Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 23STCV05906, Date: 2023-11-02 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV05906 Hearing Date: November 2, 2023 Dept: 52
Plaintiff
Blade Thomas’s Motions to Compel Further Responses to (1) Form Interrogatories,
(2) Special Interrogatories, (3) Requests for Production
Separate Statements
Defendant Cedars-Sinai Medical Center’s oppositions
to plaintiff’s motions argue the separate statements are defective because they
incorporate material by reference. “The
separate statement must be full and complete so that no person is required to
review any other document in order to determine the full request and the full
response. Material must not be
incorporated into the separate statement by reference.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c).) Plaintiff’s separate statements are full and
complete. Each separate statement merely
incorporates earlier parts of itself—e.g., the reasons to compel further
responses to No. 2 incorporate the reasons stated for No. 1. Doing so is permitted and preferable to
copying the same text repeatedly.
Form Interrogatories
Plaintiff Blade Thomas, by and through his
successor in interest, Alissa Thomas, moves to compel defendant Cedars-Sinai
Medical Center to serve further responses to form interrogatories Nos. 12.6 and
17.1.
A party propounding
interrogatories may move to compel further responses when an answer “is evasive
or incomplete,” “[a]n exercise of the option to produce documents under Section
2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is
inadequate,” or “[a]n objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too
general.” (CCP § 2030.300(a).)
Form interrogatory –
general No. 12.6 asks: “Was a report made by any PERSON concerning the
INCIDENT? If so, state: (a) the name, title, identification number, and
employer of the PERSON who made the report; (b) the date and type of report
made; (c) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON for whom the
report was made; and (d) the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of each PERSON
who has the original or a copy of the report.”
Defendant made various
objections, referred to its privilege log, and referred to a document produced in
response to a deposition notice. Defendant’s
answer is insufficient. This question
does not ask for the contents of the reports.
Defendant articulates no reason why the answers to questions
12.6(a)-(d), as opposed to the contents of the reports themselves, are
privileged.
Referring to the
specified document (attached as Exhibit 1 to plaintiff’s separate statement) is
an unwarranted exercise of the option to produce documents under Code of Civil
Procedure section 2030.230. The document
is two pages, so no summary or compilation was necessary. Moreover, it is, as plaintiff describes it,
“blank.” It is a blank form for incident
reports in general. It does not answer
the questions asked.
Defendant’s objections to
form interrogatory No. 12.6 are overruled. Plaintiff
is entitled to a further response to form interrogatory No. 12.6.
Form interrogatory No.
17.1 asks defendants to (a) identify requests for admission they did not admit,
(b) state supporting facts, (c) identify all witnesses with knowledge of those
facts, and (d) identify all supporting documents, including by stating the
contact information for any person who has each document.
Plaintiff moves to compel
further responses regarding requests for admission Nos. 8, 9, 10, 15 and 16-31. Defendant did not provide a sufficient answer
to No. 17.1(b) as to requests for admission Nos. 8 and 10. Defendant responded by identifying numerous
witnesses and providing an appendix of contact information, but did not provide
contact information for all the employees.
For example, defendant named Rachel Whitaker, RN as a person with
knowledge of the facts but did not include her in the appendix of contact
information.
Defendant’s remaining
responses are valid. Defendant answered
each subpart for each request it denied.
For 17.1(b), plaintiff argues that defendant failed to provide adequate
details in support of its denials. For
example, No. 16 asked defendant to admit it “did not have a ‘method for
establishing staffing requirements per unit, patient and shift.’ ” Nos. 23 and 24 asked defendant to admit it did
not possess “competency evaluations” for some of its personnel. Defendant responded that it did have a method
for establishing staffing requirements and it did possess the “competency
evaluations.”
Plaintiff’s arguments
largely focus on the substance of whether defendant had a sufficient method for
establishing staffing requirements or had sufficient “competency evaluations,”
and so on. That defendant’s answers purportedly
do not describe a sufficient method for establishing staffing requirements is
not grounds for compelling a further response.
To the contrary, if defendant’s response describes an insufficient
method for establishing staffing requirements, that response supports
plaintiff’s case. To require further
responses would allow the requesting party to endlessly expand the
interrogatory to demand further details.
Plaintiff is not entitled
to a further response to form interrogatory No. 17.1, except for 17.1(c) as to
requests for admission No. 8 and 10.
Special
Interrogatories
Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to special
interrogatories Nos. 24, 25, 26, and 29. Plaintiff’s separate statement in support of
the motion includes special interrogatory No. 22 instead of No. 25. The motion, meanwhile, does not mention No.
22. The motion is therefore procedurally
defective as to Nos. 22 and 25. The
court only reaches the merits of Nos. 24, 26, and 29.
Nos.
24 and 26 ask defendant to identify each person working “as a certified nursing
assistant” and “as a licensed vocational nurse,” respectively, at any location
where plaintiff resided. Defendant
responded, “[A]fter a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Responding Party
does not have any responsive information to this interrogatory as there were no
‘certified nursing assistants’/ ‘licensed vocational nurses’ employed by
Responding Party on any wing, station or unit of the HOSPITAL in which Blade
Thomas resided.”
These
answers are sufficient. Plaintiff argues
the answers constitute “semantical gamesmanship” because, in response to other
discovery requests, defendant provided job descriptions including “licensed
vocational nurse” and “clinical partners” who must be certified nursing
assistants. That defendant did not
employ any such people is a complete and direct response. Whether the response is true is a question of
credibility, not whether defendant complied with the Civil Discovery Act. (See Saxena v. Goffney (2008) 159
Cal.App.4th 316, 333 [“serving a willfully false answer to an interrogatory” is
“not specifically covered by the Civil Discovery Act”].)
No. 29 asks defendant to identify and provide contact
information for each member of the hospital’s governing body. Defendant identified numerous people but did
not provide contact information for them.
Defendant stated they can be contacted through defendant’s counsel. Even assuming defendant represents these
individuals (see Cal. Rules of Prof. Conduct, rule 1.13(a) [“the client is the
organization itself”]) such that plaintiff’s counsel may not communicate with
them under the California Rules of Professional Conduct (rule 4.2(a), (b), (d)),
those are not rules of discovery. Plaintiff
may discover their contact information.
In its
opposition, defendant states it served an appendix of contact information on
September 6, 2023. (Aziz Decl., Ex.
B.) That appendix does not include
contact information for all people defendant identified in response to special
interrogatory No. 29. Plaintiff is
therefore entitled to a further response to special interrogatory No. 29.
Requests for Production
Plaintiff Blade Thomas moves to compel further responses
to requests for production Nos. 2 and 33.
Plaintiff’s separate statement in support of the motion includes request
for production No. 3 instead of No. 2.
The motion, meanwhile, does not mention No. 3. The motion is therefore procedurally
defective as to Nos. 2 and 3. The court
only reaches the merits of No. 33.
A requesting party may
move to compel further responses if “[a] statement of compliance with the
demand is incomplete,” “[a] representation of inability to comply is
inadequate, incomplete, or evasive,” or “[a]n objection in the response is
without merit or too general.” (CCP §
2031.310(a).)
No. 33 demands “all DOCUMENTS upon which the
responding party relied during the time period of April 1, 2021 through
December 14, 2021 to ensure that HOSPITAL patient care personnel who, on behalf
of the HOSPITAL, provided any BASIC SERVICES to Blade Thomas were fit to
perform their job duties in the HOSPITAL.”
Defendant responded with various objections and
ultimately gave the following substantive response: “Responding Party complies
with this demand and has already produced all responsive documents that are in
the possession, custody, and control of Responding Party as Exhibits 8 and 18.”
In its opposition, defendant acknowledges it
withheld so-called “fitness documents” including job applications and
performance reviews. Defendant argues it
may withhold these documents solely by relying on what the court stated at an
informal discovery conference: “The Court noted that plaintiff had not alleged
a cause of action for Negligent Hiring, Supervision, and/or Retention. The
Court acknowledged that, if required to do a balancing test, the employees’
information is not relevant as it pertains to this case. Further, the Court also acknowledged that
employee applications or other documents would not be relevant either.” (Opp., p. 11.)
As plaintiff argues, however, recovering enhanced remedies
for elder abuse by an employer requires showing that “the employer had advance knowledge of the unfitness
of the employee and employed him or her with a conscious disregard of the
rights or safety of others” (Civ. Code, § 3294(b); Welf. & Inst. Code, §
15657(c) [incorporating Civ. Code § 3294(b)].)
Plaintiff’s need for
disclosure justifies discovery of the employees’ private information. “The party asserting a privacy right must
establish a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable
expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion
that is serious.” (Williams v.
Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552.) If the objecting party shows all three
elements, then the court must balance the need for disclosure against the right
to privacy. (Ibid.) “[T]he party seeking protection may identify
feasible alternatives that serve the same interests or protective measures that
would diminish the loss of privacy.” (Ibid.)
Defendant establishes each
element. People have a right to privacy
in their personnel files and other employment records. (Board of Trustees v. Superior Court (1981)
119 Cal.App.3d 516, 528-530.) These
employees have an objectively reasonable expectation that employment records
remain between them and their employer. Discovering
documents such as performance evaluations and disciplinary reports is a serious
intrusion.
Disclosing these
documents is the most reasonable and reliable way for plaintiff to discover
potential evidence that defendant’s officers or managing agents knew its
employees were unfit. Plaintiff has no
practical alternative way to learn this information. Entering a protective order, as plaintiff
proposed, will adequately serve to mitigate the intrusion into employees’
privacy rights.
Defendant’s objections to
request for production No. 33 are overruled. Plaintiff
is entitled to a further response to No. 33.
Sanctions
Plaintiff moves for monetary sanctions against defendant
in each motion. Plaintiff’s motions were
only partially successful. Defendant
acted with substantial justification in opposing each motion. No sanctions are warranted.
Disposition
Plaintiff
Blade Thomas’s motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories is granted in part as to form interrogatory No. 12.6 and No. 17.1(c)
regarding requests for admission Nos. 8 and 10.
Defendant Cedars-Sinai Medical Center is ordered to provide further verified responses without
objections to form interrogatory No. 12.6 and No. 17.1(c) regarding requests
for admission Nos. 8 and 10 within 30 days.
Plaintiff Blade Thomas’s motion to compel further responses
to special interrogatories is granted
in part as to special interrogatory
No. 29. Defendant Cedars-Sinai Medical
Center is ordered to provide a further verified response without
objections to special interrogatory No. 29 within 30 days.
Plaintiff Blade Thomas’s motion to compel further
responses to requests for production is granted
in part as to request No. 33. Subject to a protective order limiting
disclosure of the documents and information about defendant’s employees, defendant
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center is ordered to produce all additional documents responsive to
request for production No. 33 within 30 days.