Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 20STCV27618A, Date: 2024-01-10 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV27618A Hearing Date: January 10, 2024 Dept: 30
Calendar
No.
Nat-Pharm Inc. vs. Silverado Senior Living, Inc.,
et. al., Case
No. 20STCV37618
Tentative
Ruling re: Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
Further Discovery Responses
Plaintiff Nat-Pharm Inc., dba South Bay
Pharmacy (Plaintiff) moves to compel Defendant
Subtenant 514 N. Prospect Ave. LLC dba Silverado Beach Cities Memory Care
Community (Defendant) to provide further response to the Special
Interrogatories (Set Two), No. 39. The motion is granted. Defendant is ordered
to respond to Special Interrogatory No. 39 within ten (10) days of today’s
date. Defendant is ordered to pay
Plaintiff’s counsel $2,720 within thirty (30) days of today’s date.
A motion to compel further
responses to form or specially prepared interrogatories may be brought if
the responses contain: (1) answers that are evasive or incomplete; (2) an
unwarranted or insufficiently specific exercise of an option to produce
documents in lieu of a substantive response; or (3) unmerited or overly
generalized objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).) If a timely motion to compel has been
filed, the¿burden is on the responding party¿to justify any objection or
failure fully to answer.¿(Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d
210, 220–221; see also¿Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court¿(2000) 22
Cal.4th 245, 255.)
On August 4, 2022, Plaintiff served the
Special Interrogatories (Set Two) on Defendant. (Bhakta Decl. ¶ 4.) Set Two
consists of one interrogatory, No. 39, which reads, “Please IDENTIFY each
patient, and the guardian(s) of such patient, who was receiving services from
YOU at any time from January 1, 2018 to the present, including their names,
last known addresses, telephone numbers, dates of service, and email
addresses.”
Defendant served its response on August
23, 2022. (Bhakta Decl., Ex. B [24].) Defendant objected to No. 39 as vague,
ambiguous, and irrelevant, and as seeking third-party information protected by
the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).
In opposition, Defendant first argues
that Plaintiff already possesses the information requested in its own patient
records. However, the interrogatory seeks to identify Defendant’s patients and
their guardians, not Plaintiff’s, and Defendant has not shown that Plaintiff
already has access to Defendant’s patient records.
Defendant next argues that the
disclosure of the requested information is prohibited by HIPAA. HIPPA bars the
disclosure of “protected health information” by “covered entities.” (45 C.F.R.
§§ 160.103, 164.502.) However, HIPPA provides for certain situations where “[a]
covered entity may use or disclose protected health information without the
written authorization of the individual . . . or the opportunity for the
individual to agree or object . . .” (45 C.F.R. § 164.512.) Under this section,
“[a] covered entity may disclose protected health information in the course of
any judicial or administrative proceeding . . . In response to an order of a
court or administrative tribunal, provided that the covered entity discloses
only the protected health information expressly authorized by such order.” (45
C.F.R. § 164.512, subd. (e)(i).) Disclosure of protected health information is
also permitted in response to a subpoena or discovery request without an
accompanying court order, if “the covered entity receives satisfactory
assurance” that the propounding party has made reasonable efforts to either
notify the subject patients or secure an appropriate protective order. (45 C.F.R. § 164.512, subd. (e)(ii).)
The Court finds
Defendant’s HIPAA objection unavailing. Without the requested identification
and contact information, Plaintiff cannot satisfy HIPAA’s disclosure
requirement via “reasonable efforts” to notify the affected patients of the
request. (45 C.F.R. § 164.512,
subd. (e)(ii)(A).) Disclosure would be proper under
HIPAA pursuant to a qualified protective order as provided under 45 C.F.R. §
174.512, subd. (e)(1)(v). (45
C.F.R. § 164.512, subd. (e)(ii)(B).)
Defendant also requests that the
disclosure of patient information be limited in scope to Defendant’s patients
and their guardians during 2018. However, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
published the defamatory statements to its residents not only during 2018, but
also “continuing thereafter to the present.” (Comp. ¶ 14.) Given this, the
scope of the request is appropriate. Accordingly, the motion to compel further
response is granted.
“The court shall impose a monetary
sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party,
person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a
further response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to
the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances
make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300, subd.
(d).)
The Court finds that monetary sanctions
are warranted based on Defendant’s unsuccessful opposition. Plaintiff requests
monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,720, based on an hourly rate of $380,
for 4 hours to prepare the motion, 3 hours to prepare the reply and attend the
hearing, and a filing fee of $60. (Bhakta Decl. ¶ 9.) The requested sanctions
are granted.