarkevitch.com or by calling (310) 944-5236 and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving them in any manner. Thank you. Joe, Although I do not have any verdicts or settlement information, I think the Sports pages may be helpful. I know you are a great sports fan.  What about the injury sustained by Jayson Tatum of the Boston Celtics.   Tatum had the Achilles tendon attachment surgery performed immediately after sustaining the injury.  The surgery was performed by Dr. Martin O’Malley.   Apparently, there are better results if the surgery is performed soon after the sustaining of the injury.  It appears from an article which appeared in the WSJ yesterday, that the longer you wait to perform the surgery the result is less successful.  I think this is one of the inferences you can draw from reading the article.  I am sorry I do not have a copy of the article to forward to you.. The reason I mention this is I suspect that your client may not have had the reattachment surgery immediately after the incident, and had to wait for an available surgical date, which might have resulted in the surgery being less than successful. There is also the case of Aaron Rogers who, at least from what I can see, does not move as well as he once did in the pocket and does not scramble much anymore.  This may be the result of age, i..e. 40 years plus. Dentists spend a lot of time on their feet and must move around quite a bit.  I don’t know what your client’s dental specialty is, but it would be interesting to find out.  Also, dentists must move from one room to another to see patients and are under time pressure. I’m sure you’ve aware of all this, and I only mention it in passing. David Aiso From: Joseph Barrett (caala-workproduct listserver) < listsender-caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com > Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2026 3:31 PM To: CAALA Work Product Discussion List < caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com > Subject: [caala-workproduct] Achilles injury - big value? List: caala-workproduct Sent by: Joseph Barrett (Reply Privately) Search We have a case involving a dentist in her mid-60’s who suffers a terrible Achilles tendon injury from a dangerous condition in a parking lot. We are demanding a lot of money for this injury. It will affect her earnings as a dentist and also causes pain and weakness, despite surgery. Lifetime issues likely. We expect the defense insurance company to say such an injury can’t be “worth” a million or two. Any verdicts or settlements for Achilles injury for seven figures anyone knows about? Joseph M. Barrett, Esq. – Of Counsel ROBINSON MARKEVITCH & PARKER LLP 8430 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 200 West Hollywood, CA 90069 The Personal Injury Division of RMP LLP CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it, may contain confidential information that is legally privileged and may be protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC §§ 2510-2521 .  It is intended solely for the recipient addressee listed above and may not be forwarded or sent to any other recipient in any form.  If you are not the intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately advise by replying to jmb@robinsonmarkevitch.com or by calling (310) 944-5236 and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving them in any manner. Thank you.

"David Aiso" Date: April 24, 2026 12:51:00 PM Subject: Re: Achilles injury - big value? Reply to list Reply to sender Print Joe, Although I do not have any verdicts or settlement information, I think the Sports pages may be helpful. I know you are a great sports fan.  What about the injury sustained by Jayson Tatum of the Boston Celtics.   Tatum had the Achilles tendon attachment surgery performed immediately after sustaining the injury.  The surgery was performed by Dr. Martin O’Malley.   Apparently, there are better results if the surgery is performed soon after the sustaining of the injury.  It appears from an article which appeared in the WSJ yesterday, that the longer you wait to perform the surgery the result is less successful.  I think this is one of the inferences you can draw from reading the article.  I am sorry I do not have a copy of the article to forward to you.. The reason I mention this is I suspect that your client may not have had the reattachment surgery immediately after the incident, and had to wait for an available surgical date, which might have resulted in the surgery being less than successful. There is also the case of Aaron Rogers who, at least from what I can see, does not move as well as he once did in the pocket and does not scramble much anymore.  This may be the result of age, i..e. 40 years plus. Dentists spend a lot of time on their feet and must move around quite a bit.  I don’t know what your client’s dental specialty is, but it would be interesting to find out.  Also, dentists must move from one room to another to see patients and are under time pressure. I’m sure you’ve aware of all this, and I only mention it in passing. David Aiso From: Joseph Barrett (caala-workproduct listserver) <listsender-caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com> Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2026 3:31 PM To: CAALA Work Product Discussion List <caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com> Subject: [caala-workproduct] Achilles injury - big value? List: caala-workproduct Sent by: Joseph Barrett (Reply Privately) Search We have a case involving a dentist in her mid-60’s who suffers a terrible Achilles tendon injury from a dangerous condition in a parking lot. We are demanding a lot of money for this injury. It will affect her earnings as a dentist and also causes pain and weakness, despite surgery. Lifetime issues likely. We expect the defense insurance company to say such an injury can’t be “worth” a million or two. Any verdicts or settlements for Achilles injury for seven figures anyone knows about? Joseph M. Barrett, Esq. – Of Counsel ROBINSON MARKEVITCH & PARKER LLP 8430 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 200 West Hollywood, CA 90069 The Personal Injury Division of RMP LLP CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it, may contain confidential information that is legally privileged and may be protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC §§ 2510-2521 .  It is intended solely for the recipient addressee listed above and may not be forwarded or sent to any other recipient in any form.  If you are not the intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately advise by replying to jmb@robinsonmarkevitch.com or by calling (310) 944-5236 and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving them in any manner. Thank you.

"Joe Barrett" Date: April 23, 2026 5:32:00 PM Subject: Achilles injury - big value? Reply to list Reply to sender Print We have a case involving a dentist in her mid-60’s who suffers a terrible Achilles tendon injury from a dangerous condition in a parking lot. We are demanding a lot of money for this injury. It will affect her earnings as a dentist and also causes pain and weakness, despite surgery. Lifetime issues likely. We expect the defense insurance company to say such an injury can’t be “worth” a million or two. Any verdicts or settlements for Achilles injury for seven figures anyone knows about? Joseph M. Barrett, Esq. – Of Counsel ROBINSON MARKEVITCH & PARKER LLP 8430 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 200 West Hollywood, CA 90069 The Personal Injury Division of RMP LLP CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it, may contain confidential information that is legally privileged and may be protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC §§ 2510-2521 .  It is intended solely for the recipient addressee listed above and may not be forwarded or sent to any other recipient in any form.  If you are not the intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately advise by replying to jmb@robinsonmarkevitch.com or by calling (310) 944-5236 and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving them in any manner. Thank you.

"Arthur Bryant" Date: April 21, 2026 2:13:00 PM Subject: Breaking: Female Athletes Reach Landmark Title IX Sex Discrimination Class Action Settlement with San Diego State University Reply to list Reply to sender Print Hi everyone! I thought you would want to know about this. Please share the news with anyone you think would be interested. Thanks.– Arthur https://www.arthurbryantlaw.com/news/female-athletes-reach-landmark-title-ix-sex-discrimination-class-action-settlement-with-san-diego-state-university April 21, 2026 Female Athletes Reach Landmark Title IX Sex Discrimination Class Action Settlement with San Diego State University SDSU will Pay $300,000 to Women for Denying Them Equal Athletic Financial Aid in Past; Adopt Gender Equity Plan; Comply with Title IX; Provide Equal Athletic Financial Aid, Treatment, and Benefits in Future Fifteen former women’s rowing and track & field varsity team members who filed a class action against San Diego State University (SDSU) in 2022 for discriminating against its female student-athletes in violation of Title IX have reached a landmark settlement in the case. In a national first, the settlement requires SDSU to pay $300,000 in class-wide damages to female athletes for depriving them of equal athletic financial aid in the past. It also requires SDSU to hire an agreed-upon outside expert to conduct a Gender Equity Review, develop a Gender Equity Plan, provide equal athletic financial aid and treatment & benefits to its female athletes in the future, and ensure its entire athletic department complies with Title IX by the end of the 2026-27 academic year. Yesterday afternoon, U.S. District Judge Todd W. Robinson of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, in San Diego, issued an order approving the settlement and the “unprecedented monetary award” in it. Title IX is more than 50 years old and, despite settlements and legal victories requiring numerous universities to comply with the law, schools throughout the country are still depriving their female athletes of equal opportunities to participate, athletic financial aid, and treatment & benefits. This is the first case to seek—or recover—class-wide damages from a school for depriving its female athletes of equal athletic financial aid. “We are extremely proud we fought SDSU’s sex discrimination against its female athletes and won this ground-breaking settlement,” said plaintiff and former rower Madison Fisk. “SDSU is going to comply with Title IX in the future and pay for violating it in the past.” “In a time when college sports are rapidly changing, we hope this settlement sends a message to schools around the country that women are done accepting less than what Title IX requires, equity in all areas,” said Lori Bullock of Bullock Law PLLC in Des Moines, Iowa, co-counsel for the women.  “Schools need to address these inequities now, not after female athletes file suit, and hopefully, the prospect of paying damages will spur stronger compliance efforts throughout college athletics.” “This lawsuit should not have been necessary, but SDSU refused to give women athletes the equal athletic aid, treatment, and benefits they deserve and Title IX requires,” said plaintiff and former track & field athlete Carina Clark. “Now, it will. And it will pay damages.” “These women have made history,” said Arthur Bryant of Arthur Bryant Law in Oakland, CA, lead counsel for the athletes. “This is the first school to pay class-wide damages to female athletes for discriminating against them in violation of Title IX. But it sure won’t be the last.” The other plaintiffs and former SDSU athletes who reached the cutting-edge settlement are Raquel Castro, Greta Viss, Helen Bauer, Natalie Figueroa, Erica Grotegeer, Kaitlin Heri, Olivia Petrine, Aisha Watt, Kamryn Whitworth, Sara Absten, Eleanor Davies, Alexa Dietz, and Larisa Sulcs. “We are profoundly proud of the women athletes who gave their time, strength, and voices to drive the change this lawsuit demanded. Their courage is a powerful reminder that equality in collegiate sports is not a privilege to be granted. It is a fundamental right, earned through persistence and worth every effort to achieve,” said plaintiffs’ co-counsel Gayle M. Blatt of Casey Gerry Francavilla Blatt LLP in San Diego. “Our clients showed extraordinary courage by coming forward and trusting us to challenge entrenched inequality,” said Jenna Rangel of Haeggquist & Eck LLP in San Diego, co-counsel for the plaintiffs. “This settlement proves that when women speak out, institutions can be forced to change.” Plaintiffs’ counsel also include Amber Eck of Haeggquist & Eck LLP and David Casey of Casey Gerry Francavilla Blatt LLP. ### Contacts: Arthur Bryant, 510-507-9972, arthur@arthurbryantlaw.com Lori Bullock, 515-231-6008, lbullock@bullocklawpllc.com Jenna Rangel, 619-255-4173, jennar@haelaw.com Gayle Blatt,  619-238-1811, gmb@cglaw.com Arthur Bryant cell 510-507-9972 office 510-391-5454 arthur@arthurbryantlaw.com www.arthurbryantlaw.com

"Michael Avanesian" Date: January 12, 2026 1:18:00 PM Subject: Re: Surgery before DME? Reply to list Reply to sender Print How do you navigate policy limits? Prior to a surgery, I like to send a policy limits demand because there is always a likelihood, no matter how small, that surgery might go bad. Here I am, asking for the $1 million or $750 with 100k in meds and a surgery that is about to happen. If the surgery goes badly, I think the policy is open. Maybe you guys are working with large policies where the limits are not at issue. Even then, when do you actually demand money from the other side. Do you wait until after the surgery, after rehab, after a life care plan? I subbed into a case from a very big and prestigious law firm, one month prior to trial, and there was never a demand. No demand, no 998, a spinal court stim. I operate differently but I do want to learn. Sincerely, www.avianlawgroup.com Michael Avanesian, Esq. Chief Executive Officer Licensed to practice in California Office: 818-282-8400 Fax: 818-688-5161 e: michael@avianlawgroup.com From: David Hoffman (caala-workproduct listserver) <listsender-caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com> Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2026 1:56 PM To: CAALA Work Product Discussion List <caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com> Subject: Re: [caala-workproduct] Surgery before DME? List: caala-workproduct Sent by: David Hoffman (Reply Privately) Search I have to add a caveat. I only tell them about surgery after I get a DME demand or other discovery like a follow up for JCI 6.?, but if they don't ask I don't tell. David Hoffman, Esq. CSB 140557 Law Offices of David Hoffman, A P.C. 21900 Burbank Blvd., Ste. 300 Woodland Hills, CA 91367-7418 V (310)286-1000 (818)346-3001 F (818)346-3011 This email and any attachments are considered privileged and proprietary. If you received this in error, I regret it. Please reply with "ERROR " in the subject and delete the entire thread with my appreciation. On Jan 11, 2026 13:00, "William Silverstein (caala-workproduct listserver)" < listsender-caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com > wrote: List: caala-workproduct Sent by: William Silverstein (Reply Privately) Search AMEN! In some cases, once the surgery is scheduled, inform opposing counsel to give them the opportunity to schedule the DME. Keep in mind, if it is appropriate in your situation and an earlier surgery slot could open up, inform counsel of the possibility. I have had Kaiser give me a date 3 months off, but a slot opened up that was two months off. How much time does it really take for a DME to prepare? They are still going to say that a 6 foot steel rod sticking out of your client's chest will not cause discomfort or have any impact on your client's life. > Greetings, I think this requires some caution. Not necessarily a > “Warning Will Robinson! Warning!†kind of caution but candor is the > order of the day. No one is fooling anyone because everything will be seen > with 20-20 hindsight. Bad optics for us. > > > > In cases where the client’s trajectory is independent of the lawyer and > controlled by the patient and surgeon, as it should be always, and the > surgeon says patient failed conservative measures and needs surgery and > patient is ready, all of that is its own weather system. [The lawyer > should beware interfering with the “medicine†because they are > creating their own weather system of malpractice liability.] If the DME > notice comes in and the patient is scheduled already, the response to the > DME should be accurate in making whatever objections and announce the > date. Hiding the ball would be very bad. It will come into evidence if the > defense lawyer is worth their salt. But look, assuming the bona fides of > the surgery, if the DME is not too arduous, I’m not sure why anyone > would balk about going before surgery. Generally I give my friends the > choice and they choose after surgery because they are more interested in > residual sequelae. You simply do not want the ire of a trial court judge > about this stuff. > > > > The corollary to this advice is that you never call the doc and patient to > move them into the OR for the sake of the case, and that includes the DME. > Like I said, they have their orbit and no one is fooling anyone. It could > even sabotage a good settlement because the defense attorney has some > unsavory stuff to splash on the plaintiff, the attorney and the doctor > based on easy calculations from the chart and discovery. I mean honestly. > > > > Now that all said, if the attorney is driving the surgery for bad reasons, > and the surgeon is not acting in good faith and the client is a stooge or > complicit, that’s when you hide stuff, I guess. I have no personal > knowledge, hence my disclaimer. In your face honesty is harder than steel > as you drive them to that hard place. $.02DH > > > > David Hoffman, Esq., CSB 140557 > > dhoffman@hoffmanlawcorp.com > > > > Law Offices of David Hoffman, A P.C. > > 21900 Burbank Blvd., Suite 300 > > Woodland Hills, CA 91367-7418 > > V: (310)286-1000 (818)346-3001 > > C: (310)850-0233 F: (818)346-3011 > > Please Note Our New Address > > > > This email and any attachment(s) is intended solely for designated > recipient(s) for the purpose of communicating sensitive, private and > privileged information that may be shielded by the attorney-client and > attorney work product privileges. If you received this in error, I regret > it. Please write, “Error†in the subject line and once you press > send/reply, please delete the entire email with our thanks. DH > > > > STRONG SUPPORTER OF THE CHP11-99 FOUNDATION, CAALA, CAOC, AAJ, THE UCLA > BRUINS, WORLD CHAMPION NY YANKEES, DALLAS COWBOYS AND PLEASE “SHARE THE > ROAD!†> > > > From: Gene Sullivan (caala-workproduct listserver) > > Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2026 12:11 PM > To: CAALA Work Product Discussion List > > Cc: caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com > Subject: Re: [caala-workproduct] Surgery before DME? > > > > > > List: caala-workproduct Sent by: > > Gene Sullivan (Reply Privately) > > < http://www.caala.org/index.cfm?pg=search > Search > > > Exactly. Schedule surgery. > > > > Sullivan & Sullivan > > 1230 Rosecrans Avenue > > Suite 600 > > Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 > > (310) 376-0288 > > > > > > > > On Jan 11, 2026, at 11:36 AM, Bruce Levenson (caala-workproduct > listserver) > > wrote: > >  > > > > List: caala-workproduct Sent by: > > Bruce Levenson (Reply Privately) > > < http://www.caala.org/index.cfm?pg=search > Search > > > Medical decisions are made by doctors and patients, not by lawyers and > judges. It is difficult to get a surgery scheduled anywhere, particularly > with Kaiser. For example, I once had a 39-year old client who died from > a heart attack related to not having a functioning kidney a few months > after settling her medical malpractice case and a few weeks before a > scheduled kidney transplant surgery that she had been waiting months for. > > > > > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > > On Jan 11, 2026, at 8:36 AM, Aram Rostomyan (caala-workproduct > listserver) > > wrote: > >  > > > > List: caala-workproduct Sent by: > > Aram Rostomyan (Reply Privately) > > < http://www.caala.org/index.cfm?pg=search > Search > > > Dear Mates, > > I recall there were some law and motion on this issue, is there consensus > on the below questions: > > 1) client needs hand surgery through Kaiser. Defense wants DME (they don't > know Kaiser concurs with surgery rec. and she is going to get it through > them). Defense has not noticed the DME yet but proposed dates. > > Does the client get the surgery before we schedule the DME? If so, what > are the consequences? There was something about suppressing or spoiling > evidence? > > Do we allow the DME before scheduling the surgery to be on the safe side? > > Thanks for your help! > > > < https://link1712.lists.trialsmith.com/o/AclV8Ivlrzhp4uhRlsG8Bl76qhVaFXqLsD6M3xdD7zZcfY_LTsMwEEV_BXlNI9t5tkKoC1YIxCdEjj2kbu04Gjspaem_4zRVERu299zHzJkg2ZAGBwkGRui867a-ka1xjTBJB4E8EhsdT1VecsoLvk7yMmFlUbFsneYVL1jyKkbxLrRJ0Lmw5bmqAMqG0Uw9x7QgmzMZYwVf9ejUIIN23dwqaxtDYeohQjOh9rXSXg7eLwYv6k7YGUohjFgdHR5uDQu1vtVqLmbrdF2k6aKi7KP29sEpyyjjKasozYpvVla0TPNiWfbDHDTaB58E1MJ4q8Mukc7euA5wbVlZsA2ghC6gMLVx9TUEOAL6eRA61aJWde-cmRN3GqEUAVqHU9Rf7p89_LEYt_xA2QH6yVqldtlx-pK49-XJfu7zUzTtXaP_uVf3t_Hf08jl8gM > > > > < https://link1712.lists.trialsmith.com/o/AcXgi30CXoXrzqBKpyMumBhQF8z6YMBpPTS_AK6cTsQLfY_LTsMwEEV_BXmNqyTNEyFU2pQVEp8QTWwTTOw4HbstUem_Y5NSxIbtPfcxcyJI7kibKDhOAldg1IIZTW6J9vJ9kdZ5VtcJrbL8iaaPxYauq21K87guk3obbdabeGVb1inTgloMwj34KJC7Ezn4fEJHNHzPnDRDqGSNBqncNAoP1YTSNlxatrd2NlhoBtABMgAF9GiwvzTMVNtO8lAcV8uqqIpZRTZ6LYqLPC0_8ygrk2I5z9l9cCtpnV04lKCslu7t50PPpQtrzy9UC90KZGJwCKpRpvkOCTwItGFFDLxDyZvRGBUSV-ohAyc6g5PX6-s7N38sysyHR3EvduUU9SDcK99hn02HkbsPlnnTu2nlP_fK8TL-exo5n78A > > > > < https://link1712.lists.trialsmith.com/o/AWfXq2gvjD2dNyzBf-UryoXNIKEscnvBFM9Bpw0H-7A0fU_dbsIgGH2VhethsFZLzbKotV4t2SM0XwEVhVIBdZ3z3QeruuxmV19yfr5zzgVZNEV8a9ZrDc3sdhWcmbHtgBmNnpEOihdaZqsyyUqcJQXFab6aYJqQOSaLJZ0XtEhW5WIGRkXPazABml7QKTgT3FrDj8xL08RnrNIgle9aEUjVWekqLh07OtcLHFQN6EgyAAX4bOz-9qFntdtIHh8P81FOR2mPWtYGjBCS5-QrzSZZPqR9nDtGtZLOu4G3EpTT0m_v2wIvfUx7e8da6FpYJhpvQVXKVD8mYU_CupgiGr6xkletMSo6HmwgGXixMbYL-PIx5-mPRJm-OBnuxQE6Ik7jz9FOcBgfdA3-o44Dd6aW__SV7S38txq6Xr8B > > >

"David Hoffman, Esq." Date: January 11, 2026 3:56:00 PM Subject: Re: Surgery before DME? Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: caala-workproduct Sent by: David Hoffman (Reply Privately) Search I have to add a caveat. I only tell them about surgery after I get a DME demand or other discovery like a follow up for JCI 6.?, but if they don't ask I don't tell. David Hoffman, Esq. CSB 140557 Law Offices of David Hoffman, A P.C. 21900 Burbank Blvd., Ste. 300 Woodland Hills, CA 91367-7418 V (310)286-1000 (818)346-3001 F (818)346-3011 This email and any attachments are considered privileged and proprietary. If you received this in error, I regret it. Please reply with "ERROR " in the subject and delete the entire thread with my appreciation. On Jan 11, 2026 13:00, "William Silverstein (caala-workproduct listserver)" <listsender-caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com> wrote: List: caala-workproduct Sent by: William Silverstein (Reply Privately) Search AMEN! In some cases, once the surgery is scheduled, inform opposing counsel to give them the opportunity to schedule the DME. Keep in mind, if it is appropriate in your situation and an earlier surgery slot could open up, inform counsel of the possibility. I have had Kaiser give me a date 3 months off, but a slot opened up that was two months off. How much time does it really take for a DME to prepare? They are still going to say that a 6 foot steel rod sticking out of your client's chest will not cause discomfort or have any impact on your client's life. > Greetings, I think this requires some caution. Not necessarily a > “Warning Will Robinson! Warning!†kind of caution but candor is the > order of the day. No one is fooling anyone because everything will be seen > with 20-20 hindsight. Bad optics for us. > > > > In cases where the client’s trajectory is independent of the lawyer and > controlled by the patient and surgeon, as it should be always, and the > surgeon says patient failed conservative measures and needs surgery and > patient is ready, all of that is its own weather system. [The lawyer > should beware interfering with the “medicine†because they are > creating their own weather system of malpractice liability.] If the DME > notice comes in and the patient is scheduled already, the response to the > DME should be accurate in making whatever objections and announce the > date. Hiding the ball would be very bad. It will come into evidence if the > defense lawyer is worth their salt. But look, assuming the bona fides of > the surgery, if the DME is not too arduous, I’m not sure why anyone > would balk about going before surgery. Generally I give my friends the > choice and they choose after surgery because they are more interested in > residual sequelae. You simply do not want the ire of a trial court judge > about this stuff. > > > > The corollary to this advice is that you never call the doc and patient to > move them into the OR for the sake of the case, and that includes the DME. > Like I said, they have their orbit and no one is fooling anyone. It could > even sabotage a good settlement because the defense attorney has some > unsavory stuff to splash on the plaintiff, the attorney and the doctor > based on easy calculations from the chart and discovery. I mean honestly. > > > > Now that all said, if the attorney is driving the surgery for bad reasons, > and the surgeon is not acting in good faith and the client is a stooge or > complicit, that’s when you hide stuff, I guess. I have no personal > knowledge, hence my disclaimer. In your face honesty is harder than steel > as you drive them to that hard place. $.02DH > > > > David Hoffman, Esq., CSB 140557 > > dhoffman@hoffmanlawcorp.com > > > > Law Offices of David Hoffman, A P.C. > > 21900 Burbank Blvd., Suite 300 > > Woodland Hills, CA 91367-7418 > > V: (310)286-1000 (818)346-3001 > > C: (310)850-0233 F: (818)346-3011 > > Please Note Our New Address > > > > This email and any attachment(s) is intended solely for designated > recipient(s) for the purpose of communicating sensitive, private and > privileged information that may be shielded by the attorney-client and > attorney work product privileges. If you received this in error, I regret > it. Please write, “Error†in the subject line and once you press > send/reply, please delete the entire email with our thanks. DH > > > > STRONG SUPPORTER OF THE CHP11-99 FOUNDATION, CAALA, CAOC, AAJ, THE UCLA > BRUINS, WORLD CHAMPION NY YANKEES, DALLAS COWBOYS AND PLEASE “SHARE THE > ROAD!†> > > > From: Gene Sullivan (caala-workproduct listserver) > > Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2026 12:11 PM > To: CAALA Work Product Discussion List > > Cc: caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com > Subject: Re: [caala-workproduct] Surgery before DME? > > > > > > List: caala-workproduct Sent by: > > Gene Sullivan (Reply Privately) > > < http://www.caala.org/index.cfm?pg=search > Search > > > Exactly. Schedule surgery. > > > > Sullivan & Sullivan > > 1230 Rosecrans Avenue > > Suite 600 > > Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 > > (310) 376-0288 > > > > > > > > On Jan 11, 2026, at 11:36 AM, Bruce Levenson (caala-workproduct > listserver) > > wrote: > >  > > > > List: caala-workproduct Sent by: > > Bruce Levenson (Reply Privately) > > < http://www.caala.org/index.cfm?pg=search > Search > > > Medical decisions are made by doctors and patients, not by lawyers and > judges. It is difficult to get a surgery scheduled anywhere, particularly > with Kaiser. For example, I once had a 39-year old client who died from > a heart attack related to not having a functioning kidney a few months > after settling her medical malpractice case and a few weeks before a > scheduled kidney transplant surgery that she had been waiting months for. > > > > > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > > On Jan 11, 2026, at 8:36 AM, Aram Rostomyan (caala-workproduct > listserver) > > wrote: > >  > > > > List: caala-workproduct Sent by: > > Aram Rostomyan (Reply Privately) > > < http://www.caala.org/index.cfm?pg=search > Search > > > Dear Mates, > > I recall there were some law and motion on this issue, is there consensus > on the below questions: > > 1) client needs hand surgery through Kaiser. Defense wants DME (they don't > know Kaiser concurs with surgery rec. and she is going to get it through > them). Defense has not noticed the DME yet but proposed dates. > > Does the client get the surgery before we schedule the DME? If so, what > are the consequences? There was something about suppressing or spoiling > evidence? > > Do we allow the DME before scheduling the surgery to be on the safe side? > > Thanks for your help! > > > < https://link1712.lists.trialsmith.com/o/AclV8Ivlrzhp4uhRlsG8Bl76qhVaFXqLsD6M3xdD7zZcfY_LTsMwEEV_BXlNI9t5tkKoC1YIxCdEjj2kbu04Gjspaem_4zRVERu299zHzJkg2ZAGBwkGRui867a-ka1xjTBJB4E8EhsdT1VecsoLvk7yMmFlUbFsneYVL1jyKkbxLrRJ0Lmw5bmqAMqG0Uw9x7QgmzMZYwVf9ejUIIN23dwqaxtDYeohQjOh9rXSXg7eLwYv6k7YGUohjFgdHR5uDQu1vtVqLmbrdF2k6aKi7KP29sEpyyjjKasozYpvVla0TPNiWfbDHDTaB58E1MJ4q8Mukc7euA5wbVlZsA2ghC6gMLVx9TUEOAL6eRA61aJWde-cmRN3GqEUAVqHU9Rf7p89_LEYt_xA2QH6yVqldtlx-pK49-XJfu7zUzTtXaP_uVf3t_Hf08jl8gM > > > > < https://link1712.lists.trialsmith.com/o/AcXgi30CXoXrzqBKpyMumBhQF8z6YMBpPTS_AK6cTsQLfY_LTsMwEEV_BXmNqyTNEyFU2pQVEp8QTWwTTOw4HbstUem_Y5NSxIbtPfcxcyJI7kibKDhOAldg1IIZTW6J9vJ9kdZ5VtcJrbL8iaaPxYauq21K87guk3obbdabeGVb1inTgloMwj34KJC7Ezn4fEJHNHzPnDRDqGSNBqncNAoP1YTSNlxatrd2NlhoBtABMgAF9GiwvzTMVNtO8lAcV8uqqIpZRTZ6LYqLPC0_8ygrk2I5z9l9cCtpnV04lKCslu7t50PPpQtrzy9UC90KZGJwCKpRpvkOCTwItGFFDLxDyZvRGBUSV-ohAyc6g5PX6-s7N38sysyHR3EvduUU9SDcK99hn02HkbsPlnnTu2nlP_fK8TL-exo5n78A > > > > < https://link1712.lists.trialsmith.com/o/AWfXq2gvjD2dNyzBf-UryoXNIKEscnvBFM9Bpw0H-7A0fU_dbsIgGH2VhethsFZLzbKotV4t2SM0XwEVhVIBdZ3z3QeruuxmV19yfr5zzgVZNEV8a9ZrDc3sdhWcmbHtgBmNnpEOihdaZqsyyUqcJQXFab6aYJqQOSaLJZ0XtEhW5WIGRkXPazABml7QKTgT3FrDj8xL08RnrNIgle9aEUjVWekqLh07OtcLHFQN6EgyAAX4bOz-9qFntdtIHh8P81FOR2mPWtYGjBCS5-QrzSZZPqR9nDtGtZLOu4G3EpTT0m_v2wIvfUx7e8da6FpYJhpvQVXKVD8mYU_CupgiGr6xkletMSo6HmwgGXixMbYL-PIx5-mPRJm-OBnuxQE6Ik7jz9FOcBgfdA3-o44Dd6aW__SV7S38txq6Xr8B > > >

"Stephen Counts, Esq." Date: December 18, 2025 9:41:00 PM Subject: Re: Untimely MSJ/MSA Reply to list Reply to sender Print Katherine, The court has no jurisdiction to hear D’s MSJ due to the inadequate notice period.  The court’s hands are tied.  I would go in ex parte. Case law on this issue has clearly established that Trial Courts do not have the authority to shorten the minimum notice period for a hearing on a motion for summary judgment . Robinson v. Woods (2008) 168 Cal. App. 4th 1258, 1262.  In fact, if the notice given is inadequate, the trial court has no authority, and commits an abuse of discretion resulting in a violation of due process, to continue the hearing for the amount of days that the notice is deficient; rather, the 75-day [81-day] period begins to run anew and 75 days is mandatory where notice is given personally. Id . at 1267.  Indeed, “the statutory language regarding minimum notice is mandatory, not directive.” Urshan v. Musicians’ Credit Union (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 758, 764 (2004). Neither an order of court, nor a local court rule, may impose procedural requirements, including time deadlines, which conflict with the procedures set out in Section 437c. Boyle v. Certain Teed Corp . (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 645. ____________________________________________ Stephen D. Counts   |   Attorney at Law 2114 North Broadway | Suite 200 | Santa Ana, CA 92706 T: ( 714) 547-4700 |  F: ( 714) 547-4710 | stephen@smaililaw.com ____________________________________________ From: Katherine Harvey-Lee (caala-workproduct listserver) <listsender-caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2025 5:37 PM To: CAALA Work Product Discussion List <caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com> Subject: [caala-workproduct] Untimely MSJ/MSA List: caala-workproduct Sent by: Katherine Harvey-Lee (Reply Privately) Search Defense has filed a completely untimely MSJ/MSA, setting a hearing for February 6.  Deadline for filing an MSJ has long passed and trial is set for March 9, (although we are presently looking to submit to Long Cause – but that is not determinate I would think).  What is the preferred mechanism for challenging this without risking waiver under Carlton v. Quint: File an objection with the court? Go in ex parte? Ignore it and let time pass and not show up at the hearing?   It’s hard for me to believe the reservation system allows a party to reserve an MSJ/MSA date with such a ridiculously short notice period. Best Regards , Kate Katherine Harvey-Lee, Esq. California Truck Injury Law, APC We moved! PLEASE MAKE A NOTE OF OUR NEW MAILING ADDRESS: 1600 Rosecrans Ave. Bldg. 7, 4 th Floor Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 T: (310) 496-5722 F: (310) 300-0402 Board Certified Tractor Trailer/Trucking Litigation by NBTA* Immediate Past President, Academy of Truck Accident Attorneys Executive Board AAJ Truck Litigation Group Past Chair AAJ Bus Litigation Group * The National Board of Trial Advocates (NBTA) is one of only two organizations acrredited by the American Bar Association to establish and approve national board certification in various attorney specialization areas.  The California Bar does not yet recognize the board certification in Truck Accident Law. A certificate, award, or recognition is not a requirement to practice law in California. Please consider our environment before you print this email. ******************************************************************** This email may contain information protected by attorney-client and/or the attorney/work product privilege. It is intended only for the use of the individual to which it is directed, and the privileges are not waived by virtue of this having been sent by email. If the person actually receiving this email or any other reader of the email is not the person to whom it is directed or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to that person, any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone and delete all copies of the email from every folder on your computer and/or computer network.

"Joe Barrett" Date: December 12, 2025 1:09:00 PM Subject: Re: Attorney position Reply to list Reply to sender Print David Markevitch and the partners will decide Michael. I know we expect to pay what is fair for the experience and I bet we pay well. I work with good guys. Call David directly if you’re interested in learning further. I wanted to cast the net out there. I know I’m old school, born in the 50’s and all that, but in my career I took positions without regard for that, proved myself, then I talked money and it worked out every time pretty much. Not that I recommend that, but talent will always get paid. What I want to avoid is a big talker who wants money first, gets in, sets up a system and glides…I want to work with ambitious and achieving people. Those folks will always get paid – if not, they move on, right? I know this, people are way less loyal to “the boss” than they used to be – which is good. We all have options . . . Joseph M. Barrett, Esq. Trial Lawyers for the People 845 Avenue B Redondo Beach, CA 90277 jmb@thebarrettlawyers.com Cell: (310) 944-5236 Fax: (310) 759-0566 www.TheBarrettLawyers.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it, may contain confidential information that is legally privileged and may be protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC §§ 2510-2521 .  It is intended solely for the recipient addressee listed above and may not be forwarded or sent to any other recipient in any form.  If you are not the intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately advise by replying to JMB@TheBarrettLawyers.com or by calling (310) 944-5236 and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving them in any manner. Thank you. From: Michael Avanesian (caala-life listserver) <listsender-caala-life@lists.trialsmith.com> Sent: Friday, December 12, 2025 11:02 AM To: CAALA Life Discussion List <caala-life@lists.trialsmith.com> Subject: Re:[caala-life] Attorney position List: caala-life Sent by: Michael Avanesian (Reply Privately) Search What’s the pay? Sincerely, www.avianlawgroup.com Michael Avanesian, Esq. Chief Executive Officer Licensed to practice in California Office: 818-282-8400 Fax: 818-688-5161 e: michael@avianlawgroup.com From: Joseph Barrett (caala-life listserver) < listsender-caala-life@lists.trialsmith.com > Sent: Friday, December 12, 2025 10:59 AM To: CAALA Life Discussion List < caala-life@lists.trialsmith.com > Subject: [caala-life] Attorney position List: caala-life Sent by: Joseph Barrett (Reply Privately) Search We need a great lawyer! I have merged my PI practice into the firm Robinson Markevitch & Parker LLP (RMP LLP), an excellent group with lawyers I have known for years. I am likely going to also be Of Counsel with a select number of firms for projects, using my experience and guidance skills, etc., but at RMP I want to help them create a great system for the best work and great success. We have tremendous cases and intend to grow a lot – so at this stage we are seeking a great lawyer to help manage and guide our work. This lawyer position is a remote one, though we do have an office in West Hollywood if need be, so we are flexible. David Markevitch is the lawyer you’d mostly train under and work with, also I will also work closely with this lawyer. We have staff to support this position. David works from Santa Clara most of the time, though he is also in So Cal a lot. Location is less relevant than knowledge, desire, and a personality that works well with others (i.e., “you played team sports!” as one great lawyer friend of mine, George Terterian, always says…) Here’s a summary of the position: Litigation Attorney (5–10 Years Experience) West Hollywood    Santa Clara   South Bay    San Diego Robinson Markevitch & Parker LLP is a trial-focused plaintiff law firm handling complex personal injury, wrongful death, premises liability, and civil justice cases, class actions, business law, employment, medical negligence, etc. We are seeking an experienced litigation attorney to join our growing team—someone who understands the full lifecycle of a case and takes pride in high-quality written and courtroom work. The Role The attorney will play a central role in active litigation matters from early discovery through trial preparation. This is not a “paper-pushing” position. You will be expected to think strategically, write persuasively, and collaborate closely with trial lawyers and staff. Key Responsibilities Draft and respond to written discovery, including Special Interrogatories, Requests for Production, and Requests for Admission Conduct meet-and-confer efforts with opposing counsel and prepare Motions to Compel when necessary Draft law-and-motion papers, including discovery motions, oppositions, replies, and trial-related motions Assist with depositions (preparation, outlines, exhibits, and follow-up) Participate in trial preparation, including witness preparation, exhibit organization, jury instructions, and trial briefs Maintain strong command of California court rules, the Code of Civil Procedure, and litigation deadlines Work collaboratively with partners and help train and support paralegals and litigation staff Manage cases efficiently using firm systems; familiarity with CLIO or similar case-management platforms is a plus Qualifications 5–10 years of California civil litigation experience (plaintiff-side experience strongly preferred) Excellent legal writing and analytical skills Solid understanding of litigation flow from filing through trial Experience handling discovery disputes and law-and-motion practice independently Professional, collegial, and team-oriented approach to litigation Strong organizational skills and attention to detail Why RMP LLP We are building a modern, trial-ready plaintiff firm grounded in preparation, integrity, and teamwork. Attorneys here are trusted with real responsibility, supported by experienced partners, and given the opportunity to grow as litigators. If you want to do meaningful work, sharpen your trial skills, and be part of a firm that takes the craft of law seriously, we want to hear from you. Salary & benefits should be excellent, in line with talent you bring. This is a growth opportunity. We grow trial lawyers and future partners. If interested, contact David Markevitch directly. He’s at dm@robinsonmarkevitch.com and at (510) 685-0142. Joseph M. Barrett, Esq. Trial Lawyers for the People 845 Avenue B Redondo Beach, CA 90277 jmb@thebarrettlawyers.com Cell: (310) 944-5236 Fax: (310) 759-0566 www.TheBarrettLawyers.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it, may contain confidential information that is legally privileged and may be protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC §§ 2510-2521 .  It is intended solely for the recipient addressee listed above and may not be forwarded or sent to any other recipient in any form.  If you are not the intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately advise by replying to JMB@TheBarrettLawyers.com or by calling (310) 944-5236 and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving them in any manner. Thank you.

"Michael Avanesian" Date: December 12, 2025 1:02:00 PM Subject: Re: Attorney position Reply to list Reply to sender Print What’s the pay? Sincerely, www.avianlawgroup.com Michael Avanesian, Esq. Chief Executive Officer Licensed to practice in California Office: 818-282-8400 Fax: 818-688-5161 e: michael@avianlawgroup.com From: Joseph Barrett (caala-life listserver) <listsender-caala-life@lists.trialsmith.com> Sent: Friday, December 12, 2025 10:59 AM To: CAALA Life Discussion List <caala-life@lists.trialsmith.com> Subject: [caala-life] Attorney position List: caala-life Sent by: Joseph Barrett (Reply Privately) Search We need a great lawyer! I have merged my PI practice into the firm Robinson Markevitch & Parker LLP (RMP LLP), an excellent group with lawyers I have known for years. I am likely going to also be Of Counsel with a select number of firms for projects, using my experience and guidance skills, etc., but at RMP I want to help them create a great system for the best work and great success. We have tremendous cases and intend to grow a lot – so at this stage we are seeking a great lawyer to help manage and guide our work. This lawyer position is a remote one, though we do have an office in West Hollywood if need be, so we are flexible. David Markevitch is the lawyer you’d mostly train under and work with, also I will also work closely with this lawyer. We have staff to support this position. David works from Santa Clara most of the time, though he is also in So Cal a lot. Location is less relevant than knowledge, desire, and a personality that works well with others (i.e., “you played team sports!” as one great lawyer friend of mine, George Terterian, always says…) Here’s a summary of the position: Litigation Attorney (5–10 Years Experience) West Hollywood    Santa Clara   South Bay    San Diego Robinson Markevitch & Parker LLP is a trial-focused plaintiff law firm handling complex personal injury, wrongful death, premises liability, and civil justice cases, class actions, business law, employment, medical negligence, etc. We are seeking an experienced litigation attorney to join our growing team—someone who understands the full lifecycle of a case and takes pride in high-quality written and courtroom work. The Role The attorney will play a central role in active litigation matters from early discovery through trial preparation. This is not a “paper-pushing” position. You will be expected to think strategically, write persuasively, and collaborate closely with trial lawyers and staff. Key Responsibilities Draft and respond to written discovery, including Special Interrogatories, Requests for Production, and Requests for Admission Conduct meet-and-confer efforts with opposing counsel and prepare Motions to Compel when necessary Draft law-and-motion papers, including discovery motions, oppositions, replies, and trial-related motions Assist with depositions (preparation, outlines, exhibits, and follow-up) Participate in trial preparation, including witness preparation, exhibit organization, jury instructions, and trial briefs Maintain strong command of California court rules, the Code of Civil Procedure, and litigation deadlines Work collaboratively with partners and help train and support paralegals and litigation staff Manage cases efficiently using firm systems; familiarity with CLIO or similar case-management platforms is a plus Qualifications 5–10 years of California civil litigation experience (plaintiff-side experience strongly preferred) Excellent legal writing and analytical skills Solid understanding of litigation flow from filing through trial Experience handling discovery disputes and law-and-motion practice independently Professional, collegial, and team-oriented approach to litigation Strong organizational skills and attention to detail Why RMP LLP We are building a modern, trial-ready plaintiff firm grounded in preparation, integrity, and teamwork. Attorneys here are trusted with real responsibility, supported by experienced partners, and given the opportunity to grow as litigators. If you want to do meaningful work, sharpen your trial skills, and be part of a firm that takes the craft of law seriously, we want to hear from you. Salary & benefits should be excellent, in line with talent you bring. This is a growth opportunity. We grow trial lawyers and future partners. If interested, contact David Markevitch directly. He’s at dm@robinsonmarkevitch.com and at (510) 685-0142. Joseph M. Barrett, Esq. Trial Lawyers for the People 845 Avenue B Redondo Beach, CA 90277 jmb@thebarrettlawyers.com Cell: (310) 944-5236 Fax: (310) 759-0566 www.TheBarrettLawyers.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it, may contain confidential information that is legally privileged and may be protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC §§ 2510-2521 .  It is intended solely for the recipient addressee listed above and may not be forwarded or sent to any other recipient in any form.  If you are not the intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately advise by replying to JMB@TheBarrettLawyers.com or by calling (310) 944-5236 and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving them in any manner. Thank you.

"Joe Barrett" Date: December 12, 2025 12:59:00 PM Subject: Attorney position Reply to list Reply to sender Print We need a great lawyer! I have merged my PI practice into the firm Robinson Markevitch & Parker LLP (RMP LLP), an excellent group with lawyers I have known for years. I am likely going to also be Of Counsel with a select number of firms for projects, using my experience and guidance skills, etc., but at RMP I want to help them create a great system for the best work and great success. We have tremendous cases and intend to grow a lot – so at this stage we are seeking a great lawyer to help manage and guide our work. This lawyer position is a remote one, though we do have an office in West Hollywood if need be, so we are flexible. David Markevitch is the lawyer you’d mostly train under and work with, also I will also work closely with this lawyer. We have staff to support this position. David works from Santa Clara most of the time, though he is also in So Cal a lot. Location is less relevant than knowledge, desire, and a personality that works well with others (i.e., “you played team sports!” as one great lawyer friend of mine, George Terterian, always says…) Here’s a summary of the position: Litigation Attorney (5–10 Years Experience) West Hollywood    Santa Clara   South Bay    San Diego Robinson Markevitch & Parker LLP is a trial-focused plaintiff law firm handling complex personal injury, wrongful death, premises liability, and civil justice cases, class actions, business law, employment, medical negligence, etc. We are seeking an experienced litigation attorney to join our growing team—someone who understands the full lifecycle of a case and takes pride in high-quality written and courtroom work. The Role The attorney will play a central role in active litigation matters from early discovery through trial preparation. This is not a “paper-pushing” position. You will be expected to think strategically, write persuasively, and collaborate closely with trial lawyers and staff. Key Responsibilities Draft and respond to written discovery, including Special Interrogatories, Requests for Production, and Requests for Admission Conduct meet-and-confer efforts with opposing counsel and prepare Motions to Compel when necessary Draft law-and-motion papers, including discovery motions, oppositions, replies, and trial-related motions Assist with depositions (preparation, outlines, exhibits, and follow-up) Participate in trial preparation, including witness preparation, exhibit organization, jury instructions, and trial briefs Maintain strong command of California court rules, the Code of Civil Procedure, and litigation deadlines Work collaboratively with partners and help train and support paralegals and litigation staff Manage cases efficiently using firm systems; familiarity with CLIO or similar case-management platforms is a plus Qualifications 5–10 years of California civil litigation experience (plaintiff-side experience strongly preferred) Excellent legal writing and analytical skills Solid understanding of litigation flow from filing through trial Experience handling discovery disputes and law-and-motion practice independently Professional, collegial, and team-oriented approach to litigation Strong organizational skills and attention to detail Why RMP LLP We are building a modern, trial-ready plaintiff firm grounded in preparation, integrity, and teamwork. Attorneys here are trusted with real responsibility, supported by experienced partners, and given the opportunity to grow as litigators. If you want to do meaningful work, sharpen your trial skills, and be part of a firm that takes the craft of law seriously, we want to hear from you. Salary & benefits should be excellent, in line with talent you bring. This is a growth opportunity. We grow trial lawyers and future partners. If interested, contact David Markevitch directly. He’s at dm@robinsonmarkevitch.com and at (510) 685-0142. Joseph M. Barrett, Esq. Trial Lawyers for the People 845 Avenue B Redondo Beach, CA 90277 jmb@thebarrettlawyers.com Cell: (310) 944-5236 Fax: (310) 759-0566 www.TheBarrettLawyers.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it, may contain confidential information that is legally privileged and may be protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC §§ 2510-2521 .  It is intended solely for the recipient addressee listed above and may not be forwarded or sent to any other recipient in any form.  If you are not the intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately advise by replying to JMB@TheBarrettLawyers.com or by calling (310) 944-5236 and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving them in any manner. Thank you.

I have a list of the objections I always use and whenever anybody is new, I provide those to them. I think you have to put a list together of what you use and in what situations use them and train your staff.

"Joe Barrett" Date: December 05, 2025 1:46:00 PM Subject: objections in written discovery - best practices Reply to list Reply to sender Print I have merged my “PI firm” into the firm Robinson Markevitch Parker LLP and I will be working with new staff. I want to make sure we’re doing our work with excellence. Those who respond to discovery need to know what objections to make, what is valid. I have my own thoughts and approach to this but I wanted to hear from others. My goal is to have great systems in our group so I can focus on trials, depos, case architecture and other projects. So this is part of a system I am assessing. How do you figure out the right objections, how do you plug them in, any suggested lists, guides welcomed here. Joseph M. Barrett, Esq. Trial Lawyers for the People 845 Avenue B Redondo Beach, CA 90277 jmb@thebarrettlawyers.com Cell: (310) 944-5236 Fax: (310) 759-0566 www.TheBarrettLawyers.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it, may contain confidential information that is legally privileged and may be protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC §§ 2510-2521 .  It is intended solely for the recipient addressee listed above and may not be forwarded or sent to any other recipient in any form.  If you are not the intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately advise by replying to JMB@TheBarrettLawyers.com or by calling (310) 944-5236 and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving them in any manner. Thank you.

"Joann Attard-Helvig" Date: December 02, 2025 2:51:00 PM Subject: Re: San Jose chiro panel - Kelsi Smith- Nicolas Borovsky or Dana Robinson Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Joann Attard-Helvig Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Hi everyone, I received additional info on Borovsky. He is with Sharp Medical Evaluators and they tend to do a good job in general. If he ends up being the Panel doc, I'll follow up with more info. Thank you, Joanne Helvig -----Original Message----- From: maddogbab@aol.com Sent: November 14, 2025 1:22:00 PM To: lawnet@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Re: San Jose chiro panel - Kelsi Smith- Nicolas Borovsky or Dana Robinson All unknown to me. Mad Dog On Friday, November 14, 2025 at 11:15:41 AM PST, Joann Attard-Helvig (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> wrote: ' List: lawnet Sent By: Joann Attard-Helvig ' ' Reply To Sender ' Reply To List ' Search ' Settings ' Hi listmates, I received this Chiro panel of largely Unknown's. Someone had mentioned that Kelsi Smith gave them two good initial reports, but I don't see any mention of final reports. Does anyone have any experience with these doctors? Did anyone receive a final report from Dr. Smith yet? Thank you! Joanne Helvig

"China Robinson, Esq." Date: November 18, 2025 3:35:00 AM Subject: DHCS Estate Recovery Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: caala-workproduct Sent by: China Robinson, Esq. (Reply Privately) Search Greetings, Medi-Cal recipient died in Dec 2015 (Mom), survived by a disabled adult child (Son). SSA award letter re permanent disability dated 2008, Son died in 2021. DHCS was not formerly notified of the 2015 death of Mom until a probate was opened in 2024. Mom and Mom's sister were tenants in common of a condo where sister was still residing. Executor opened probate once the remaining sister died in 2024. DHCS filed a creditor's claim for over $100K in estate recovery in 2025, after receipt of notice of Mom's death. The executor's position is that the disabled child exemption should apply pursuant to Welfare & Institutions Code (WIC) sec 14009.5, which states that the exemption applies to a disabled child who survives the death of recipient. DHCS's position is that the child must be disabled as of date the claim was made. Ca Code of Regulations sec 50966(a) (CCR). Seeking authority to support WIC's "survive the death" and not when DHCS filed the claim as the triggering date for the disabled child exemption to vest in the disabled child to permanently bar DHCS's claim. Statute vs Reg; how likely to prevail considering its DHCS? Thank you. C. Robinson, Esq. 552 E. Carson Street, Suite 104-144 Carson, CA 90745 Tel: 323.828.9072 Email: crobinlistserve@gmail.com

"Brett A. Borah" Date: November 14, 2025 1:22:00 PM Subject: Re: San Jose chiro panel - Kelsi Smith- Nicolas Borovsky or Dana Robinson Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Brett A. Borah Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings All unknown to me. Mad Dog On Friday, November 14, 2025 at 11:15:41 AM PST, Joann Attard-Helvig (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> wrote: List: lawnet Sent By: Joann Attard-Helvig Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Hi listmates, I received this Chiro panel of largely Unknown's. Someone had mentioned that Kelsi Smith gave them two good initial reports, but I don't see any mention of final reports. Does anyone have any experience with these doctors? Did anyone receive a final report from Dr. Smith yet? Thank you! Joanne Helvig

"Joann Attard-Helvig" Date: November 14, 2025 1:16:00 PM Subject: San Jose chiro panel - Kelsi Smith- Nicolas Borovsky or Dana Robinson Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Joann Attard-Helvig Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings Hi listmates, I received this Chiro panel of largely Unknown's. Someone had mentioned that Kelsi Smith gave them two good initial reports, but I don't see any mention of final reports. Does anyone have any experience with these doctors? Did anyone receive a final report from Dr. Smith yet? Thank you! Joanne Helvig

"Joe Barrett" Date: November 07, 2025 1:41:00 PM Subject: Re: Designer consultant for logo, website, letterhead ideas...who's good, affordable.... Reply to list Reply to sender Print Michael, the idea of a merger was unique to my situation. I really prefer to be “talent” than “the boss.” I wanted to have a group to help me move the cases, try the cases I may not want to, help be the wind in my sails in many ways, as I have a goal to just do trials, consulting, case architecture, depos, briefing design, mediations, high level stuff maybe I am really good at, that sort of thing. I talked with some people about this earlier this year and got a lot of different feedback where I might want to be, with whom, etc. You can’t always get what you want, either, right? But to me, I have the freedom still to do trials with anyone, work on cases with anyone, call most of my shots, and the cases/firm I want to be, at some point, something I have less and less to do with as far as watching over it. The firm I am merging with, Robinson Markevitch Parker LLP, I have known two of the three partners for many years now and we click. We can make each other better. They understand my vision (or so I hope!) and endorse it, want to build and grow with me. It’s a comfortable fit. I felt it was important to do this also because I ran out of money to run the firm, to be blunt. It’s not cheap as we all know. I gave it a lot of thought and this seemed like the best path forward. So it’s in process. I had a few options, all were very interesting, and I do not close the door to working with other firms if it makes sense. I definitely thought of you because I have been impressed with you here, your business acumen ( which is not my strength at all…) – we should have a lunch or coffee and see if there’s a way to help each other if you’re interested. I’ll be “Of Counsel” with the RMP firm. I may choose to be Of Counsel with another firm or two, you never know. Most importantly, I retain a lot of independence, which is worth a lot to me. I still want a solid lawyer hired for our group, which we are exploring right now….who can keep us organized, “run” the litigation to a large extent, a great writer, someone who also has a desire to develop ASAP into a trial lawyer for the people to try cases. I can mentor, our group is talented, but we could use a good hub of the wheel – we had one but he eft during this transition. If anyone’s interested, please send me a summary of tour experience, what you’re looking for, and we can start that dialogue also! I’m pretty sure most lawyers I have worked with over the years would tell that person I’m not a bad guy to saddle up with in these wars we all fight together . . . Joseph M. Barrett, Esq. Trial Lawyers for the People 845 Avenue B Redondo Beach, CA 90277 jmb@thebarrettlawyers.com Cell: (310) 944-5236 Fax: (310) 759-0566 www.TheBarrettLawyers.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it, may contain confidential information that is legally privileged and may be protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC §§ 2510-2521 .  It is intended solely for the recipient addressee listed above and may not be forwarded or sent to any other recipient in any form.  If you are not the intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately advise by replying to JMB@TheBarrettLawyers.com or by calling (310) 944-5236 and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving them in any manner. Thank you. From: Michael Avanesian (caala-life listserver) <listsender-caala-life@lists.trialsmith.com> Sent: Friday, November 7, 2025 10:44 AM To: CAALA Life Discussion List <caala-life@lists.trialsmith.com> Subject: Re:[caala-life] Designer consultant for logo, website, letterhead ideas...who's good, affordable.... List: caala-life Sent by: Michael Avanesian (Reply Privately) Search I think from a design standpoint, this guy is the most creative person I know: Albert A albert@pencilpixel.com How did you go about picking what firm to merge with? I’d like to be a firm that other firms merge with 😊 Sincerely, www.avianlawgroup.com Michael Avanesian, Esq. Chief Executive Officer Licensed to practice in California Office: 818-282-8400 Fax: 818-688-5161 e: michael@avianlawgroup.com From: Joseph Barrett (caala-life listserver) < listsender-caala-life@lists.trialsmith.com > Sent: Friday, November 7, 2025 10:39 AM To: CAALA Life Discussion List < caala-life@lists.trialsmith.com > Subject: [caala-life] Designer consultant for logo, website, letterhead ideas...who's good, affordable.... List: caala-life Sent by: Joseph Barrett (Reply Privately) Search I’m merging my PI firm with another so I can focus more fully on trials and strategy, case architecture, writing, etc. and less on “running a small law practice business.” This leads us to the idea of discussing some design ideas for letterhead, website, etc. and we want to get some good advice. Who do you suggest is excellent? Joseph M. Barrett, Esq. Trial Lawyers for the People 845 Avenue B Redondo Beach, CA 90277 jmb@thebarrettlawyers.com Cell: (310) 944-5236 Fax: (310) 759-0566 www.TheBarrettLawyers.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it, may contain confidential information that is legally privileged and may be protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC §§ 2510-2521 .  It is intended solely for the recipient addressee listed above and may not be forwarded or sent to any other recipient in any form.  If you are not the intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately advise by replying to JMB@TheBarrettLawyers.com or by calling (310) 944-5236 and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving them in any manner. Thank you.

"Michael Cefali" Date: October 30, 2025 1:07:00 PM Subject: Re[2]: Def Expert Sent Me EDR Data and Impressions Reply to list Reply to sender Print I’ve already deleted the email and its contents to be safe and confirmed with OPC. But if the email is from the expert to the attorney, with no attorney impressions or response (not attorney strategy and distinguishable from Rico), and only EDR data and photos, I’m for sure getting all of that in expert discovery later down the line. How does the timing of the disclosure convert it into privileged materials? Very respectfully, Michael J. Cefali, Esq. Partner Cefali & Cefali, APC o. (+1) 949-325-7790 f. (+1) 949-203-3332 e. mike@callcefali.com w. www.callcefali.com a. 27136 Paseo Espada, Ste 1123, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6(b), please serve all documents on our office electronically at the following email address: litigation@callcefali.com . This message may contain information that is privileged confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not an intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify us immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Therefore we do not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version. ------ Original Message ------ From "Michael Avanesian (caala-workproduct listserver)" < listsender-caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com > To "CAALA Work Product Discussion List" < caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com > Date 10/30/2025 10:53:14 AM Subject Re: [caala-workproduct] Def Expert Sent Me EDR Data and Impressions List: caala-workproduct Sent by: Michael Avanesian (Reply Privately) Search I’m saving this email 😊 Sincerely, www.avianlawgroup.com Michael Avanesian, Esq. Chief Executive Officer Licensed to practice in California Office: 818-282-8400 Fax: 818-688-5161 e: michael@avianlawgroup.com From: Howard Blumenthal (caala-workproduct listserver) <listsender-caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2025 10:06 AM To: CAALA Work Product Discussion List <caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com> Subject: Re: [caala-workproduct] Def Expert Sent Me EDR Data and Impressions List: caala-workproduct Sent by: Howard Blumenthal (Reply Privately) Search Its a rare today when i agree with both david and michael on an issue but today is that day ​ ​ ​ ​ Howard Blumenthal Managing Attorney 16001 Ventura Blvd., Suite 200 ​Encino, CA 91436 Phone: 833.ACTS LAW (833.228.7529) Fax: 424.288.4368 hblumenthal@actslaw.com www.actslaw.com This E‑mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510‑2521 and is legally privileged. This info is confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, Distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please immediately notify Abir Cohen Treyzon Salo, LLP and destroy the message. From: David Hoffman (caala-workproduct listserver) < listsender-caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com > Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2025 9:55:18 AM To: CAALA Work Product Discussion List < caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com > Subject: Re: [caala-workproduct] Def Expert Sent Me EDR Data and Impressions List: caala-workproduct Sent by: David Hoffman (Reply Privately) Search June Lockhart fans would appreciate, “Warning Will Robinson, Warning!” Keep that data? The Court will know you culled the file when they source the EDR data. Good luck with that. A DQ motion is a skeleton in the closet that is completely avoidable. Why would anyone smear their own reputation? Unless parable of the scorpion is in play. But I digress. We need to advocate ethically, not opportunistically. Our bar suffers from a reputation of lowball players, now especially and with a freaking fee initiative on the line for auto lawyers, and this kind of stuff only emphasizes it. Get the data from the other side, make a deal, but do not keep expert stuff that was sent inadvertently. It’s going to make you look ugly at counsel’s table arguing the DQ Submitted. David Hoffman, Esq., CSB 140557 dhoffman@hoffmanlawcorp.com Law Offices of David Hoffman, A P.C. 21900 Burbank Blvd., Suite 300 Woodland Hills, CA 91367-7418 V: (310)286-1000 (818)346-3001 C: (310)850-0233 F : (818)346-3011 Please Note Our New Address This email and any attachment(s) is intended solely for designated recipient(s) for the purpose of communicating sensitive, private and privileged information that may be shielded by the attorney-client and attorney work product privileges. If you received this in error, I regret it. Please write, “Error” in the subject line and once you press send/reply, please delete the entire email with our thanks. DH STRONG SUPPORTER OF THE CHP11-99 FOUNDATION, CAALA, CAOC, AAJ, THE UCLA BRUINS, WORLD CHAMPION NY YANKEES, DALLAS COWBOYS AND PLEASE “SHARE THE ROAD!” From: Shawn Elliott (caala-workproduct listserver) < listsender-caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com > Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2025 9:35 AM To: CAALA Work Product Discussion List < caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com > Subject: Re: [caala-workproduct] Def Expert Sent Me EDR Data and Impressions List: caala-workproduct Sent by: Shawn Elliott (Reply Privately) Search I beg to differ, a little.  The EDR download is objective ESI which is clearly discoverable.  Same can be argued re the photos.  I would ask DC to agree to allow you to hold on to the photos and download, and return the expert's impressions absent clear evidence that DC intended to waive attorney-work product by producing it to you in the first place. Shawn Elliott, Esq. Partner at Lyfe Law formerly known as Century Park Law Group • T. 888.203.1422 • Direct. 310.492.7005 • F. 888.203.1424 • ShawnE@lyfe.com • 864 S. Robertson Blvd., 3rd Fl., Los Angeles, CA 90035 • 18321 Ventura Boulevard, Ste 711, Tarzana, CA, 91356 • www.lyfe.com This message contains information that may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you are prohibited from using, copying or disclosing, to anyone, this message or any information contained in this message. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender immediately at (888) 203-1422 and delete all copies of this message. On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 9:24 AM David Hoffman (caala-workproduct listserver) < listsender-caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com > wrote: List: caala-workproduct Sent by: David Hoffman (Reply Privately) Search I’m going to chime in and underscore what Michael just wrote. I’ll add a citation for good measure. Rico v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp. (2007) 42 Cal. 4 th 807 ( DQ plaintiff lawyer for not burning/returning expert folder he acquired) David Hoffman, Esq., CSB 140557 dhoffman@hoffmanlawcorp.com Law Offices of David Hoffman, A P.C. 21900 Burbank Blvd., Suite 300 Woodland Hills, CA 91367-7418 V: (310)286-1000 (818)346-3001 C: (310)850-0233 F : (818)346-3011 Please Note Our New Address This email and any attachment(s) is intended solely for designated recipient(s) for the purpose of communicating sensitive, private and privileged information that may be shielded by the attorney-client and attorney work product privileges. If you received this in error, I regret it. Please write, “Error” in the subject line and once you press send/reply, please delete the entire email with our thanks. DH STRONG SUPPORTER OF THE CHP11-99 FOUNDATION, CAALA, CAOC, AAJ, THE UCLA BRUINS, WORLD CHAMPION NY YANKEES, DALLAS COWBOYS AND PLEASE “SHARE THE ROAD!” From: Michael Avanesian (caala-workproduct listserver) < listsender-caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com > Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2025 9:08 AM To: CAALA Work Product Discussion List < caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com > Subject: Re: [caala-workproduct] Def Expert Sent Me EDR Data and Impressions List: caala-workproduct Sent by: Michael Avanesian (Reply Privately) Search Delete the data and get it yourself is the right thing to do. Sincerely, www.avianlawgroup.com Michael Avanesian, Esq. Chief Executive Officer Licensed to practice in California Office: 818-282-8400 Fax: 818-688-5161 e: michael@avianlawgroup.com From: Michael Cefali (caala-workproduct listserver) < listsender-caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com > Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2025 8:55 AM To: CAALA Work Product Discussion List < caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com > Subject: [caala-workproduct] Def Expert Sent Me EDR Data and Impressions List: caala-workproduct Sent by: Michael Cefali (Reply Privately) Search Mercury’s goofy expert sent me the EDR Data for both D and P vehicles, some photos, as well as some of his impressions. Now Del Junco is telling me to delete the EDR Data since the email was sent in error. I’m inclined to keep it and give it to my expert and save an inspection. What do I do? Very respectfully, Michael J. Cefali, Esq. Partner Cefali & Cefali, APC o. (+1) 949-325-7790 f. (+1) 949-203-3332 e. mike@callcefali.com w. www.callcefali.com a. 27136 Paseo Espada, Ste 1123, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6(b), please serve all documents on our office electronically at the following email address: litigation@callcefali.com . This message may contain information that is privileged confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not an intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify us immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Therefore we do not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.

"Michael Avanesian" Date: October 30, 2025 12:54:00 PM Subject: Re: Def Expert Sent Me EDR Data and Impressions Reply to list Reply to sender Print I’m saving this email 😊 Sincerely, www.avianlawgroup.com Michael Avanesian, Esq. Chief Executive Officer Licensed to practice in California Office: 818-282-8400 Fax: 818-688-5161 e: michael@avianlawgroup.com From: Howard Blumenthal (caala-workproduct listserver) <listsender-caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2025 10:06 AM To: CAALA Work Product Discussion List <caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com> Subject: Re: [caala-workproduct] Def Expert Sent Me EDR Data and Impressions List: caala-workproduct Sent by: Howard Blumenthal (Reply Privately) Search Its a rare today when i agree with both david and michael on an issue but today is that day ​ ​ ​ ​ Howard Blumenthal Managing Attorney 16001 Ventura Blvd., Suite 200 ​Encino, CA 91436 Phone: 833.ACTS LAW (833.228.7529) Fax: 424.288.4368 hblumenthal@actslaw.com www.actslaw.com This E‑mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510‑2521 and is legally privileged. This info is confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, Distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please immediately notify Abir Cohen Treyzon Salo, LLP and destroy the message. From: David Hoffman (caala-workproduct listserver) < listsender-caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com > Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2025 9:55:18 AM To: CAALA Work Product Discussion List < caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com > Subject: Re: [caala-workproduct] Def Expert Sent Me EDR Data and Impressions List: caala-workproduct Sent by: David Hoffman (Reply Privately) Search June Lockhart fans would appreciate, “Warning Will Robinson, Warning!” Keep that data? The Court will know you culled the file when they source the EDR data. Good luck with that. A DQ motion is a skeleton in the closet that is completely avoidable. Why would anyone smear their own reputation? Unless parable of the scorpion is in play. But I digress. We need to advocate ethically, not opportunistically. Our bar suffers from a reputation of lowball players, now especially and with a freaking fee initiative on the line for auto lawyers, and this kind of stuff only emphasizes it. Get the data from the other side, make a deal, but do not keep expert stuff that was sent inadvertently. It’s going to make you look ugly at counsel’s table arguing the DQ Submitted. David Hoffman, Esq., CSB 140557 dhoffman@hoffmanlawcorp.com Law Offices of David Hoffman, A P.C. 21900 Burbank Blvd., Suite 300 Woodland Hills, CA 91367-7418 V: (310)286-1000 (818)346-3001 C: (310)850-0233 F : (818)346-3011 Please Note Our New Address This email and any attachment(s) is intended solely for designated recipient(s) for the purpose of communicating sensitive, private and privileged information that may be shielded by the attorney-client and attorney work product privileges. If you received this in error, I regret it. Please write, “Error” in the subject line and once you press send/reply, please delete the entire email with our thanks. DH STRONG SUPPORTER OF THE CHP11-99 FOUNDATION, CAALA, CAOC, AAJ, THE UCLA BRUINS, WORLD CHAMPION NY YANKEES, DALLAS COWBOYS AND PLEASE “SHARE THE ROAD!” From: Shawn Elliott (caala-workproduct listserver) < listsender-caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com > Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2025 9:35 AM To: CAALA Work Product Discussion List < caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com > Subject: Re: [caala-workproduct] Def Expert Sent Me EDR Data and Impressions List: caala-workproduct Sent by: Shawn Elliott (Reply Privately) Search I beg to differ, a little.  The EDR download is objective ESI which is clearly discoverable.  Same can be argued re the photos.  I would ask DC to agree to allow you to hold on to the photos and download, and return the expert's impressions absent clear evidence that DC intended to waive attorney-work product by producing it to you in the first place. Shawn Elliott, Esq. Partner at Lyfe Law formerly known as Century Park Law Group • T. 888.203.1422 • Direct. 310.492.7005 • F. 888.203.1424 • ShawnE@lyfe.com • 864 S. Robertson Blvd., 3rd Fl., Los Angeles, CA 90035 • 18321 Ventura Boulevard, Ste 711, Tarzana, CA, 91356 • www.lyfe.com This message contains information that may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you are prohibited from using, copying or disclosing, to anyone, this message or any information contained in this message. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender immediately at (888) 203-1422 and delete all copies of this message. On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 9:24 AM David Hoffman (caala-workproduct listserver) < listsender-caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com > wrote: List: caala-workproduct Sent by: David Hoffman (Reply Privately) Search I’m going to chime in and underscore what Michael just wrote. I’ll add a citation for good measure. Rico v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp. (2007) 42 Cal. 4 th 807 ( DQ plaintiff lawyer for not burning/returning expert folder he acquired) David Hoffman, Esq., CSB 140557 dhoffman@hoffmanlawcorp.com Law Offices of David Hoffman, A P.C. 21900 Burbank Blvd., Suite 300 Woodland Hills, CA 91367-7418 V: (310)286-1000 (818)346-3001 C: (310)850-0233 F : (818)346-3011 Please Note Our New Address This email and any attachment(s) is intended solely for designated recipient(s) for the purpose of communicating sensitive, private and privileged information that may be shielded by the attorney-client and attorney work product privileges. If you received this in error, I regret it. Please write, “Error” in the subject line and once you press send/reply, please delete the entire email with our thanks. DH STRONG SUPPORTER OF THE CHP11-99 FOUNDATION, CAALA, CAOC, AAJ, THE UCLA BRUINS, WORLD CHAMPION NY YANKEES, DALLAS COWBOYS AND PLEASE “SHARE THE ROAD!” From: Michael Avanesian (caala-workproduct listserver) < listsender-caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com > Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2025 9:08 AM To: CAALA Work Product Discussion List < caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com > Subject: Re: [caala-workproduct] Def Expert Sent Me EDR Data and Impressions List: caala-workproduct Sent by: Michael Avanesian (Reply Privately) Search Delete the data and get it yourself is the right thing to do. Sincerely, www.avianlawgroup.com Michael Avanesian, Esq. Chief Executive Officer Licensed to practice in California Office: 818-282-8400 Fax: 818-688-5161 e: michael@avianlawgroup.com From: Michael Cefali (caala-workproduct listserver) < listsender-caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com > Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2025 8:55 AM To: CAALA Work Product Discussion List < caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com > Subject: [caala-workproduct] Def Expert Sent Me EDR Data and Impressions List: caala-workproduct Sent by: Michael Cefali (Reply Privately) Search Mercury’s goofy expert sent me the EDR Data for both D and P vehicles, some photos, as well as some of his impressions. Now Del Junco is telling me to delete the EDR Data since the email was sent in error. I’m inclined to keep it and give it to my expert and save an inspection. What do I do? Very respectfully, Michael J. Cefali, Esq. Partner Cefali & Cefali, APC o. (+1) 949-325-7790 f. (+1) 949-203-3332 e. mike@callcefali.com w. www.callcefali.com a. 27136 Paseo Espada, Ste 1123, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6(b), please serve all documents on our office electronically at the following email address: litigation@callcefali.com . This message may contain information that is privileged confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not an intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify us immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Therefore we do not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.

"David deRubertis" Date: October 22, 2025 11:34:00 AM Subject: Trial Recap: $6 million gender harassment verdict against CSU San Bernardino Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: caala-workproduct Sent by: David deRubertis (Reply Privately) Search Listmates: Posting with permission a wonderful trial recap of my amazing co-counsel Courtney Abrams on the $6 million verdict that Courtney, Andrew Friedman and I got on Monday in a gender harassment, constructive term, failure to prevent, retaliation verdict against California State University San Bernardino in DTLA before Judge Leiter. I’ll fill in some additional thoughts hopefully later today or tomorrow but wanted to share Courtney’s write-up. Hi all, David deRubertis, Andrew Friedman and I are so proud to report that on October 20 th , a DTLA jury awarded our beloved client, Dr. Anissa Rogers, $6 million in noneconomic damages against CSU for gender-based harassment, constructive discharge, retaliation, and failure to prevent harassment ($3 million in past non-economic damages and $3 million in future non-economic damages). While I was really looking forward to David’s write up, he told me I should have “the honors.” Andrew and I had never worked with David before, and I will start our story by noting that this is the type of thing that is a testament to David’s humility and professionalism.  To say that it felt like the “dream team,” is an understatement.  As many of you know, I have worked with Andrew for years. Watching his brilliance up close, and especially during this litigation, has been deeply formative for me. For years, David, Andrew and I worked in lockstep, with a total lack of ego in pursuit of victory for Anissa. It’s how it always should be. Background: CSU operates a Palm Desert Campus (PDC) as part of CSU San Bernardino. In summer 2019, CSU hired Jake Zhu as Dean of the PDC after he had worked at CSU San Bernardino for 17 years as a faculty member, department chair, and associate dean. At the same time, CSU conducted a national search for an Associate Dean position at PDC. In August 2019, CSU hired Anissa, who had spent 20 years as a faculty member at the University of Portland but had hit a glass ceiling for administrative roles.  Anissa’s son was in elementary school at the time, and her daughter was just finishing high school, so Anissa and her husband made the wrenching decision to split up the family – Anissa and her son would move to Palm Desert and her husband, and their daughter would remain in Portland until her daughter graduated. I think it’s fair to say that David, Andrew and I have never met anyone like Anissa.  She is brilliant, calm and compelling. She also has a very tragic history of abuse, and advocacy for women, which CSU did not hesitate to use against her at trial. It was painful. It brought tears to my eyes more than once. Very quickly after starting at CSU, Anissa became a target of her supervisor, Dean Jake Zhu – who had told her during the interview process that he preferred a male candidate.  It was also obvious to Anissa that he was doing the same thing to many women on campus, including his Executive Assistant, Kathryn Robinson who had served three prior deans. Zhu would scream at women and interrupt them constantly.  He told Anissa and her female colleagues that they were “too emotional,” and “too sensitive.”  He told female employees with childcare obligations that “careers weren’t freight trains you could jump on and off of.”  He told a female employee that she could only be promoted once she was “done being a mother,” and her “kids were grown.” He publicly bragged about making female staff members cry. At some point, Anissa began using male surrogates to make the points at staff meetings that Zhu angrily rejected when she suggested them.  Zhu never rejected Anissa’s ideas when they came from her male co-workers. Anissa’s CV is flawless and by the accounts of over ten witnesses (many of whom signed declarations), Anissa quickly became an adored co-worker. Numerous witnesses described her as the most competent person on the campus. She is a social worker. She has a master’s degree in social work. She has a Ph.D. She has written three textbooks (one of which is in its 6 th edition). She has published extensively on gender studies and social work. Despite all of her accomplishments and the fact that she was the 2 nd highest ranking employee on campus, Zhu constantly treated Anissa like his administrative assistant, assigning her the most menial of tasks.  He directed her to make “baby photo montages” which included photos of staff members’ babies.  He directed her to get “snacks” for meetings, take notes, get hotel quotes, “figure out childcare” for women on campus, plan parties, get party supplies.  The list goes on.  When employees tried complaining, Zhu dismissed it by saying that he couldn’t have engaged in gender discrimination because “In China, we have a saying – women hold up half the sky.” Initially, Anissa’s office was next to Dean Zhu’s, but the environment became so intolerable that by December 2019 she was already trying to move her office away from him to a different building. The Crescendo of Reports: From May through October 2021, Anissa escalated her complaints about gender-based harassment: May 13, 2021 : Anissa met with Provost Shari McMahan and reported the gender mistreatment. McMahan, who is the second highest ranking person at CSUSB, told Anissa that she wasn’t surprised, said she had witnessed Zhu's behavior herself, that he even interrupted her, and told Anissa “that’s just the culture here.” The number two person at CSUSB essentially told Anissa she couldn't help. June 23, 2021 and August 16, 2021 : Anissa complains directly to Zhu about his treatment of women. October 25, 2021 : Anissa became aware of a meeting in which Zhu allowed male employees to scream at a female employee for over 30 minutes.  That female employee – who later recanted her version at trial – texted Anissa from the meeting, calling the men “motherfuckers,” and said they were over there “trying to tell her how to do her job.”  Anissa complained to Zhu that he needed “to disrupt the sexism” on campus. The Retaliation: On that same day, October 25, 2021, Zhu sent Anissa an email berating her for missing campus events—events that occurred on days he had explicitly approved her vacation . Zhu’s executive assistant, Kathryn Robinson, testified she had access to Zhu’s calendar and knew these were approved vacation days. But when Anissa pushed back and showed the approvals, Robinson checked the calendar again and discovered that Zhu had deleted the Outlook entries showing he had approved the time off. He deleted the evidence. October 27, 2021 : Anissa met again with Provost McMahan and reported the issues. Anissa also contacted HR about potentially retreating to a faculty position, but decided against it and told HR if there was any chance Zhu would resign, she would stay. October 27, 2021 : Anissa reported the gender harassment to Jolene Koester, a leadership coach/consultant (who was previously President of CSUN and who would later become interim Chancellor of the entire CSU system). McMahan hired Koester because she though Zhu had “leadership issues.” The Black Hole of Complaints: The evidence at trial showed a disturbing pattern—CSU’s HR and Title IX functioned as what David called a “black hole” where gender harassment complaints disappeared without investigation: Two male employees both testified they reported the harassment to Provost McMahan in fall 2019 or early 2020—more than a year before Anissa resigned. Nothing done. Zhu’s female “Dean’s Fellow,” reported to both Dean Zhu and later to Rafik Mohamed (a Dean at the San Bernardino campus). Nothing done. PDC’s designated reporter (Jack Macfarlane) testified he forwarded gender harassment complaints about Zhu to HR two to three times. No follow-up, no investigation. Multiple people reported the harassment to Jolene Koester. Despite later becoming interim Chancellor, she did nothing. The evidence showed there was even a 2015 climate survey at CSU San Bernardino showing gender issues, faculty senate presentations in 2016, and a vote of no confidence against CSUSB’s president, Tomas Morales, in 2017—all warning signs that CSU ignored. The constructive termination: In November 2021, Anissa heard rumors that she was being sent back to faculty (fired from her Associate Dean position). When she reached out to Rafik Mohamed (then Dean of College of Social and Behavioral Sciences), he told her that “Jake would not be the first to go.”  Anissa then reached out to McMahan (Provost and 2 nd highest ranking employee at CSUSB).  McMahan told her that she could either resign or be fired. In late November 2021, Anissa submitted her retreat plan and resignation letter from the Associate Dean position, planning to return to a faculty role. Her last day as Associate Dean was approximately January 2022. In August 2023, Anissa accepted a position of Chair of the Master’s in Social Work program at Pacific Lutheran University in Tacoma, Washington. The September 20, 2022 meeting: On September 9, 2022, just months before we filed the case, the entire faculty at PDC sent a letter to the new Provost (Rafik Mohamed who was previously Dean), reporting Zhu’s gender harassment.  On September 20, 2022, the faculty again reported the same to Dr. Mohamed and a witness named Kevin Grisham, who was then serving as Associate Provost of Academic Affairs, at an off-campus meeting. While Dr. Grisham reported this to CSU’s Title IX department (which did nothing), Dr. Mohamed and President Morales did not. Dr. Mohamed actually had the audacity to testify that the gender harassment reported was " low grade bias ." In true CSU fashion, they allowed Zhu to “retire” and retreat to faculty, in violation of a CSU policy which prohibited this. Anissa’s emotional distress: Numerous colleagues testified that Anissa had become painfully thin due to Zhu’s harassment.  They described her with “sunken eyes,” and someone who just “shrank,” in the face of Zhu’s tirades, which many witnessed described as “rampant.”  Anissa suffered from eczema and she described how her feet cracked and bled due to the stress. The blood would often soak her socks.  She developed IBS and began seeing a therapist, despite not having been in therapy for over 10 years. We were able to play the deposition of Deirdre Lanesskog, Zhu’s “Dean’s Fellow” at trial and it perfectly encapsulated Anissa and her distress: Q And did Dr. Rogers ever tell you why she had accepted a position at a different university and was going to be resigning? A I don't think Dr. Rogers would have had to tell me or I would have had to ask. Q Okay. So she did not tell you why? A I was pretty sure I knew why. The experience that she -- I mean, I knew that the experience she went through was horrible. I knew that she -- I knew that she had suffered terribly. I knew that -- that the treatment that she endured and that her demotion and being sent back to the faculty had been incredibly damaging to her professionally, financially, emotionally. I knew. I knew all that. I worked with her that whole time. I saw it. It was incredibly stressful, it was terrible and I, frankly, was surprised she made it that long, continued at the university that long and did so in such a phenomenal manner. She -- the students loved her. Like, we -- I loved working with her. She was a tremendous asset to our School of Social Work and to the PDC campus and I was so sorry to see her go, but I was not surprised and I didn't need an explanation. Notably, both experts (Dr. Reading on our side and Dr. Vincent Filoteo on the defense) agreed that Anissa continued to suffer from Adjustment Disorder years later. Dr. Reading explained that Anissa had overcome significant childhood trauma and adverse childhood experiences. Her career and work were protective of her mental health and central to her identity and self-worth. The harassment and forced resignation destroyed that. Even CSU’s expert agreed the workplace events caused ongoing harm. The litigation and Anissa’s co-plaintiff, Dr. Clare Weber: Initially, we were only retained by Dr. Clare Weber (the Vice Provost at CSUSB) who was similarly suffering from gender-based harassment from the President of CSUSB, and who had a very strong equal pay case.  Anissa came to us as a witness who we ultimately added to the case.  In January 2025, CSU moved to have Clare’s case tried separately. While we fought it, given Judge Leiter’s strict time limits (16 hours a side), it was a blessing in disguise. We researched this case extensively prior to filing and I spoke to dozens of witnesses. Really early on, we were able to lock in critical testimony from key favorable witnesses, all of whom provided powerful corroboration of the gender-based harassment and CSU's failure to act.  It became really clear, really fast that Anissa and Clare’s colleagues were highly motivated to help.  By the time of trial, we had 16 declarations and many of them were obtained prior to filing the lawsuit. These witnesses weren’t just motivated, however. These were brilliant, awesome professors and staff – many with multiple advanced degrees. When I worked with them to obtain their declarations, I felt like I was working on an essay with a college professor (who was far smarter than me). One of the most critical witnesses was Shari McMahan – the Provost to whom Anissa had complained about Zhu. By the time the clients retained us, McMahan had left CSU.  She finally returned my phone calls late one Friday night in February 2023. After I got off the phone with her, she sent me a key piece of documentary evidence that CSU withheld – a memo from her to President Morales complaining extensively about sexism and telling him, “ Institutional liability is being brought on by the hostile, toxic workplace we are in. When I arrived five years ago it was you who received the vote of no confidence. I took on the role of Provost to help you fix the climate. I took great pride in partnering with you. Unfortunately, I can’t break the cycle of toxicity alone .” Prior to filing the case in March 2023, we broached prelitigation settlement discussions/mediation with CSU but it had no interest in exploring any type of prelitigation settlement possibilities. We filed the lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court.  We then successfully opposed CSU’s baseless Motion to Transfer Venue.  We deposed some 15 non-expert witnesses over the course of some 30 days of deposition and we additionally defended the depositions of our client and almost every single declarant (many of whom retained us to represent them at deposition). CSU was represented by Michael Healy (initially at Lagasse Branch Bell & Kinkead, and then he moved to Higgs Fletcher & Mack) out of San Diego. CSU also made low-ball offers at two mediations – one with Lynn Frank and the other with Ann Kotlarski. Prior to trial, CSU made a 998 offer in the amount of $1.1 Million plus attorneys’ fees/costs to be determined by the Court. We rejected the 998 and did not counter. The trial: CSU filed 17 MILs.  We filed none. Judge Leiter was fair on the MILs and we got in the campus climate survey from 2015, and the no confidence vote in President Morales in 2017. The jury: During jury deliberations, defense counsel told us that his focus groups all showed CSU prevailing and his jury consultant told him that CSU had a “near perfect” jury after two jurors were replaced during trial (one because she confessed the day after being sworn in that she was biased in our favor and likely couldn’t set that bias aside and the other was hit by a bike and hospitalized).  Judge Leiter did not allow many jurors off due to financial hardship.  After jury selection, we were all pretty depressed.  The silver lining was that we had several female jurors who looked increasingly disgusted throughout the case, one of whom was an attorney who had majored in gender studies in college. Framing the case—The “Culture” Problem: An important framing decision was emphasizing CSU’s systemic failure. This wasn’t just about one bad dean. This was about an institution that: Ignored a 2015 climate survey showing problems with gender discrimination Ignored faculty senate presentations in 2016 about gender discrimination Ignored a 2017 vote of no confidence in President Morales, calling him out for “dishonesty,” and citing to the 2015 climate survey. Created an HR and Title IX “black hole” where complaints disappeared Had the #2 person in the university (Provost McMahan) tell Anissa “that's just the culture here. Let multiple people report the same issues over years with zero action In his opening statement, David called CSU the “black hole in which complaints fall and disappear,” and the evidence bore that out completely. The witnesses: We began the case with testimony from the men.  Was this offensive to us on every level? Yes. Was it necessary with this jury? Absolutely. One of the male witnesses was a Harley Davidson riding, former Navy veteran for decades. The other had been at CSU for 4 decades. The testimony from Zhu’s executive assistant, Kathryn Robinson's testimony was particularly devastating. This woman had worked honorably for three deans and now works at University of Georgia’s military college.  When she testified that Zhu had deleted calendar entries for Anissa’s vacation time and used that as a basis to criticize her, the jury looked shocked. The defense’s attacks on her credibility backfired badly. She was central casting for a competent, amazing executive assistant. Provost McMahan's testimony that she told Anissa “that's just the culture here” felt like a critical moment and we almost did not get it in (Andrew wrote an awesome Offer of Proof about why it was critical to Anissa’s constructive term claim). It showed institutional acceptance of the harassment and explained why Anissa had no reasonable choice but to resign. Jury selection: Hardship screening took significant time. We focused our questions on attitudes about workplace harassment, gender equality in the workplace, and damages valuation. We wanted jurors who understood that mental and emotional harm is real harm deserving of fair compensation. Defense tactics: CSU’s arguments were as follows: · Anissa was a “Feminazi:” At every turn, CSU tried to paint Anissa as an angry woman who was motivated by her own gender animus.  They gleefully played her depo where she testified, “who talks like that? Men do” (Courtney aside: but, um, is she wrong?).  Anissa’s testimony during trial could not have been farther from this caricature. She was magnificent and the jury was rapt. · Anissa’s Bias Against Zhu : CSU emphasized that Anissa had concluded that Zhu was “an outrageous sexist” in less than one hour during their first interview (Courtney aside: I think all women reading this probably know in a fraction of that time that we are dealing with sexism). CSU argued Anissa had pre-judged Zhu and viewed everything through that lens, particularly given her 20 years of fighting sexism at the University of Portland. In their closing, the defense tried to humanize Zhu. They said, “He's got a story. He’s got a history. He's a complicated, complex person just like I am, just like you are. He doesn't deserve to be summed up in an hour. The black and white depiction and view of the world is unfair, and I think it's unrealistic.” · Anissa’s past trauma: CSU argued that Anissa was abused as a child, her sister died by suicide, her mom was a drug addict and she was experiencing emotional distress from that, not from Zhu’s harassment. · Just two co-workers who didn’t get along: Anissa and Jake Zhu could not work together – it was not a gender issue, it was two co-workers who couldn’t get along. · Culture clash, not gender discrimination : Jake Zhu’s harassment was actually just cultural naivete, and he was misunderstood because there was a language barrier. · No Gender-Based Harassment Occurred: Anissa took tons of notes, and very few mentioned harassment (these notes were actually just Anissa’s notes from meetings she attended and not a diary). · Credible witnesses support Zhu: The defense put on several witnesses who supported Zhu, including one female witness who had previously complained, in writing, to our client, about Zhu’s gender-based mistreatment. Defense counsel tried the “no economic damages” anchor approach, suggesting if the jury found liability, they should award something like 1.5 years of salary (approximately $450,000). It was a bizarre number with no rationale. They argued Anissa's 29 months at CSU couldn’t cause the harm we claimed. But both experts—including their own—agreed the workplace events caused ongoing psychiatric disorders requiring years of treatment. David destroyed CSU in his closing and then rebuttal to CSU’s closing. CSU’s argument about damages meant a janitor’s emotional distress was less important than a CEO’s.  The jury appeared moved by that argument. The defense also tried to use Anissa’s prior experiences with discrimination at University of Portland against her, suggesting she was an “over-complainer.”  We did not love this evidence and we argued it was inadmissible because it was being introduced to show propensity.  Judge Leiter did not agree. We won on every claim – hostile work environment harassment, failure to prevent, constructive discharge, and retaliation. Our damages ask was $29.1 million. The jury awarded us $3 Million in past emotional distress and $3 Million in future economic damages for a total of $6 Million – or approximately 20% of our ask. Unprompted, several of the jurors asked us after the trial why we weren’t seeking punitive damages. Many jurors told us that CSU’s main witnesses had major credibility issues.  Unfortunately for CSU, these same witnesses are central to Dr. Weber’s case which will be tried in the spring.  We cannot wait!! We are so proud of this verdict. I have had so many women from CSU reach out to me and tell me it was deeply vindicating. On a personal level, in today's oppressive culture, it has been incredibly emotional. As the female lawyer on our jury told us after the case was over: "wow, sometimes there is justice." Courtney Abrams, PC (310) 601-4448 2006 N. Sepulveda Blvd, No. 625 | Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 courtney@courtneyabramslaw.com | www.courtneyabramslaw.com ________________________________________________ David M. deRubertis | Founder & Lead Trial Lawyer The deRubertis Law Firm, APC 8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Second Floor Beverly Hills, California 90211 Telephone: (818) 761-2322 Facsimile: (818) 761-2323 E-mail: David@deRubertisLaw.com "Imagine if the government took David's sling away and gave it to Goliath.  Now you understand tort reform." NOTICE:  This email is intended solely for the named recipient or the recipient's agent, and may contain legally privileged information.  If you are not the named or intended recipient, please do not copy, disclose or disseminate this email or its contents, and please contact the sender as soon as possible.  Thank you for your cooperation.

"Craig Morrison" Date: September 26, 2025 11:33:00 AM Subject: NO CAL: Chiro Panel QME docs: Dana M. Robinson or Eric G. Isero? Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Craig W. Morrison Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings NO CAL: Any thoughts or recent experiences with either of the following two Chiro QMEs: ERIC G. ISERO, DC.  Evaluating office in Hayward. One review in the Archives is not favorable. Appear to have a treating office in San Mateo. His website says he “has taught safety at  major corporations throughout the San Francisco Bay Area”. DANA M ROBINSON, DC.  Evaluating office in Hayward.  No mention in the Archives. Has an actual practice in Redwood City. Thanks! /// Craig W. Morrison, Esq. PLEASE NOTE OUR NEW MAILING ADDRESS EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY: P.O. BOX 70950 POINT RICHMOND, CA 94807 ALL OTHER CONTACT INFORMATION REMAINS THE SAME: EMAIL: CRAIG@MORRISONLAW.NET PHONE: (415) 445-9092 FACSIMILE: (415) 445-9093 DIRECT TEXT: (925) 8990-6332 WEBSITE: https://www.morrison.law

"Justin Wilmers" Date: May 30, 2025 11:49:00 AM Subject: Re: Madrigal v. Hyundai Motor America and How to Weaponize the Case in the UM Arbitration Setting - Game Changer Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: caala-workproduct Sent by: Justin Wilmers (Reply Privately) Search Great update! Thanks Kieran "Madrigal Man" Doherty! Keep roasting those peddlers of bad faith! -----Original Message----- From: johnpr2006@gmail.com Sent: May 29, 2025 12:47:00 PM To: caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Re: Madrigal v. Hyundai Motor America and How to Weaponize the Case in the UM Arbitration Setting - Game Changer I went down this path two years ago. After taking Feuerman's deposition, in which he was doing so badly he abruptly terminated the deposition before I was done, I got a call from Allstate offering the policy and stating there was nothing to arbitrate. This was a few weeks before the scheduled arbitration. I filed a memorandum of costs in Superior Court where I had previously filed a petition to compel arbitration in the case. Allstate's Motion to Tax Costs challenging everything was denied. The Court (Theresa M Traber) gave me my costs, including 998 costs, citing Madrigal. On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 7:44 PM Kieran Doherty (caala-workproduct listserver) <listsender-caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com> wrote: > *List:* caala-workproduct * Sent by:* Kieran Doherty (Reply Privately) > <kdoherty@shklaw.com?subject=Re%3A%20Madrigal%20v.%20Hyundai%20Motor%20America%20and%20How%20to%20Weaponize%20the%20Case%20in%20the%20UM%20Arbitration%20Setting%20-%20Game%20Changer> > Search <http://www.caala.org/index.cfm?pg=search> > I just received the ruling from our arbitrator granting us 998 costs based > on Madrigal v. Hyundai Motor America (2025) 17 Cal.5th 592 > > Anyone who has talked to me in the last six months or so has known my > obsession with the Madrigal v. Hyundai, specifically how it is a complete > game changer for UM cases. > > No longer can carriers delay and refuse to pay limits on a UM case and > then on the eve of arbitration say "Here are the limits. No arb award, no > costs. Case closed." > > The CA Supreme Court recently affirmed the Madrigal vs. Hyundai case, > which was a lemon law case. Big picture is that to recover 998 costs, you > do not need an actual verdict at trial or arbitration. > > The Hyundai case involved a settlement on the record which was silent as > to costs. However, the opinion seems to clearly indicate that it would > apply in UM arb situations, especially as one of the headings is "Cost > Shifting Under Section 998 Is Not Limited to Cases Resolved by Trial or > Arbitration" > > This has very narrow practical applications for 3rd party cases, since any > settlement addresses costs, with both parties usually bearing their own. > > But in the UM arb context, a favorite game of carriers is to refuse to pay > cases that are worth the limits. And then on the eve of arb tender limits > and say "no judgement, no 998 costs" > > But because they are just tendering, and there is no actual settlement > agreement as to what will happen with costs, the argument is that the > prevailing party (since the Plaintiff sent a 998 for less than limits and > they tendered full limits) is entitled to costs. The arbitrator in my case > agreed. > > In my case, there was a $500,000 UM policy limit. The carrier was only > offering a fraction of what the case was worth. There were two plaintiffs, > and 998s were sent for $249,999.99 for one and $99,999.99 for the other > over a year before the arbitration. The carrier never objected to the 998s, > just allowed them to expire. > > I came into the case a few weeks before the arbitration, took the depo of > their expert (Feuerman, who had off the wall insane opinions), took a > treater depo, and made another global policy limit demand which expired the > Wednesday before Thanksgiving because the arbitration was scheduled for the > Thursday the week after Thanksgiving. The carrier responded with a $350,000 > offer. > > On Monday the defense attorney calls me and wants to know if we would > settle for $450,000. I told them we would settle for $500,000 plus our full > costs. > > The carrier instead just tenders the limits of $500,000 and sends one > check for $400,000 and one check for $100,000 with no agreement on our part > and says "No arbitration needed, no costs because there was no award. Case > closed." The Monday before a Thursday arbitration. After experts had been > deposed, treating doctors had been deposed, and we had incurred significant > costs. > > I filed a motion for costs and briefed the Madrigal case. The arbitrator > sided with us and awarded us costs. I think the case is pretty clear that > it applies to UM cases and now carriers are going to be required to > actually think carefully before rejecting 998s in UM cases. > > If anyone wants briefing, to discuss strategy, etc. let me know. Also if > anyone wins one of these and the carrier appeals it please let me know. > Myself and Jeremy Robinson who is the appeals guru are super interested in > this and want to help in any way we can. > > > -- John P. Rosenberg, Esq. Law Offices of John P. Rosenberg, PLC 6355 Topanga Canyon Boulevard, Suite 515 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 818 716 6400 jrosenberg@jrosenberg.com [image: The National Trial Lawyers] <http://thenationaltriallawyers.org/> This message is a confidential communication from a law firm. Interception of this message is a violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and 2707-2709. This message may be protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work-product doctrine. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the information contained in or attached to this message is prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately delete the message and any attachments, and notify me at 818 716-6400. Thank you.

I went down this path two years ago. After taking Feuerman's deposition, in which he was doing so badly he abruptly terminated the deposition before I was done, I got a call from Allstate offering the policy and stating there was nothing to arbitrate. This was a few weeks before the scheduled arbitration. I filed a memorandum of costs in Superior Court  where I had previously filed a petition to compel arbitration in the case. Allstate's Motion to Tax Costs challenging everything was denied. The Court (Theresa M Traber) gave me my costs, including 998 costs, citing Madrigal.

"Kieran Doherty" Date: May 28, 2025 9:44:00 PM Subject: Madrigal v. Hyundai Motor America and How to Weaponize the Case in the UM Arbitration Setting - Game Changer Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: caala-workproduct Sent by: Kieran Doherty (Reply Privately) Search I just received the ruling from our arbitrator granting us 998 costs based on Madrigal v. Hyundai Motor America (2025) 17 Cal.5th 592 Anyone who has talked to me in the last six months or so has known my obsession with the Madrigal v. Hyundai, specifically how it is a complete game changer for UM cases. No longer can carriers delay and refuse to pay limits on a UM case and then on the eve of arbitration say "Here are the limits. No arb award, no costs. Case closed." The CA Supreme Court recently affirmed the Madrigal vs. Hyundai case, which was a lemon law case. Big picture is that to recover 998 costs, you do not need an actual verdict at trial or arbitration. The Hyundai case involved a settlement on the record which was silent as to costs. However, the opinion seems to clearly indicate that it would apply in UM arb situations, especially as one of the headings is "Cost Shifting Under Section 998 Is Not Limited to Cases Resolved by Trial or Arbitration" This has very narrow practical applications for 3rd party cases, since any settlement addresses costs, with both parties usually bearing their own. But in the UM arb context, a favorite game of carriers is to refuse to pay cases that are worth the limits. And then on the eve of arb tender limits and say "no judgement, no 998 costs" But because they are just tendering, and there is no actual settlement agreement as to what will happen with costs, the argument is that the prevailing party (since the Plaintiff sent a 998 for less than limits and they tendered full limits) is entitled to costs. The arbitrator in my case agreed. In my case, there was a $500,000 UM policy limit. The carrier was only offering a fraction of what the case was worth. There were two plaintiffs, and 998s were sent for $249,999.99 for one and $99,999.99 for the other over a year before the arbitration. The carrier never objected to the 998s, just allowed them to expire. I came into the case a few weeks before the arbitration, took the depo of their expert (Feuerman, who had off the wall insane opinions), took a treater depo, and made another global policy limit demand which expired the Wednesday before Thanksgiving because the arbitration was scheduled for the Thursday the week after Thanksgiving. The carrier responded with a $350,000 offer. On Monday the defense attorney calls me and wants to know if we would settle for $450,000. I told them we would settle for $500,000 plus our full costs. The carrier instead just tenders the limits of $500,000 and sends one check for $400,000 and one check for $100,000 with no agreement on our part and says "No arbitration needed, no costs because there was no award. Case closed." The Monday before a Thursday arbitration. After experts had been deposed, treating doctors had been deposed, and we had incurred significant costs. I filed a motion for costs and briefed the Madrigal case. The arbitrator sided with us and awarded us costs. I think the case is pretty clear that it applies to UM cases and now carriers are going to be required to actually think carefully before rejecting 998s in UM cases. If anyone wants briefing, to discuss strategy, etc. let me know. Also if anyone wins one of these and the carrier appeals it please let me know. Myself and Jeremy Robinson who is the appeals guru are super interested in this and want to help in any way we can.

JORDAN M. JONES ATTORNEY AT LAW LOS ANGELES TRUCK ACCIDENT LAWYERS, PC PHONE (213) 700‑7266 FAX (213) 816-1972 EMAIL jjones@TruckLawyers.com ADDRESS 360 E 2nd St Suite 820, Los Angeles, CA 90012 www.TruckLawyers.com This e­mail message is CONFIDENTIAL, intended only for the named recipient(s) above and may contain information that is privileged, attorney work product or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you have received this message in error or are not the named recipient(s), please immediately notify the sender by return e­mail or by calling (800) 968-1001 and delete this e­mail message from your computer. Thank you.

"Michael Avanesian" Date: February 21, 2025 11:47:00 AM Subject: Re: FW: Action Required: Sign CAALA List Serve Agreement Reply to list Reply to sender Print Testing to see if you got removed =b Sincerely, www.avianlawgroup.com Michael Avanesian, Esq. Chief Executive Officer Licensed to practice in California Office: 818-282-8400 Fax: 818-688-5161 e: michael@avianlawgroup.com From: William Shapiro (caala-life listserver) <listsender-caala-life@lists.trialsmith.com> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2025 9:43 AM To: CAALA Life Discussion List <caala-life@lists.trialsmith.com> Subject: Re: [caala-life] FW: Action Required: Sign CAALA List Serve Agreement List: caala-life Sent by: William Shapiro (Reply Privately) Search Please remove this email address, thank you. William D. Shapiro William D. Shapiro Law Inc. Inland Empire: 893 East Brier Drive San Bernardino, California 92408 Toll Free (877) 611-1529 (909) 890-1000 /Fax (909) 890-1001 www.wshapiro.com Orange County: “Of Counsel” Robinson Calcagnie Inc. 19 Corporate Plaza Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 922-8690 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication, along with any attachments, is private, confidential and the property of the sender. The information contained herein is privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law and is intended only for the use of the individual whose name appears above. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that any unauthorized disclosure, copying or distribution of this message, or the taking of any action in reliance upon its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone at (909) 890-1000 to arrange for the return of all copies to our offices. POTENTIAL CLIENTS: Nothing contained herein is to be construed as creating or intending to create an attorney-client relationship. While communications may be undertaken in an effort to evaluate potential cases and determine if our firm will be able or willing to represent you or anyone referred to, until a formal written retainer agreement has been fully executed between The Law Offices of William D. Shapiro and you or others discussed, we do not represent you or anyone related to any matters and we will not take any action on any matter. Most cases have specific time deadlines or "statutes of limitations" which limit the amount of time a party has to take legal action to preserve their legal rights. Any failure to take timely required legal action including filing written Complaints, Claims or take other action legally required, may bar the ability to recover or assert defenses. Thank you. From: Antonio Kizzie (caala-life listserver) < listsender-caala-life@lists.trialsmith.com > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2025 3:29 PM To: CAALA Life Discussion List < caala-life@lists.trialsmith.com > Subject: Re: [caala-life] FW: Action Required: Sign CAALA List Serve Agreement List: caala-life Sent by: Antonio Kizzie (Reply Privately) Search Please unsubscribe from this list. Sincerely, Antonio K. Kizzie, Esq. Managing Partner The Kizzie Firm, APC A: 1732 Aviation Blvd., #226 Redondo Beach, CA 90278 T: (310) 388-9977 F : (310) 265-1957 E: AKizzie@KizzieFirm.com W: KizzieFirm.com | Disclaimer CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE : This electronic mail transmission, including any attachments, may contain confidential information which is legally privileged. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above and may contain information that may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product doctrine, or other privileges, and may be restricted from disclosure by applicable state and federal law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby NOTIFIED that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking of any action in reliance on the information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this electronically mailed information in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete all copies of the original e-mail and any attached documentation. SERVICE NOTICE : Unless previously agreed in writing, The Kizzie Firm, APC does not accept or consent to the service of process, motions, pleadings, documents, or any other items by electronic format. Correspondence via electronic format does not indicate agreement or consent to acceptance of service in such format. From: Jose Sanchez (caala-life listserver) < listsender-caala-life@lists.trialsmith.com > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2025 3:07 PM To: CAALA Life Discussion List < caala-life@lists.trialsmith.com > Subject: [caala-life] FW: Action Required: Sign CAALA List Serve Agreement List: caala-life Sent by: Jose Sanchez (Reply Privately) Search please unsubscribe from this list. Thanks [NOT PROOFED] Sincerely, J. Elias Sanchez SANCHEZ, PLC 18000 Studebaker Road, 7TH Floor Cerritos, California 90703 Direct: (562) 650-8154 Fax: (626) 628-3868

"Bill Shapiro" Date: February 21, 2025 11:43:00 AM Subject: Re: FW: Action Required: Sign CAALA List Serve Agreement Reply to list Reply to sender Print Please remove this email address, thank you. William D. Shapiro William D. Shapiro Law Inc. Inland Empire: 893 East Brier Drive San Bernardino, California 92408 Toll Free (877) 611-1529 (909) 890-1000 /Fax (909) 890-1001 www.wshapiro.com Orange County: “Of Counsel” Robinson Calcagnie Inc. 19 Corporate Plaza Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 922-8690 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication, along with any attachments, is private, confidential and the property of the sender. The information contained herein is privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law and is intended only for the use of the individual whose name appears above. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that any unauthorized disclosure, copying or distribution of this message, or the taking of any action in reliance upon its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone at (909) 890-1000 to arrange for the return of all copies to our offices. POTENTIAL CLIENTS: Nothing contained herein is to be construed as creating or intending to create an attorney-client relationship. While communications may be undertaken in an effort to evaluate potential cases and determine if our firm will be able or willing to represent you or anyone referred to, until a formal written retainer agreement has been fully executed between The Law Offices of William D. Shapiro and you or others discussed, we do not represent you or anyone related to any matters and we will not take any action on any matter. Most cases have specific time deadlines or "statutes of limitations" which limit the amount of time a party has to take legal action to preserve their legal rights. Any failure to take timely required legal action including filing written Complaints, Claims or take other action legally required, may bar the ability to recover or assert defenses. Thank you. From: Antonio Kizzie (caala-life listserver) <listsender-caala-life@lists.trialsmith.com> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2025 3:29 PM To: CAALA Life Discussion List <caala-life@lists.trialsmith.com> Subject: Re: [caala-life] FW: Action Required: Sign CAALA List Serve Agreement List: caala-life Sent by: Antonio Kizzie (Reply Privately) Search Please unsubscribe from this list. Sincerely, Antonio K. Kizzie, Esq. Managing Partner The Kizzie Firm, APC A: 1732 Aviation Blvd., #226 Redondo Beach, CA 90278 T: (310) 388-9977 F : (310) 265-1957 E: AKizzie@KizzieFirm.com W: KizzieFirm.com | Disclaimer CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE : This electronic mail transmission, including any attachments, may contain confidential information which is legally privileged. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above and may contain information that may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product doctrine, or other privileges, and may be restricted from disclosure by applicable state and federal law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby NOTIFIED that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking of any action in reliance on the information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this electronically mailed information in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete all copies of the original e-mail and any attached documentation. SERVICE NOTICE : Unless previously agreed in writing, The Kizzie Firm, APC does not accept or consent to the service of process, motions, pleadings, documents, or any other items by electronic format. Correspondence via electronic format does not indicate agreement or consent to acceptance of service in such format. From: Jose Sanchez (caala-life listserver) <listsender-caala-life@lists.trialsmith.com> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2025 3:07 PM To: CAALA Life Discussion List <caala-life@lists.trialsmith.com> Subject: [caala-life] FW: Action Required: Sign CAALA List Serve Agreement List: caala-life Sent by: Jose Sanchez (Reply Privately) Search please unsubscribe from this list. Thanks [NOT PROOFED] Sincerely, J. Elias Sanchez SANCHEZ, PLC 18000 Studebaker Road, 7TH Floor Cerritos, California 90703 Direct: (562) 650-8154 Fax: (626) 628-3868

Carrier is Permanent General Assurance Corporation Jonathan Roven JONNY LAW 818-639-3997 NOTICE: This email is for listserv purposes. If you want to email me, please email jon@calljonnylaw.com

I'm guessing the carrier is Aspire. They only sell minimum limits and one of their adjusters told me directly that their company policy is to not consider or pay for future meds. They are the new Fred Loya. They know their insureds are going to get sued so they started including this language in their initial offer emails: If negotiations are unsuccessful, this letter will also serve as formal request for a copy of the Summons and Complaint along with proof of service. If you or your client files suit, please inform me when you serve the insured.  Please do not enter a default without giving us timely notice. We will rely on your notification in accordance with Robinson v. Varela (1977) 67 ca 3d 611, and Smith v. Los Angeles Bookbinders Union No. 69 (1955)133 ca 2d 486.  We request you send a copy of the Summons and Complaint, as well as proof of service to our claims email which is claims@agicins.com . Respectfully, Alain Kinaly, Esq. 2372 M ORSE A VE . #341 I RVINE , CA 92614 Ph: 949.438.1546 Fx: 888.906.5771 www.KinalyLaw.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE : The information contained in this transmission, including any attachments, may contain confidential information which may be protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or any applicable work-product doctrine and/or other privileges and is specifically restricted from disclosure by applicable state and federal law. The information contained in this transmission is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby NOTIFIED that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking of any action in reliance on the information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this electronically mailed information in error, please notify K INALY L AW at the number listed above immediately and permanently delete all copies of the original e-mail and any attached documentation.

"Wesley Ouchi" Date: January 22, 2025 6:26:00 PM Subject: Re: Remedies - MSJ timely notice, but too close to trial Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: caala-workproduct Sent by: Wesley Ouchi (Reply Privately) Search You can file an Objection to their untimely and defective notice under Robinson.  Then they will prob go ex parte to continue the trial date or allow the MSJ to be heard less than 30 days from trial.  Meanwhile, work on the opposition to the MSJ in case the Court grants their ex parte. I do not know what specifically would constitute good cause to hear an MSJ less than 30 days of trial, however, the Court specifically lists the good cause factors under the Court Rules for continuing a firm and certain trial date.  Although, as Christopher has indicated in his last email, I too had a case where the defense made the same claims about the court reservation system.  The Court punted and decided to resolve it by advancing the MSJ date.  However, i objected stating that this violated the mandatory notice, since the Court does not have the discretion to shorten the notice period set forth by the Legislature.  The Court advanced the hearing date anyways.  Then it denied their MSJ. On Jan 22, 2025, at 3:53 PM, Christopher Gansen (caala-workproduct listserver) <listsender-caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com> wrote: List: caala-workproduct Sent by: Christopher Gansen (Reply Privately) Search We have had hearings moved right up against trial dates because the Court was receptive to the fact that the online reservation system often only has reservations for after the trial date or whatever it might be. Some and in my experience most judges are not receptive to my counter argument, which is that if they wanted an MSJ hearing and they had all this evidence for months, they could have made the reservation and motion months ago and had it heard timely, and that's on them. -----Original Message----- From: rmfay0@gmail.com Sent: January 22, 2025 5:43:00 PM To: caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Re: Remedies - MSJ timely notice, but too close to trial Wesley, thanks for your detailed message about this subject. My problem: what is sufficient "good cause" in situations like this one. The timing and the fact pattern reek of sabotage, which is the opposite of "good cause" in most cases. Roberta Fay Playa del Rey, CA 90293 310-641-8835 -----Original Message----- From: w.ouchi@OuchiLawFirm.com Sent: January 22, 2025 5:30:00 PM To: caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Re: Remedies - MSJ timely notice, but too close to trial They needed to have first filed a motion supported by good cause to hear an MSJ less than 30 days from trial before filing their MSJ. Then, upon the date the order, the clock begins to run on the notice period. See, Robinson v. Woods (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1258. A plaintiff is not required to respond to an improperly noticed MSJ hearing and waste the time and resources until the Court grants an order allowing it to be heard less than 30 days of trial. That was the law prior to January 1, 2025 but not sure whether this case law has been effected substantively. > On Jan 22, 2025, at 3:03 PM, Justin Gordon (caala-workproduct listserver) < listsender-caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com > wrote: > > List: caala-workproduct Sent by: Justin Gordon (Reply Privately) < mailto:jlg@gordon.law?subject=Re%3A%20Remedies%20-%20MSJ%20timely%20notice%2C%20but%20too%20close%20to%20trial > Search < http://www.caala.org/index.cfm?pg=search > > Have premises case trial June 17. They noticed MSJ just now for May 20. We have had trial continued several times and there is no real excuse for them waiting so long to file MSJ. > > Obviously its set within 30 days of trial. They have not requested any affirmative relief and just filed the motion. > > Any remedies for me aside from making a throw-away argument in opposition that judge will probably just ignore? > > > Regards, > > Justin L. Gordon, JD, LLM* > > LAW OFFICES OF JUSTIN L. GORDON > Warner Center Business Park > 5850 Canoga Avenue, Suite 400 > Woodland Hills, California 91367 > > (818) 710-2730 > Telephone > > (818) 679-8261 > Text / iMessage > > (818) 276-8367 > Facsimile > > > > 🌐 www.plaintiff.law < http://www.plaintiff.law/ > > > This e-mail and its contents contain confidential and/or privileged attorney-client communications. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, please notify the sender and delete the message. > > *Licensed in California and Washington, D.C. > > >

So my concern becomes what do I do here It’s almost like it’s a throw away argument in opposition to MSJ. If I go in ex parte they will have time to remedy it because I’ll be tipping them off.

"Christopher Gansen" Date: January 22, 2025 5:54:00 PM Subject: Re: Remedies - MSJ timely notice, but too close to trial Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: caala-workproduct Sent by: Christopher Gansen (Reply Privately) Search We have had hearings moved right up against trial dates because the Court was receptive to the fact that the online reservation system often only has reservations for after the trial date or whatever it might be. Some and in my experience most judges are not receptive to my counter argument, which is that if they wanted an MSJ hearing and they had all this evidence for months, they could have made the reservation and motion months ago and had it heard timely, and that's on them. -----Original Message----- From: rmfay0@gmail.com Sent: January 22, 2025 5:43:00 PM To: caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Re: Remedies - MSJ timely notice, but too close to trial Wesley, thanks for your detailed message about this subject. My problem: what is sufficient "good cause" in situations like this one. The timing and the fact pattern reek of sabotage, which is the opposite of "good cause" in most cases. Roberta Fay Playa del Rey, CA 90293 310-641-8835 -----Original Message----- From: w.ouchi@OuchiLawFirm.com Sent: January 22, 2025 5:30:00 PM To: caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Re: Remedies - MSJ timely notice, but too close to trial They needed to have first filed a motion supported by good cause to hear an MSJ less than 30 days from trial before filing their MSJ. Then, upon the date the order, the clock begins to run on the notice period. See, Robinson v. Woods (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1258. A plaintiff is not required to respond to an improperly noticed MSJ hearing and waste the time and resources until the Court grants an order allowing it to be heard less than 30 days of trial. That was the law prior to January 1, 2025 but not sure whether this case law has been effected substantively. > On Jan 22, 2025, at 3:03 PM, Justin Gordon (caala-workproduct listserver) <listsender-caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com> wrote: > > List: caala-workproduct Sent by: Justin Gordon (Reply Privately) <mailto:jlg@gordon.law?subject=Re%3A%20Remedies%20-%20MSJ%20timely%20notice%2C%20but%20too%20close%20to%20trial> Search <http://www.caala.org/index.cfm?pg=search> > Have premises case trial June 17. They noticed MSJ just now for May 20. We have had trial continued several times and there is no real excuse for them waiting so long to file MSJ. > > Obviously its set within 30 days of trial. They have not requested any affirmative relief and just filed the motion. > > Any remedies for me aside from making a throw-away argument in opposition that judge will probably just ignore? > > > Regards, > > Justin L. Gordon, JD, LLM* > > LAW OFFICES OF JUSTIN L. GORDON > Warner Center Business Park > 5850 Canoga Avenue, Suite 400 > Woodland Hills, California 91367 > > (818) 710-2730 > Telephone > > (818) 679-8261 > Text / iMessage > > (818) 276-8367 > Facsimile > > > > 🌐 www.plaintiff.law <http://www.plaintiff.law/> > > This e-mail and its contents contain confidential and/or privileged attorney-client communications. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, please notify the sender and delete the message. > > *Licensed in California and Washington, D.C. > > >

"Kevin Bryant" Date: May 05, 2026 1:09:00 PM Subject: Re: CHIRO QME PANEL Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Kevin Bryant Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I have Depaoli (De Paoli) on two claims right now.  Has only issued initial report in one of the cases, but it was very favorable to Applicant.  One is a pure CT claim for low back injury for laborer, which he found industrial. He is also part of California SIBTF Evaluations, as are Scott Warren and Joe Minkstein: https://casibtf.com/about/ I would definitely keep him. Sincerely, Kevin Bryant, Esq. Law Office of Kevin L. Bryant Mailing Address:    P.O. Box 1033, Citrus Heights, CA  95611 Physical Address:  1100 Melody Ln., Suite 131, Roseville, CA  95678 P:  (916) 520-4322 F:  (916) 520-4322 E:  kbryant@klbryantlaw.com From: Andrew Nahl (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2026 9:27 AM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: [lawnet] CHIRO QME PANEL List: lawnet Sent By: Andrew Nahl Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I have a chiro QME Panel for a state employee's claim of cumulative trauma to the neck and shoulders from office work at a work station that was not ergonomically correct. SCIF has the claim on delay. The Panel has the following doctors: Jeffrey Robinson Geno Depaoli Scott Warren Dr. Warren has many good reviews. There is one good review of Dr. Depaoli and nothing I could find on Dr. Robinson other than good Google and Yelp reviews for his treating practice in Woodland. The phone number listed for Depaoli is the same as Dr. Warren. Any info on Robinson or Depaoli is appreciated.

"Andrew Nahl" Date: May 05, 2026 11:27:00 AM Subject: CHIRO QME PANEL Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Andrew Nahl Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I have a chiro QME Panel for a state employee's claim of cumulative trauma to the neck and shoulders from office work at a work station that was not ergonomically correct. SCIF has the claim on delay. The Panel has the following doctors: Jeffrey Robinson Geno Depaoli Scott Warren Dr. Warren has many good reviews. There is one good review of Dr. Depaoli and nothing I could find on Dr. Robinson other than good Google and Yelp reviews for his treating practice in Woodland. The phone number listed for Depaoli is the same as Dr. Warren. Any info on Robinson or Depaoli is appreciated.

I remember seeing a case about the pain and suffering for ruptured achilles tendon, I think this article is about the same case.

"Aimee Kirby" Date: January 12, 2026 7:34:00 AM Subject: Re: Surgery before DME? Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: caala-workproduct Sent by: Aimee Kirby (Reply Privately) Search I see no reason not to let them know about a scheduled DME. Let them use up their one DME, without a motion, pre-surgical, if they desire. If it's through their provider, then they don't get to examine post surgical for signs of progress and they are fighting a theme of mass conspiracy, which is laughable. You can dice them up pretty bad on cross. Aimee E Kirby -----Original Message----- From: hblumenthal@actslaw.com Sent: January 11, 2026 10:39:00 PM To: caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Re: Surgery before DME? The only issue is to avoid gamesmanship if they have already reached out to you about DME's and you're working on dates and in the meantime, you're gonna schedule surgery I don't think that's reasonable. If you were already scheduling surgery and then they reached out for DMA's go ahead with the surgery. A judge may look at this poorly if it appears to be gamesmanship. ​​​​ Howard Blumenthal Managing Attorney [cid:ignored-in-diff-4674E8B4-F6B7-4B39-A06D-E9D9CF24E8BF]<https://actslaw.com/> 16001 Ventura Blvd., Suite 200 ​Encino, CA 91436 Phone: 833.ACTS LAW (833.228.7529) Fax: 424.288.4368 hblumenthal@actslaw.com<mailto:hblumenthal@actslaw.com> www.actslaw.com<https://www.actslaw.com/> This E‑mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510‑2521 and is legally privileged. This info is confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, Distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please immediately notify Abir Cohen Treyzon Salo, LLP and destroy the message. ________________________________ From: Aram Rostomyan (caala-workproduct listserver) <listsender-caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com> Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2026 7:27:05 PM To: CAALA Work Product Discussion List <caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com> Subject: Re: [caala-workproduct] Surgery before DME? List: caala-workproduct Sent by: Aram Rostomyan (Reply Privately)<mailto:rostomyanlaw@gmail.com?subject=Re%3A%20%5Bcaala-workproduct%5D%20Surgery%20before%20DME%3F> Search<https://url.avanan.click/v2/r01/___http://www.caala.org/index.cfm?pg=search___.YXAzOmFjdHNsYXc6YTpvOjNlMTIxMTY0MjYzY2M3ZDg5ZTkwZTM3MTViMGVlYjg2Ojc6ZGRkNzplYjU3ZTJmYWM3NDMwNTYxY2MyZWNlYjI2NTQ1YWRjNGJmOGVhMWJjYjY0NWQ4NmU5NDBjYjE1MzBjMTIxOGJkOmg6VDpO> Thanks, All! So if I understand the message correctly, without personally stirring things one way or the other, if there is surgery scheduled, let it move forward, and if there is a DME notice before the surgery, let that move forward. Also, on a second thought, what is their DME going to say? That Kaiser Permanente surgeon who has zero personal interest and has no idea there is a civil case pending is exaggerating the need for surgery? Ok... On Sun, Jan 11, 2026 at 1:56 PM David Hoffman (caala-workproduct listserver) <listsender-caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com<mailto:listsender-caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com>> wrote: List: caala-workproduct Sent by: David Hoffman (Reply Privately)<mailto:dhoffman@hoffmanlawcorp.com?subject=Re%3A%20%5Bcaala-workproduct%5D%20Surgery%20before%20DME%3F> Search<https://url.avanan.click/v2/r01/___http://www.caala.org/index.cfm?pg=search___.YXAzOmFjdHNsYXc6YTpvOjNlMTIxMTY0MjYzY2M3ZDg5ZTkwZTM3MTViMGVlYjg2Ojc6ZGY0NDozOTc2MmMyNTljMWUyMWJiNjNhNTRmZGNiNWE4M2Q0N2Q2YjZkMGM3NDg2MzNjZjYxY2I5ZjdhYjA4Nzg0YTVlOmg6VDpO> I have to add a caveat. I only tell them about surgery after I get a DME demand or other discovery like a follow up for JCI 6.?, but if they don't ask I don't tell. David Hoffman, Esq. CSB 140557 Law Offices of David Hoffman, A P.C. 21900 Burbank Blvd., Ste. 300 Woodland Hills, CA 91367-7418 V (310)286-1000 (818)346-3001 F (818)346-3011 This email and any attachments are considered privileged and proprietary. If you received this in error, I regret it. Please reply with "ERROR " in the subject and delete the entire thread with my appreciation. On Jan 11, 2026 13:00, "William Silverstein (caala-workproduct listserver)" <listsender-caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com<mailto:listsender-caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com>> wrote: List: caala-workproduct Sent by: William Silverstein (Reply Privately)<mailto:listcala@sorehands.com?subject=Re%3A%20%5Bcaala-workproduct%5D%20Surgery%20before%20DME%3F> Search<https://url.avanan.click/v2/r01/___http://www.caala.org/index.cfm?pg=search___.YXAzOmFjdHNsYXc6YTpvOjNlMTIxMTY0MjYzY2M3ZDg5ZTkwZTM3MTViMGVlYjg2Ojc6NTRkODo2ZDY3Y2Q1ZTA2MWY1NGQ5M2FhNDk0YzgzNmIwMDYwODRiMGRhOWNhZjZiMjdmMmU1YTFhOWIwNTRmNDlkNTIzOmg6VDpO> AMEN! In some cases, once the surgery is scheduled, inform opposing counsel to give them the opportunity to schedule the DME. Keep in mind, if it is appropriate in your situation and an earlier surgery slot could open up, inform counsel of the possibility. I have had Kaiser give me a date 3 months off, but a slot opened up that was two months off. How much time does it really take for a DME to prepare? They are still going to say that a 6 foot steel rod sticking out of your client's chest will not cause discomfort or have any impact on your client's life. > Greetings, I think this requires some caution. Not necessarily a > “Warning Will Robinson! Warning!†kind of caution but candor is the > order of the day. No one is fooling anyone because everything will be seen > with 20-20 hindsight. Bad optics for us. > > > > In cases where the client’s trajectory is independent of the lawyer and > controlled by the patient and surgeon, as it should be always, and the > surgeon says patient failed conservative measures and needs surgery and > patient is ready, all of that is its own weather system. [The lawyer > should beware interfering with the “medicine†because they are > creating their own weather system of malpractice liability.] If the DME > notice comes in and the patient is scheduled already, the response to the > DME should be accurate in making whatever objections and announce the > date. Hiding the ball would be very bad. It will come into evidence if the > defense lawyer is worth their salt. But look, assuming the bona fides of > the surgery, if the DME is not too arduous, I’m not sure why anyone > would balk about going before surgery. Generally I give my friends the > choice and they choose after surgery because they are more interested in > residual sequelae. You simply do not want the ire of a trial court judge > about this stuff. > > > > The corollary to this advice is that you never call the doc and patient to > move them into the OR for the sake of the case, and that includes the DME. > Like I said, they have their orbit and no one is fooling anyone. It could > even sabotage a good settlement because the defense attorney has some > unsavory stuff to splash on the plaintiff, the attorney and the doctor > based on easy calculations from the chart and discovery. I mean honestly. > > > > Now that all said, if the attorney is driving the surgery for bad reasons, > and the surgeon is not acting in good faith and the client is a stooge or > complicit, that’s when you hide stuff, I guess. I have no personal > knowledge, hence my disclaimer. In your face honesty is harder than steel > as you drive them to that hard place. $.02DH > > > > David Hoffman, Esq., CSB 140557 > > dhoffman@hoffmanlawcorp.com<mailto:dhoffman@hoffmanlawcorp.com> > > > > Law Offices of David Hoffman, A P.C. > > 21900 Burbank Blvd., Suite 300 > > Woodland Hills, CA 91367-7418 > > V: (310)286-1000 (818)346-3001 > > C: (310)850-0233 F: (818)346-3011 > > Please Note Our New Address > > > > This email and any attachment(s) is intended solely for designated > recipient(s) for the purpose of communicating sensitive, private and > privileged information that may be shielded by the attorney-client and > attorney work product privileges. If you received this in error, I regret > it. Please write, “Error†in the subject line and once you press > send/reply, please delete the entire email with our thanks. DH > > > > STRONG SUPPORTER OF THE CHP11-99 FOUNDATION, CAALA, CAOC, AAJ, THE UCLA > BRUINS, WORLD CHAMPION NY YANKEES, DALLAS COWBOYS AND PLEASE “SHARE THE > ROAD!†> > > > From: Gene Sullivan (caala-workproduct listserver) > > Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2026 12:11 PM > To: CAALA Work Product Discussion List > > Cc: caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com<mailto:caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com> > Subject: Re: [caala-workproduct] Surgery before DME? > > > > > > List: caala-workproduct Sent by: > > Gene Sullivan (Reply Privately) > > <http://www.caala.org/index.cfm?pg=search<https://url.avanan.click/v2/r01/___http://www.caala.org/index.cfm?pg=search___.YXAzOmFjdHNsYXc6YTpvOjNlMTIxMTY0MjYzY2M3ZDg5ZTkwZTM3MTViMGVlYjg2Ojc6NmYyMjo4NTE4NzFkYWE2ZDMwNGRkZWMxNjlkZjE3MTI3MjQ4MWVjNTU0NGJkMzJlZGQ5MWUxOTVmNWY3MWY4ZmJhMmFjOmg6VDpO>> Search > > > Exactly. Schedule surgery. > > > > Sullivan & Sullivan > > 1230 Rosecrans Avenue > > Suite 600 > > Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 > > (310) 376-0288 > > > > > > > > On Jan 11, 2026, at 11:36 AM, Bruce Levenson (caala-workproduct > listserver) > > wrote: > >  > > > > List: caala-workproduct Sent by: > > Bruce Levenson (Reply Privately) > > <http://www.caala.org/index.cfm?pg=search<https://url.avanan.click/v2/r01/___http://www.caala.org/index.cfm?pg=search___.YXAzOmFjdHNsYXc6YTpvOjNlMTIxMTY0MjYzY2M3ZDg5ZTkwZTM3MTViMGVlYjg2Ojc6ZmI3YjpmOWRiMjE2Njc3YmQxMDRkYjM1Njc4NjA1MmRlNWM3NTIzN2E0ZmExOTVhMDRhMzk4NDIwNjliYmEyNjlkNDViOmg6VDpO>> Search > > > Medical decisions are made by doctors and patients, not by lawyers and > judges. It is difficult to get a surgery scheduled anywhere, particularly > with Kaiser. For example, I once had a 39-year old client who died from > a heart attack related to not having a functioning kidney a few months > after settling her medical malpractice case and a few weeks before a > scheduled kidney transplant surgery that she had been waiting months for. > > > > > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > > On Jan 11, 2026, at 8:36 AM, Aram Rostomyan (caala-workproduct > listserver) > > wrote: > >  > > > > List: caala-workproduct Sent by: > > Aram Rostomyan (Reply Privately) > > <http://www.caala.org/index.cfm?pg=search<https://url.avanan.click/v2/r01/___http://www.caala.org/index.cfm?pg=search___.YXAzOmFjdHNsYXc6YTpvOjNlMTIxMTY0MjYzY2M3ZDg5ZTkwZTM3MTViMGVlYjg2Ojc6MzhhNTpkNzI1MTM2MWJkMjlkYTdjNTFiMTlmNjVmNGFhYzc0ZmE0NmRmZmUzZjMyNjUzNGRhYmZkNzFiOWU1ZTVjZThiOmg6VDpO>> Search > > > Dear Mates, > > I recall there were some law and motion on this issue, is there consensus > on the below questions: > > 1) client needs hand surgery through Kaiser. Defense wants DME (they don't > know Kaiser concurs with surgery rec. and she is going to get it through > them). Defense has not noticed the DME yet but proposed dates. > > Does the client get the surgery before we schedule the DME? If so, what > are the consequences? There was something about suppressing or spoiling > evidence? > > Do we allow the DME before scheduling the surgery to be on the safe side? > > Thanks for your help! > > > <https://link1712.lists.trialsmith.com/o/AclV8Ivlrzhp4uhRlsG8Bl76qhVaFXqLsD6M3xdD7zZcfY_LTsMwEEV_BXlNI9t5tkKoC1YIxCdEjj2kbu04Gjspaem_4zRVERu299zHzJkg2ZAGBwkGRui867a-ka1xjTBJB4E8EhsdT1VecsoLvk7yMmFlUbFsneYVL1jyKkbxLrRJ0Lmw5bmqAMqG0Uw9x7QgmzMZYwVf9ejUIIN23dwqaxtDYeohQjOh9rXSXg7eLwYv6k7YGUohjFgdHR5uDQu1vtVqLmbrdF2k6aKi7KP29sEpyyjjKasozYpvVla0TPNiWfbDHDTaB58E1MJ4q8Mukc7euA5wbVlZsA2ghC6gMLVx9TUEOAL6eRA61aJWde-cmRN3GqEUAVqHU9Rf7p89_LEYt_xA2QH6yVqldtlx-pK49-XJfu7zUzTtXaP_uVf3t_Hf08jl8gM<https://url.avanan.click/v2/r01/___https://link1712.lists.trialsmith.com/o/AclV8Ivlrzhp4uhRlsG8Bl76qhVaFXqLsD6M3xdD7zZcfY_LTsMwEEV_BXlNI9t5tkKoC1YIxCdEjj2kbu04Gjspaem_4zRVERu299zHzJkg2ZAGBwkGRui867a-ka1xjTBJB4E8EhsdT1VecsoLvk7yMmFlUbFsneYVL1jyKkbxLrRJ0Lmw5bmqAMqG0Uw9x7QgmzMZYwVf9ejUIIN23dwqaxtDYeohQjOh9rXSXg7eLwYv6k7YGUohjFgdHR5uDQu1vtVqLmbrdF2k6aKi7KP29sEpyyjjKasozYpvVla0TPNiWfbDHDTaB58E1MJ4q8Mukc7euA5wbVlZsA2ghC6gMLVx9TUEOAL6eRA61aJWde-cmRN3GqEUAVqHU9Rf7p89_LEYt_xA2QH6yVqldtlx-pK49-XJfu7zUzTtXaP_uVf3t_Hf08jl8gM___.YXAzOmFjdHNsYXc6YTpvOjNlMTIxMTY0MjYzY2M3ZDg5ZTkwZTM3MTViMGVlYjg2Ojc6Nzc0NjpjNTM5Yjg5YjA4NTA2ZGYzNTc1MDRmMjYzYWE1ZTdjNzA1M2MxN2Y2MjI2MmQ1NjllZDM5YWUzNjZlNWFmZTgyOmg6VDpO>> > > > <https://link1712.lists.trialsmith.com/o/AcXgi30CXoXrzqBKpyMumBhQF8z6YMBpPTS_AK6cTsQLfY_LTsMwEEV_BXmNqyTNEyFU2pQVEp8QTWwTTOw4HbstUem_Y5NSxIbtPfcxcyJI7kibKDhOAldg1IIZTW6J9vJ9kdZ5VtcJrbL8iaaPxYauq21K87guk3obbdabeGVb1inTgloMwj34KJC7Ezn4fEJHNHzPnDRDqGSNBqncNAoP1YTSNlxatrd2NlhoBtABMgAF9GiwvzTMVNtO8lAcV8uqqIpZRTZ6LYqLPC0_8ygrk2I5z9l9cCtpnV04lKCslu7t50PPpQtrzy9UC90KZGJwCKpRpvkOCTwItGFFDLxDyZvRGBUSV-ohAyc6g5PX6-s7N38sysyHR3EvduUU9SDcK99hn02HkbsPlnnTu2nlP_fK8TL-exo5n78A<https://url.avanan.click/v2/r01/___https://link1712.lists.trialsmith.com/o/AcXgi30CXoXrzqBKpyMumBhQF8z6YMBpPTS_AK6cTsQLfY_LTsMwEEV_BXmNqyTNEyFU2pQVEp8QTWwTTOw4HbstUem_Y5NSxIbtPfcxcyJI7kibKDhOAldg1IIZTW6J9vJ9kdZ5VtcJrbL8iaaPxYauq21K87guk3obbdabeGVb1inTgloMwj34KJC7Ezn4fEJHNHzPnDRDqGSNBqncNAoP1YTSNlxatrd2NlhoBtABMgAF9GiwvzTMVNtO8lAcV8uqqIpZRTZ6LYqLPC0_8ygrk2I5z9l9cCtpnV04lKCslu7t50PPpQtrzy9UC90KZGJwCKpRpvkOCTwItGFFDLxDyZvRGBUSV-ohAyc6g5PX6-s7N38sysyHR3EvduUU9SDcK99hn02HkbsPlnnTu2nlP_fK8TL-exo5n78A___.YXAzOmFjdHNsYXc6YTpvOjNlMTIxMTY0MjYzY2M3ZDg5ZTkwZTM3MTViMGVlYjg2Ojc6YjA1Njo1Y2ZiOWZjNzM1NWUzMzRkNWQ3MTY1MTM0OTQ5NzJiZjg1NmQxY2VmZmYxNTU4ZTRkY2VlYjdiNTVmOWFkZWU0Omg6VDpO>> > > > <https://link1712.lists.trialsmith.com/o/AWfXq2gvjD2dNyzBf-UryoXNIKEscnvBFM9Bpw0H-7A0fU_dbsIgGH2VhethsFZLzbKotV4t2SM0XwEVhVIBdZ3z3QeruuxmV19yfr5zzgVZNEV8a9ZrDc3sdhWcmbHtgBmNnpEOihdaZqsyyUqcJQXFab6aYJqQOSaLJZ0XtEhW5WIGRkXPazABml7QKTgT3FrDj8xL08RnrNIgle9aEUjVWekqLh07OtcLHFQN6EgyAAX4bOz-9qFntdtIHh8P81FOR2mPWtYGjBCS5-QrzSZZPqR9nDtGtZLOu4G3EpTT0m_v2wIvfUx7e8da6FpYJhpvQVXKVD8mYU_CupgiGr6xkletMSo6HmwgGXixMbYL-PIx5-mPRJm-OBnuxQE6Ik7jz9FOcBgfdA3-o44Dd6aW__SV7S38txq6Xr8B<https://url.avanan.click/v2/r01/___https://link1712.lists.trialsmith.com/o/AWfXq2gvjD2dNyzBf-UryoXNIKEscnvBFM9Bpw0H-7A0fU_dbsIgGH2VhethsFZLzbKotV4t2SM0XwEVhVIBdZ3z3QeruuxmV19yfr5zzgVZNEV8a9ZrDc3sdhWcmbHtgBmNnpEOihdaZqsyyUqcJQXFab6aYJqQOSaLJZ0XtEhW5WIGRkXPazABml7QKTgT3FrDj8xL08RnrNIgle9aEUjVWekqLh07OtcLHFQN6EgyAAX4bOz-9qFntdtIHh8P81FOR2mPWtYGjBCS5-QrzSZZPqR9nDtGtZLOu4G3EpTT0m_v2wIvfUx7e8da6FpYJhpvQVXKVD8mYU_CupgiGr6xkletMSo6HmwgGXixMbYL-PIx5-mPRJm-OBnuxQE6Ik7jz9FOcBgfdA3-o44Dd6aW__SV7S38txq6Xr8B___.YXAzOmFjdHNsYXc6YTpvOjNlMTIxMTY0MjYzY2M3ZDg5ZTkwZTM3MTViMGVlYjg2Ojc6ZGIxMzo0OWRhNzUzMTQwNGE5ZjQ4OGM1MmUwMWI4OTVhZmQ4MDQzYjJjMGUxYmQ1ZTVmNTg1MmNiNGNlOWU2NzE3MDFkOmg6VDpO>> > > -- Aram Rostomyan ROSTOMYAN LAW, PC 790 E. Colorado Blvd., 9th Floor Pasadena, CA 91101 Tel.: 626-440-1007 Cell: 818-667-7447 Email: aram@rostomyanlaw.com<mailto:aram@rostomyanlaw.com> ********* Confidentiality Notice ************ This electronic message transmission contains information that is confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the content of this information is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the original message and any attachments without reading or saving in any manner.

The only issue is to avoid gamesmanship if they have already reached out to you about DME‘s and you’re working on dates and in the meantime, you’re gonna schedule surgery I don’t think that’s reasonable. If you were already scheduling surgery and then they reached out for DMA‘s go ahead with the surgery. A judge may look at this poorly if it appears to be gamesmanship.

Thanks, All! So if I understand the message correctly, without personally stirring things one way or the other, if there is surgery scheduled, let it move forward, and if there is a DME notice before the surgery, let that move forward. Also, on a second thought, what is their DME going to say? That Kaiser Permanente surgeon who has zero personal interest and has no idea there is a civil case pending is exaggerating the need for surgery? Ok...

"Bill Silverstein" Date: January 11, 2026 3:01:00 PM Subject: Re: Surgery before DME? Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: caala-workproduct Sent by: William Silverstein (Reply Privately) Search AMEN! In some cases, once the surgery is scheduled, inform opposing counsel to give them the opportunity to schedule the DME. Keep in mind, if it is appropriate in your situation and an earlier surgery slot could open up, inform counsel of the possibility. I have had Kaiser give me a date 3 months off, but a slot opened up that was two months off. How much time does it really take for a DME to prepare? They are still going to say that a 6 foot steel rod sticking out of your client's chest will not cause discomfort or have any impact on your client's life. > Greetings, I think this requires some caution. Not necessarily a > “Warning Will Robinson! Warning!†kind of caution but candor is the > order of the day. No one is fooling anyone because everything will be seen > with 20-20 hindsight. Bad optics for us. > > > > In cases where the client’s trajectory is independent of the lawyer and > controlled by the patient and surgeon, as it should be always, and the > surgeon says patient failed conservative measures and needs surgery and > patient is ready, all of that is its own weather system. [The lawyer > should beware interfering with the “medicine†because they are > creating their own weather system of malpractice liability.] If the DME > notice comes in and the patient is scheduled already, the response to the > DME should be accurate in making whatever objections and announce the > date. Hiding the ball would be very bad. It will come into evidence if the > defense lawyer is worth their salt. But look, assuming the bona fides of > the surgery, if the DME is not too arduous, I’m not sure why anyone > would balk about going before surgery. Generally I give my friends the > choice and they choose after surgery because they are more interested in > residual sequelae. You simply do not want the ire of a trial court judge > about this stuff. > > > > The corollary to this advice is that you never call the doc and patient to > move them into the OR for the sake of the case, and that includes the DME. > Like I said, they have their orbit and no one is fooling anyone. It could > even sabotage a good settlement because the defense attorney has some > unsavory stuff to splash on the plaintiff, the attorney and the doctor > based on easy calculations from the chart and discovery. I mean honestly. > > > > Now that all said, if the attorney is driving the surgery for bad reasons, > and the surgeon is not acting in good faith and the client is a stooge or > complicit, that’s when you hide stuff, I guess. I have no personal > knowledge, hence my disclaimer. In your face honesty is harder than steel > as you drive them to that hard place. $.02DH > > > > David Hoffman, Esq., CSB 140557 > > dhoffman@hoffmanlawcorp.com > > > > Law Offices of David Hoffman, A P.C. > > 21900 Burbank Blvd., Suite 300 > > Woodland Hills, CA 91367-7418 > > V: (310)286-1000 (818)346-3001 > > C: (310)850-0233 F: (818)346-3011 > > Please Note Our New Address > > > > This email and any attachment(s) is intended solely for designated > recipient(s) for the purpose of communicating sensitive, private and > privileged information that may be shielded by the attorney-client and > attorney work product privileges. If you received this in error, I regret > it. Please write, “Error†in the subject line and once you press > send/reply, please delete the entire email with our thanks. DH > > > > STRONG SUPPORTER OF THE CHP11-99 FOUNDATION, CAALA, CAOC, AAJ, THE UCLA > BRUINS, WORLD CHAMPION NY YANKEES, DALLAS COWBOYS AND PLEASE “SHARE THE > ROAD!†> > > > From: Gene Sullivan (caala-workproduct listserver) > > Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2026 12:11 PM > To: CAALA Work Product Discussion List > > Cc: caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com > Subject: Re: [caala-workproduct] Surgery before DME? > > > > > > List: caala-workproduct Sent by: > > Gene Sullivan (Reply Privately) > > < http://www.caala.org/index.cfm?pg=search > Search > > > Exactly. Schedule surgery. > > > > Sullivan & Sullivan > > 1230 Rosecrans Avenue > > Suite 600 > > Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 > > (310) 376-0288 > > > > > > > > On Jan 11, 2026, at 11:36 AM, Bruce Levenson (caala-workproduct > listserver) > > wrote: > >  > > > > List: caala-workproduct Sent by: > > Bruce Levenson (Reply Privately) > > < http://www.caala.org/index.cfm?pg=search > Search > > > Medical decisions are made by doctors and patients, not by lawyers and > judges. It is difficult to get a surgery scheduled anywhere, particularly > with Kaiser. For example, I once had a 39-year old client who died from > a heart attack related to not having a functioning kidney a few months > after settling her medical malpractice case and a few weeks before a > scheduled kidney transplant surgery that she had been waiting months for. > > > > > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > > On Jan 11, 2026, at 8:36 AM, Aram Rostomyan (caala-workproduct > listserver) > > wrote: > >  > > > > List: caala-workproduct Sent by: > > Aram Rostomyan (Reply Privately) > > < http://www.caala.org/index.cfm?pg=search > Search > > > Dear Mates, > > I recall there were some law and motion on this issue, is there consensus > on the below questions: > > 1) client needs hand surgery through Kaiser. Defense wants DME (they don't > know Kaiser concurs with surgery rec. and she is going to get it through > them). Defense has not noticed the DME yet but proposed dates. > > Does the client get the surgery before we schedule the DME? If so, what > are the consequences? There was something about suppressing or spoiling > evidence? > > Do we allow the DME before scheduling the surgery to be on the safe side? > > Thanks for your help! > > > < https://link1712.lists.trialsmith.com/o/AclV8Ivlrzhp4uhRlsG8Bl76qhVaFXqLsD6M3xdD7zZcfY_LTsMwEEV_BXlNI9t5tkKoC1YIxCdEjj2kbu04Gjspaem_4zRVERu299zHzJkg2ZAGBwkGRui867a-ka1xjTBJB4E8EhsdT1VecsoLvk7yMmFlUbFsneYVL1jyKkbxLrRJ0Lmw5bmqAMqG0Uw9x7QgmzMZYwVf9ejUIIN23dwqaxtDYeohQjOh9rXSXg7eLwYv6k7YGUohjFgdHR5uDQu1vtVqLmbrdF2k6aKi7KP29sEpyyjjKasozYpvVla0TPNiWfbDHDTaB58E1MJ4q8Mukc7euA5wbVlZsA2ghC6gMLVx9TUEOAL6eRA61aJWde-cmRN3GqEUAVqHU9Rf7p89_LEYt_xA2QH6yVqldtlx-pK49-XJfu7zUzTtXaP_uVf3t_Hf08jl8gM > > > > < https://link1712.lists.trialsmith.com/o/AcXgi30CXoXrzqBKpyMumBhQF8z6YMBpPTS_AK6cTsQLfY_LTsMwEEV_BXmNqyTNEyFU2pQVEp8QTWwTTOw4HbstUem_Y5NSxIbtPfcxcyJI7kibKDhOAldg1IIZTW6J9vJ9kdZ5VtcJrbL8iaaPxYauq21K87guk3obbdabeGVb1inTgloMwj34KJC7Ezn4fEJHNHzPnDRDqGSNBqncNAoP1YTSNlxatrd2NlhoBtABMgAF9GiwvzTMVNtO8lAcV8uqqIpZRTZ6LYqLPC0_8ygrk2I5z9l9cCtpnV04lKCslu7t50PPpQtrzy9UC90KZGJwCKpRpvkOCTwItGFFDLxDyZvRGBUSV-ohAyc6g5PX6-s7N38sysyHR3EvduUU9SDcK99hn02HkbsPlnnTu2nlP_fK8TL-exo5n78A > > > > < https://link1712.lists.trialsmith.com/o/AWfXq2gvjD2dNyzBf-UryoXNIKEscnvBFM9Bpw0H-7A0fU_dbsIgGH2VhethsFZLzbKotV4t2SM0XwEVhVIBdZ3z3QeruuxmV19yfr5zzgVZNEV8a9ZrDc3sdhWcmbHtgBmNnpEOihdaZqsyyUqcJQXFab6aYJqQOSaLJZ0XtEhW5WIGRkXPazABml7QKTgT3FrDj8xL08RnrNIgle9aEUjVWekqLh07OtcLHFQN6EgyAAX4bOz-9qFntdtIHh8P81FOR2mPWtYGjBCS5-QrzSZZPqR9nDtGtZLOu4G3EpTT0m_v2wIvfUx7e8da6FpYJhpvQVXKVD8mYU_CupgiGr6xkletMSo6HmwgGXixMbYL-PIx5-mPRJm-OBnuxQE6Ik7jz9FOcBgfdA3-o44Dd6aW__SV7S38txq6Xr8B > > >

"David Hoffman, Esq." Date: January 11, 2026 2:45:00 PM Subject: Re: Surgery before DME? Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: caala-workproduct Sent by: David Hoffman (Reply Privately) Search Greetings, I think this requires some caution. Not necessarily a “Warning Will Robinson! Warning!” kind of caution but candor is the order of the day. No one is fooling anyone because everything will be seen with 20-20 hindsight. Bad optics for us. In cases where the client’s trajectory is independent of the lawyer and controlled by the patient and surgeon , as it should be always , and the surgeon says patient failed conservative measures and needs surgery and patient is ready, all of that is its own weather system. [The lawyer should beware interfering with the “medicine” because they are creating their own weather system of malpractice liability.] If the DME notice comes in and the patient is scheduled already, the response to the DME should be accurate in making whatever objections and announce the date. Hiding the ball would be very bad. It will come into evidence if the defense lawyer is worth their salt. But look, assuming the bona fides of the surgery, if the DME is not too arduous, I’m not sure why anyone would balk about going before surgery. Generally I give my friends the choice and they choose after surgery because they are more interested in residual sequelae . You simply do not want the ire of a trial court judge about this stuff. The corollary to this advice is that you never call the doc and patient to move them into the OR for the sake of the case, and that includes the DME. Like I said, they have their orbit and no one is fooling anyone. It could even sabotage a good settlement because the defense attorney has some unsavory stuff to splash on the plaintiff, the attorney and the doctor based on easy calculations from the chart and discovery. I mean honestly. Now that all said, if the attorney is driving the surgery for bad reasons, and the surgeon is not acting in good faith and the client is a stooge or complicit, that’s when you hide stuff, I guess. I have no personal knowledge, hence my disclaimer. In your face honesty is harder than steel as you drive them to that hard place. $.02DH David Hoffman, Esq., CSB 140557 dhoffman@hoffmanlawcorp.com Law Offices of David Hoffman, A P.C. 21900 Burbank Blvd., Suite 300 Woodland Hills, CA 91367-7418 V: (310)286-1000 (818)346-3001 C: (310)850-0233 F : (818)346-3011 Please Note Our New Address This email and any attachment(s) is intended solely for designated recipient(s) for the purpose of communicating sensitive, private and privileged information that may be shielded by the attorney-client and attorney work product privileges. If you received this in error, I regret it. Please write, “Error” in the subject line and once you press send/reply, please delete the entire email with our thanks. DH STRONG SUPPORTER OF THE CHP11-99 FOUNDATION, CAALA, CAOC, AAJ, THE UCLA BRUINS, WORLD CHAMPION NY YANKEES, DALLAS COWBOYS AND PLEASE “SHARE THE ROAD!” From: Gene Sullivan (caala-workproduct listserver) <listsender-caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com> Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2026 12:11 PM To: CAALA Work Product Discussion List <caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com> Cc: caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com Subject: Re: [caala-workproduct] Surgery before DME? List: caala-workproduct Sent by: Gene Sullivan (Reply Privately) Search Exactly. Schedule surgery. Sullivan & Sullivan 1230 Rosecrans Avenue Suite 600 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 (310) 376-0288 On Jan 11, 2026, at 11:36 AM, Bruce Levenson (caala-workproduct listserver) < listsender-caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com > wrote:  List: caala-workproduct Sent by: Bruce Levenson (Reply Privately) Search Medical decisions are made by doctors and patients, not by lawyers and judges.  It is difficult to get a surgery scheduled anywhere, particularly with Kaiser.   For example, I once had a 39-year old client who died from a heart attack related to not having a functioning kidney a few months after settling her medical malpractice case and a few weeks before a scheduled kidney transplant surgery that she had been waiting months for. Sent from my iPhone On Jan 11, 2026, at 8:36 AM, Aram Rostomyan (caala-workproduct listserver) < listsender-caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com > wrote:  List: caala-workproduct Sent by: Aram Rostomyan (Reply Privately) Search Dear Mates, I recall there were some law and motion on this issue, is there consensus on the below questions: 1) client needs hand surgery through Kaiser. Defense wants DME (they don't know Kaiser concurs with surgery rec. and she is going to get it through them). Defense has not noticed the DME yet but proposed dates. Does the client get the surgery before we schedule the DME? If so, what are the consequences? There was something about suppressing or spoiling evidence? Do we allow the DME before scheduling the surgery to be on the safe side? Thanks for your help!

Diep Nguyen, Attorney At Law

Diep Nguyen, Attorney At Law

John C. Dunn, Esq. Attorney at Law Law Offices of John C. Dunn 1550 The Alameda Ste. 160 San Jose, CA 95126 Telephone: 408.351.1085 | Facsimile: 408.904.5966 j ohn@jcdunnlaw.com NOTICE: The information contained in this email message is confidential and may also contain privileged attorney-client information or work product. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received the email message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. To comply with U.S. Treasury regulations, we advise you that any discussion of Federal tax issues in this communication was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by any person (i) for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, or (ii) to promote, market or recommend to another party any matter addressed herein. Neither this information block, the typed name of the sender, nor anything else in this message is intended to constitute an electronic signature unless a specific statement to the contrary is included in this message.

Ken Martinson Gómez Latino Caucus San Bruno

"Kevin Bryant" Date: December 11, 2025 12:47:00 PM Subject: Re: TED ROBINSON OR MICHAEL HEBRARD. Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: lawnet Sent By: Kevin Bryant Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I haven’t seen anything from either in years, but they were both historically Applicant-oriented. Sincerely, Kevin Bryant, Esq. Law Office of Kevin L. Bryant Mailing Address:    P.O. Box 1033, Citrus Heights, CA  95611 Physical Address:  1100 Melody Ln., Suite 131, Roseville, CA  95678 P:  (916) 520-4322 F:  (916) 520-4322 E:  kbryant@klbryantlaw.com From: Diep Nguyen (lawnet listserver) <listsender-lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2025 4:39 PM To: Statewide List Service <lawnet@lawnet.caaa.org> Subject: [lawnet] TED ROBINSON OR MICHAEL HEBRARD. List: lawnet Sent By: Diep Nguyen Reply To Sender Reply To List Search Settings I need to make a choice between these two PQME doctors in MPR. Any advice please. Thank you for all responses. Diep Nguyen, Attorney At Law 1569 Lexann Avenue, Suite 110 San Jose, CA 95121 P: (408) 528 - 0151 F: (408) 528 - 0153

Its a rare today when i agree with both david and michael on an issue but today is that day

"David Hoffman, Esq." Date: October 30, 2025 11:56:00 AM Subject: Re: Def Expert Sent Me EDR Data and Impressions Reply to list Reply to sender Print June Lockhart fans would appreciate, “Warning Will Robinson, Warning!” Keep that data? The Court will know you culled the file when they source the EDR data. Good luck with that. A DQ motion is a skeleton in the closet that is completely avoidable. Why would anyone smear their own reputation? Unless parable of the scorpion is in play. But I digress. We need to advocate ethically, not opportunistically. Our bar suffers from a reputation of lowball players, now especially and with a freaking fee initiative on the line for auto lawyers, and this kind of stuff only emphasizes it. Get the data from the other side, make a deal, but do not keep expert stuff that was sent inadvertently. It’s going to make you look ugly at counsel’s table arguing the DQ Submitted. David Hoffman, Esq., CSB 140557 dhoffman@hoffmanlawcorp.com Law Offices of David Hoffman, A P.C. 21900 Burbank Blvd., Suite 300 Woodland Hills, CA 91367-7418 V: (310)286-1000 (818)346-3001 C: (310)850-0233 F : (818)346-3011 Please Note Our New Address This email and any attachment(s) is intended solely for designated recipient(s) for the purpose of communicating sensitive, private and privileged information that may be shielded by the attorney-client and attorney work product privileges. If you received this in error, I regret it. Please write, “Error” in the subject line and once you press send/reply, please delete the entire email with our thanks. DH STRONG SUPPORTER OF THE CHP11-99 FOUNDATION, CAALA, CAOC, AAJ, THE UCLA BRUINS, WORLD CHAMPION NY YANKEES, DALLAS COWBOYS AND PLEASE “SHARE THE ROAD!” From: Shawn Elliott (caala-workproduct listserver) <listsender-caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2025 9:35 AM To: CAALA Work Product Discussion List <caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com> Subject: Re: [caala-workproduct] Def Expert Sent Me EDR Data and Impressions List: caala-workproduct Sent by: Shawn Elliott (Reply Privately) Search I beg to differ, a little.  The EDR download is objective ESI which is clearly discoverable.  Same can be argued re the photos.  I would ask DC to agree to allow you to hold on to the photos and download, and return the expert's impressions absent clear evidence that DC intended to waive attorney-work product by producing it to you in the first place. Shawn Elliott, Esq. Partner at Lyfe Law formerly known as Century Park Law Group • T. 888.203.1422 • Direct. 310.492.7005 • F. 888.203.1424 • ShawnE@lyfe.com • 864 S. Robertson Blvd., 3rd Fl., Los Angeles, CA 90035 • 18321 Ventura Boulevard, Ste 711, Tarzana, CA, 91356 • www.lyfe.com This message contains information that may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you are prohibited from using, copying or disclosing, to anyone, this message or any information contained in this message. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender immediately at (888) 203-1422 and delete all copies of this message. On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 9:24 AM David Hoffman (caala-workproduct listserver) < listsender-caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com > wrote: List: caala-workproduct Sent by: David Hoffman (Reply Privately) Search I’m going to chime in and underscore what Michael just wrote. I’ll add a citation for good measure. Rico v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp. (2007) 42 Cal. 4 th 807 ( DQ plaintiff lawyer for not burning/returning expert folder he acquired) David Hoffman, Esq., CSB 140557 dhoffman@hoffmanlawcorp.com Law Offices of David Hoffman, A P.C. 21900 Burbank Blvd., Suite 300 Woodland Hills, CA 91367-7418 V: (310)286-1000 (818)346-3001 C: (310)850-0233 F : (818)346-3011 Please Note Our New Address This email and any attachment(s) is intended solely for designated recipient(s) for the purpose of communicating sensitive, private and privileged information that may be shielded by the attorney-client and attorney work product privileges. If you received this in error, I regret it. Please write, “Error” in the subject line and once you press send/reply, please delete the entire email with our thanks. DH STRONG SUPPORTER OF THE CHP11-99 FOUNDATION, CAALA, CAOC, AAJ, THE UCLA BRUINS, WORLD CHAMPION NY YANKEES, DALLAS COWBOYS AND PLEASE “SHARE THE ROAD!” From: Michael Avanesian (caala-workproduct listserver) < listsender-caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com > Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2025 9:08 AM To: CAALA Work Product Discussion List < caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com > Subject: Re: [caala-workproduct] Def Expert Sent Me EDR Data and Impressions List: caala-workproduct Sent by: Michael Avanesian (Reply Privately) Search Delete the data and get it yourself is the right thing to do. Sincerely, www.avianlawgroup.com Michael Avanesian, Esq. Chief Executive Officer Licensed to practice in California Office: 818-282-8400 Fax: 818-688-5161 e: michael@avianlawgroup.com From: Michael Cefali (caala-workproduct listserver) < listsender-caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com > Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2025 8:55 AM To: CAALA Work Product Discussion List < caala-workproduct@lists.trialsmith.com > Subject: [caala-workproduct] Def Expert Sent Me EDR Data and Impressions List: caala-workproduct Sent by: Michael Cefali (Reply Privately) Search Mercury’s goofy expert sent me the EDR Data for both D and P vehicles, some photos, as well as some of his impressions. Now Del Junco is telling me to delete the EDR Data since the email was sent in error. I’m inclined to keep it and give it to my expert and save an inspection. What do I do? Very respectfully, Michael J. Cefali, Esq. Partner Cefali & Cefali, APC o. (+1) 949-325-7790 f. (+1) 949-203-3332 e. mike@callcefali.com w. www.callcefali.com a. 27136 Paseo Espada, Ste 1123, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6(b), please serve all documents on our office electronically at the following email address: litigation@callcefali.com . This message may contain information that is privileged confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not an intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify us immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Therefore we do not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.

"Beau Goodrick" Date: August 06, 2025 12:55:00 PM Subject: Re: Mediator Hon. Tom Goethals Reply to list Reply to sender Print List: caala-workproduct Sent by: Beau Goodrick (Reply Privately) Search I believe he used to be a plaintiff attorney at Robinson Calcagnie. Beau M. Goodrick, Esq. Attorney OWEN, PATTERSON & OWEN, LLP 23822 W. Valencia Blvd, Suite 303 Valencia, California 91355 Office: 661.799.3899 Ext. 777 Fax: 661.799.2774 Website: www.opolaw.com _____________________________________________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail message may be privileged, confidential, and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any further disclosure, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you think that you have received this e-mail message in error, please delete it and notify the sender.

ANY AND ALL INFO, TRANSCRIPT, ETC ASAP

I need to make a choice between these two PQME doctors in MPR.