Maria Zhdanovich-Doty v. Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company and Does 1-10

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: January 7, 2026
• Docket: 4:24-cv-04829
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 MARIA ZHDANOVICH-DOTY, Case No. 4:24-cv-04829-YGR

14 Plaintiff, The Honorable Robert M. Illman

15 v. [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING THE JANUARY 6, 2026 DISCOVERY 16 PROVIDENT LIFE AND ACCIDENT HEARING INSURANCE COMPANY and DOES 1- 17 10,

18 Defendants. 19

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 On January 6, 2026, the court held a discovery hearing via Zoom in the above- 2 entitled matter. Matthew Bourhis appeared on behalf of Plaintiff Maria Zhdanovich-Doty 3 (“Plaintiff”). Theona Zhordania and Charles A. Danaher appeared on behalf of Defendant 4 Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company (“Defendant”). 5 The court, having considered the June 10, 2025, Order (Doc. 39), the discovery at 6 issue, the parties’ arguments, and good cause appearing, hereby ORDERS as follows: 7 1. Amended Responses to RFP Nos. 1-65 8 Plaintiff shall provide amended or supplemental responses to Defendant’s RFP 9 Nos. 1- 65 that comply with the June 10, 2025, Order and Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of 10 Civil Procedure. (See Doc. 39 at p. 1). Specifically, each response must state that, after 11 a diligent search and reasonable inquiry: 12 a. all responsive documents have been produced and no documents are being 13 withheld based on any objection; or 14 b. identify the subset of documents produced, specify which documents are 15 being withheld, and identify the objection(s) pursuant to which they are withheld; or 16 c. all responsive documents are being withheld and specify the objection 17 pursuant to which they are withheld; or 18 d. no responsive documents have been located and no documents are being 19 withheld based on any objection. 20 Additionally, the amended or supplemental responses must be signed by counsel 21 of record as a certification under Rule 26(g). 22 2. Supplemental Production to RFP Nos. 41-43 23 Plaintiff shall obtain from Dr. Doty’s former counsel -- attorneys Brian M. Taylor 24 and Ian K. McGlone of Boutin Jones and Greg Abrams of Abrams Health Law -- their 25 entire file relating to the administrative proceeding involving Dr. Doty before the 26 California Medical Board. See White v. Molfetta, 64 Cal. App. 5th 628, 637 (2021) 27 (“[T]he client’s file is the property of the client, in California, the obligation to turn it 1 counsel”); Taylor v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 50 Cal. App. 5th 205 (2020) (same); see also 2 Cal. Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 1.16(e)(1). 3 Records held by Dr. Doty’s former counsel are considered to be within Plaintiff’s 4 control under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34. See In re Soc. Media Adolescent 5 Addiction/Pers. Inj. Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 22-MD-03047-YGR (PHK), 2024 WL 6 4125618 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 2024) (analyzing test for “control” under federal law, noting 7 the control test is applied “broadly,” and noting that federal courts can order production 8 of documents despite state court restrictions); In re Citric Acid Litig., 191 F.3d 1090, 9 1107 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[c]ontrol is defined as the legal right to obtain documents on 10 demand”) (quoting United States v. Int'l Union of Petroleum & Indus. Workers, 870 F.2d 11 1450, 1452 (9th Cir. 1989)). 12 To comply with Defendant’s RFP Nos. 41–43, Plaintiff shall either (a) produce the 13 entire file to Defendant’s counsel under the parties’ protective order, or (b) produce the 14 following documents: 15 a. Transcript(s) of the administrative hearing held before Administrative Law 16 Judge Holly Baldwin from September 18 through September 20, 2023. Dr. Doty’s post- 17 hearing brief, produced by the California Medical Board, cites pages and lines from the 18 transcript, indicating that Dr. Doty’s attorneys possess a copy. 19 b. A digital copy or recording of the August 23, 2021 interview of Dr. Doty 20 conducted by Investigator Daniel Schuman, which was marked as Exhibit 8 during the 21 administrative hearing. 22 c. Transcript of the June 2019 interview of Dr. Doty by the California 23 Department of Public Health (“CDPH”), referenced on page 15, footnote 5 of the Decision 24 issued by the California Medical Board. (See Doc. 28-1 at p. 174). 25 d. Transcript of any other deposition, interview, or testimony by Dr. Doty in 26 connection with the administrative hearing. 27 e. All motions in limine filed by Dr. Doty in connection with the administrative 1 f. The motion to dismiss filed by Dr. Doty based on the doctrine of laches in 2 connection with the administrative hearing, if different from the motions in limine. 3 g. Dr. Doty’s Mandatory Settlement Conference statement, or any brief filed in 4 connection with the Mandatory Settlement Conference, related to the administrative 5 hearing. 6 h. The Investigation Report prepared by Daniel Schuman regarding Dr. Doty, 7 with all attachments. (Division of Investigation, Health Quality Investigation Unit, San 8 Jose Field Office). 9 i. Dr. Doty’s Controlled Substance Utilization Review and Evaluation System 10 (CURES) Patient Activity Report run by investigator Daniel Schuman and attached as 11 Attachment 12 to his investigative report. 12 j. Neuropsychological evaluation that Dr. Doty underwent at the request of the 13 El Camino Hospital’s Care Review Committee (“CRC”), which determined that he did not 14 have an impairment affecting his ability to practice medicine, referenced in the 15 investigative report by Daniel Schuman. 16 To the extent any records contain confidential patient information, such information 17 may be redacted prior to production. Alternatively, Plaintiff may produce the records 18 pursuant to the parties’ protective order, with Defendant’s counsel responsible for 19 redacting any private or sensitive information of third parties. 20 3. Amended Responses to RFP Nos. 67-74 21 For RFP Nos. 67-74, Plaintiff shall serve amended or supplemental responses 22 certifying that Plaintiff is not claiming that Dr. Doty suffered emotional distress due to 23 financial hardship resulting from Defendant’s conduct. (See Doc. 39 at p. 5). 24 4. Supplemental Production to RFP Nos. 24, 27, 46, and 60 25 In addition to providing amended responses in compliance with paragraph one 26 above, Plaintiff shall produce all documents responsive to RFP Nos. 24, 27, 46, and 60, in 27 her possession, custody and control, to the extent Plaintiff has not already done so. (See 1 || Doc. 39). Plaintiff shall produce such documents as they are kept in the ordinary course of 2 || business or organize them by category, as required by Rule 34. 3 5. Privilege Log 4 If Plaintiff has withheld any responsive documents on the basis of attorney-client 5 || privilege or the work product doctrine, Plaintiff shall provide a privilege log containing: 6 || (a) a description of the responsive material withheld; (b) the identity and position of its 7 || author; (c) the date it was created; (d) the identity and position of all addressees and 8 || recipients; (e) the material’s present location; and (f) the specific reasons for withholding 9 || the material, including the privilege asserted and the grounds supporting that assertion. 10 || See Friends of Hope Valley v. Frederick County, 268 F.R.D. 643, 650-51 (E.D. Cal. 11 || 2010). 12 6. Deadline for Compliance 13 Plaintiff shall comply with this Order on or before January 20, 2026. 14 7. Joint Status Letter 15 The parties shall jointly file a letter with Judge Illman regarding the status of 16 || Plaintiff's compliance with this Order on or before January 21, 2026. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 201|Dated: January 7, 2026

2 H6forableRobert M. Illman United States Magistrate Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28