Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 23STCV04552, Date: 2024-10-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV04552    Hearing Date: October 22, 2024    Dept: 30

Dept. 30

Calendar No.

Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center vs. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., et. al., Case No. 23STCV04552

Tentative Ruling re:  Defendant’s Motion to Compel

On April 19, 2024, Defendant served a notice of deposition of persons most knowledgeable on Plaintiff. (Schnier Decl. ¶ 2.) On May 17, Plaintiff served its responses and objections. (Id. ¶ 3.) The parties met and conferred on May 31 but did not reach a resolution. (Id. ¶ 4.) On July 17, Plaintiff notified Defendant that it would not produce a witness as to portions of topics 1, 3, 4, 14–17, and 29. (Id. ¶ 6.) Defendant filed the present motion to compel on September 30, 2024. Plaintiff filed an opposition on October 9. Defendant filed a reply on October 15.

With respect to topic 1, Plaintiff objects to offering testimony because it would be premature expert testimony or likely to divulge privileged information. Nevertheless, Plaintiff has agreed to provide a witness to testify on topics related to fair market value. Defendant seeks a witness testifying as to what Plaintiff believes reflect the fair market value of its services. Plaintiff’s potential witness testifying on topics related to fair market value should be sufficient. Thus, Defendant’s motion to compel is denied as to topic 1.

With respect to topic 3, Plaintiff has offered to provide a witness to testify as to Plaintiff’s rates for commercial buyers. Thus, Defendant’s motion to compel is denied as to topic 3, which requests the same.

With respect to topic 4, Plaintiff refuses to produce a witness discussing the rates it pays to Medicare and Medi-Cal because those rates are publicly available. Plaintiff may still produce a witness to testify as to publicly available information. Thus, Defendant’s motion to compel is granted as to topic 4.

With respect to topic 14–17, Plaintiff argues that the testimony sought is irrelevant. “[U]nder quantum meruit, the costs of the services provided are not relevant to a determination of reasonable value. Quantum meruit measures the value of services to the recipient, not the costs to the provider.” (Children’s Hospital Central California v. Blue Cross of California (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1260, 1278.) Public policy concerns weigh against the use of cost data for the purpose of determining quantum meruit. However, Defendant has made a showing that this information could lead to relevant evidence for the purposes of this case, where Defendant has demonstrated that Plaintiff’s profitability could be at issue, even if costs are not. Given the wide scope of discovery, Defendant’s motion to compel is granted as to topics 14–17.

With respect to topic 29, Plaintiff has agreed to produce a witness which can testify to the nature and quality of its services, but objects to discovery concerning adverse evidence including investigations and disciplinary matters. The Court agrees with Defendant that negative incidents pertain to the nature and value of Plaintiff’s services, and Plaintiff’s offered witness should be able to testify as to those topics. Thus, Defendant’s motion to compel is granted as to topic 29.