BACKGROUND 

This case arises from claims of elder abuse and wrongful death.  Plaintiff Robert Goldston Sr. brings this suit individually and as successor in interest to his mother, Darlene Waters against various medical providers.   

As relevant here, Plaintiff alleges the UCLA Ronald Reagan Medical Center failed to properly assess and document the progression of a pressure ulcer in Waters’ sacral region.  (First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), ¶67).  Further, according to Plaintiff, his mother developed eight additional pressure sores during her admission at UCLA Medical, all of which contributed to her eventual death.  (FAC ¶¶ 83-84.)  Plaintiff alleges claims for elder abuse and neglect, wrongful death and negligence per se against Defendant The Regents of the University of California (the “Regents”).  

This hearing is on the Regents’ motion for a protective order.  The Regents argue that Plaintiff’s Request for Production (“RFP”) Nos. 1-170, Special Interrogatory (“SROG”) Nos. 1-88, Request for Admission (“RFA”) Nos. 1-56 and Form Interrogatories (“FROG”) are “duplicative, woefully overbroad, and wholly irrelevant.”  The Regents also argues that Plaintiff’s discovery requests seek documents and information which are privileged under Evid. Code § 1157.       

LEGAL STANDARD 

The court shall limit the scope of discovery if it determines that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.¿ The court may make this determination pursuant to¿a motion for protective order by a party or other affected person.¿ This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040.¿ (Code Civ. Proc.,¿§ 2017.020(a).)¿ “A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each¿issue presented by the motion.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc.,¿§ 2016.040.)¿¿¿ 

The court shall restrict the frequency or extent of use of a discovery method if it determines either of the following:¿ 

(Code Civ. Proc.,¿§ 2019.030(a).)¿¿¿ 

Code of Civil Procedure sections¿2030.090(a), 2031.060(a),¿and 2033.080(a) provide that a party upon whom interrogatories, inspection demands or request for admissions have been propounded may “promptly” move for a protective order.¿ The party seeking protective order has the burden of showing¿good cause for the order sought.  (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court¿(2000) 22 Ca1.4th 245, 255.)¿¿¿ 

DISCUSSION 

The Regents argues Plaintiff’s discovery requests seek irrelevant documents or information.  However, other than a few examples (RFPs 62, 69, 77, SROGs 72, 88), the Regents fails to identify all such requests.  Clearly, not all of the discovery requests seek irrelevant information, and by failing to identify the specific requests it contends are not relevant, the Regents fails to meet its burden.  As to the specific examples, the Court agrees that RFPs 62, 69, 77 and SROG 72 seek irrelevant documents or information.        

The Regents also argues Plaintiff’s discovery requests are woefully overbroad.  Again, the Regents fails to identify all such requests it contends are overbroad.  The Court should not be put to the task of reviewing each request to determine whether it is overbroad.  As to the specific examples, the Court agrees that RFPs 62, 69, 77 and SROG 72 are overbroad.   

The Regents next argues that the requests are unduly burdensome and oppressive.  The Regents, however, has not specified the amount of time it would take to respond to Plaintiff’s requests.  The Regents merely points to the sheer volume of the requests (314 requests), without specifying how many hours and how much money it would take to respond.  An “objection based upon¿burden must be sustained by evidence showing the quantum of work required, while to support an objection of oppression there must be some showing either of an intent to create an unreasonable burden or that the ultimate effect of the burden is incommensurate with the result sought.” (See¿West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417.) 

The Regents also argues that Plaintiff’s discovery requests seek documents and information “which are clearly privileged from disclosure under Evidence Code, section 1157.”  That section states that: “Neither the proceedings nor the records of organized committees of medical … staffs in hospitals, or of a peer review body […] having the responsibility of evaluation and improvement of the quality of care rendered in the hospital […] shall be subject to discovery.”  As with its other objections, the Regents does not identify the specific requests implicated by this claim of privilege.  The Court should not be tasked with evaluating each discovery request to determine if it calls for documents protected from disclosure under § 1157.   

In sum, the protective order the Regents seeks –an order allowing it not to respond to any requests – is overbroad and unsupported by the record.  The Regents must be obligated to respond to some discovery requests, and its motion overreaches in arguing it should not have to respond to any.