Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 20STCV28634, Date: 2024-06-07 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV28634 Hearing Date: June 7, 2024 Dept: 76
Plaintiff is a dependent adult
who alleges that when he was admitted to the mental health center at
Defendant’s property, a male patient with whom he shared a room held Plaintiff
down while he was lying in bed and inserted his penis into Plaintiff’s mouth
without Plaintiff’s consent.
Defendant Gateways Hospital and
Mental Health Center moves for leave to reopen discovery limited to Plaintiff’s
claim of dependent adult neglect.
TENTATIVE RULING
Defendant Gateways Hospital and
Mental Health Center’s motion to reopen discovery is GRANTED. Plaintiff will be
permitted to conduct the above-identified discovery, subject to any law and
motion the parties deem necessary.
The Court will address summary
adjudication and discovery cut-off dates at the time a new trial date is set.
Motion To Reopen
Discovery
Defendant Gateways Hospital and
Mental Health Center moves for leave to reopen discovery limited to Plaintiff’s
claim of dependent adult neglect.
(a) On
motion of any party, the court may grant leave to complete discovery
proceedings, or to have a motion concerning discovery heard, closer to the
initial trial date, or to reopen discovery after a new trial date has been set.
This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section
2016.040.
(b) In
exercising its discretion to grant or deny this motion, the court shall take
into consideration any matter relevant to the leave requested, including, but
not limited to, the following:
(1) The
necessity and the reasons for the discovery.
(2) The
diligence or lack of diligence of the party seeking the discovery or the
hearing of a discovery motion, and the reasons that the discovery was not
completed or that the discovery motion was not heard earlier.
(3) Any
likelihood that permitting the discovery or hearing the discovery motion will
prevent the case from going to trial on the date set, or otherwise interfere
with the trial calendar, or result in prejudice to any other party.
(4) The
length of time that has elapsed between any date previously set, and the date
presently set, for the trial of the action.
(Civ. Proc. Code
§ 2024.050.)
Here, Defendant’s counsel submitted
a declaration, but it does not reflect a meet and confer effort, as required by
Civ. Proc. Code, § 2024.050(a). (Declaration of Rebecca Blackstone Lowell.) The
Court takes this absence of a meet and confer effort into consideration in the
scope of the ruling.
The Court addresses the factors set
forth in Civ. Proc. Code § 2024.050(b) as follows:
1. The
necessity and the reasons for the discovery.
The
necessity and reason for the requested limited discovery is the re-instated
cause of action for Dependent Adult Abuse contained in the Third Amended
Complaint, which Plaintiff filed with leave of court. This factor supports the
request to reopen discovery.
2. The
diligence or lack of diligence of the party seeking the discovery or the
hearing of a discovery motion, and the reasons that the discovery was not
completed or that the discovery motion was not heard earlier.
Defendant
did not need to conduct discovery on the Dependent Adult Abuse cause of action
when it was eliminated from the case via law and motion, and was re-instated in
the Third Amended Complaint. This factor supports the request to reopen
discovery.
3. Any
likelihood that permitting the discovery or hearing the discovery motion will
prevent the case from going to trial on the date set, or otherwise interfere
with the trial calendar, or result in prejudice to any other party.
There is
currently no trial date set. The Court is amenable to considering the parties’
requests pertaining to summary adjudication as to the re-instated cause of
action. There is no prejudice to either party in re-opening discovery. This
factor supports the request to reopen discovery.
4. The
length of time that has elapsed between any date previously set, and the date
presently set, for the trial of the action.
This factor
is moot, as there is currently no trial date set.
As to the
scope of the requested discovery, Defendant
wants to serve contention interrogatories on this cause of action only and take
the deposition of the prior employee who sued Gateways. Defendant requires only written discovery as
to these three categories, and Plaintiff’s deposition as the last category.
¿ The
defendant’s PMK testified that the policy and procedure of Gateways pertaining
to admissions and initial assessment was below the standard of care.
¿ That
defendant Gateways violated their own policies and procedures by not completing
the assessment on the perpetrator prior to placing him in the plaintiff’s room
and that defendant knew that the plaintiff was unable to take care of himself
prior to this placement, thereby creating a high probability of harm.
¿
The plaintiff cited a prior employment lawsuit wherein Gateways was sued for
allegedly placing patients in harm’s way.
Notably,
these contentions originate from sources to which Defendant would have access.
In the
Opposition, Plaintiff requests that he be permitted to conduct the following
discovery:
The extent of the discovery that
Plaintiff is seeking is as follows:
1) Chacon’s date and time of admission
at Gateways;
2) Chacon’s behavior towards staff and
Plaintiff prior to the incident;
3) Information disclosed to Defendant
about Chacon prior to his admission;
4) Whether Chacon had been a patient
prior to his admission in relation to this incident;
5) If the response to the previous
question is yes, then was there anything is his records reflecting
misappropriate behavior by Chacon at previous visit(s) – such as physical
altercation with staff or other patients, sexual misbehavior towards others, any
physical abuse towards others;
6) The basis of Chacon’s 5150 hold. In
other words, whether it was known to Defendant that Chacon posed a danger to
others (a copy of his hospital records received prior to his admission at
Gateways);
7) What specifics, if anything at all
other than the criteria for his 5150 hold, was known to Defendant about
Chacon’s behavior/personality upon his admission at the hospital-to be more
specific, anything about past violence behavior, being involved in physical
altercation with others, sexual abuse behavior, etc.;
8) A general timeline of events
starting from when Chacon was brought into Gateways until immediately post
incident. More specifically, what had occurred from the time Chacon entered the
hospital until the incident was discovered- the times of such events as well if
available; and
9) Names of employees Chacon had
interacted with during the timeline mentioned above.
In addition, Plaintiff is also seeking the opportunity to depose two former employees of Defendant (Felicitas Navera, R.N and/or Froilan Avila, MHA) who were not identified until after the Court’s ruling in response to the motion to compel and AFTER discovery had already been closed. Not only that these two individuals were not identified in Defendant’s original discovery responses, but also Plaintiff did not have the contact information of these former employees until further responses that were provided on September 26, 2023.
Plaintiff
is seeking to discovery information which would be in Defendant’s possession,
which is relevant to Plaintiff’s Dependent Abuse Act cause of action. Also,
Defendant may object to the proposed deposition of the two former employees
when the subpoenas are served upon them.
At this
stage of the litigation, however, Defendant’s motion to reopen discovery is
GRANTED, and Plaintiff will be permitted to conduct the above-identified
discovery, subject to any law and motion the parties deem necessary.
The Court will address summary
adjudication and discovery cut-off dates at the time a new trial date is set.