Judge: David S. Cunningham, Case: 19STCV05681, Date: 2024-02-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV05681    Hearing Date: February 9, 2024    Dept: 11

19STCV05681 (Fleschert)

Order Re: Transcript and Supplemental Briefing Re:

Motion to Amend or Modify the Court’s 5/30/23 Certification Order

Date:                           2/9/24

Moving Party:           Amy Fleschert (“Plaintiff”)

Opposing Party:        Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (“Defendant” or “Cedars-Sinai”)=

Department:              11

Judge:                         David S. Cunningham III

________________________________________________________________________

ORDER

On 5/30/23, the Court “certif[ied] the contract class as an issue class as to liability” but denied certification of a damages class.  (2/8/24 Tentative Ruling Re: Motion to Amend or Modify the Court’s 5/30/23 Certification Order, p. 2.)  “The Court found . . . that Plaintiff’s damages formula works but that she failed to show that it could be utilized on a class-wide basis in a feasible and manageable manner.”  (Ibid.)  “The Court made the ruling ‘without prejudice[,]’ granting Plaintiff leave to file ‘a renewed motion to certify the damages class’ in the future.”  (Ibid.)     

On 2/8/24, Plaintiff’s motion to amend or modify the 5/30/23 certification order came on for hearing.  Plaintiff argued that the denial of certification of a damages class should be reversed because “Defendant’s recent discovery responses demonstrate that it is feasible and manageable to apply the damages formula on a class-wide basis[.]” (Ibid.)

To start the analysis, the Court acknowledged that “Defendant’s discovery responses do, in fact, suggest that”:

* “all four data points [for Plaintiff’s damages formula] can be obtained from Defendant’s Epic Systems” (id. at p. 4);

* the data points can be placed in a spreadsheet (see ibid.); and

* “the process would take no more than 200 hours” (ibid.).

However, “the Court [tentatively found] that the motion should be denied” because:

* Plaintiff “fail[ed] to cite evidence supporting” the purported $100 hourly rate and $20,000 total cost (id. at p. 5); and

* “she [] fail[ed] to address the time and cost that would be required to perform the calculations after the spreadsheet is made” (ibid. [noting that “there are 150,000 class members” and that “Plaintiff fail[ed] to say” “[h]ow much time per calculation per class member would be necessary”]).

Ultimately, though, the Court took the matter under submission.

Now, having further considered the parties’ papers and arguments, the Court finds that supplemental briefing is needed.  The Court orders the parties to provide the Court with a copy of the transcript of the 2/8/24 hearing and to file supplemental briefs. Defendant’s discovery responses do not state whether, in addition to the four data points, the spreadsheet is expected to contain calculations for each class member based on application of Plaintiff’s damages formula.  (See, e.g., Carpenter Decl., Ex. C, pp. 4-5 [attaching Defendant’s response to request for admission number 45, which merely admits that it would take less than 200 hours to generate a spreadsheet with “individual rows for each patient visit” that list the four data points].)  Is it expected to contain such calculations?  If it is, does the estimate of 200 hours include the time that would be required to perform the calculations?  If it is not, how much extra time would it take to perform the calculations?  And what would the cost be?  The supplemental briefs should answer these questions.

The supplemental briefs shall not exceed five pages. 

The transcript and supplemental briefs shall be filed on or before March 11, 2024. 

The hearing shall be on March 26, 2024 at 2:30 PM.