Judge: Elaine Lu, Case: 22DSTCV100077, Date: 2024-04-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22DSTCV100077    Hearing Date: April 2, 2024    Dept: 26

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 26

Procedural Background

On March 23, 2022, Plaintiff Kristina Holman (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant wrongful termination action against Defendants Kerlan-Jobe Surgery Center, LLC, Kerlan-Jobe, LLC, Cedars-Sinai Kerlan Jobe Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Cedars-Sinai Medical Care Foundation, and Kerlan-Jobe Orthopaedic Clinic.  On March 25, 2024, Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) against Defendants Kerlan-Jobe Surgery Center, LLC, Kerlan-Jobe, LLC, Cedars-Sinai Kerlan Jobe Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Cedar Sinai Medical Care Foundation, and Kerlan-Jobe Orthopaedic Clinic, a Medical Group Inc.  The SAC asserts eleven causes of action for (1) Retaliation in violation of Labor Code § 1102.5, (2) Retaliation in violation of Labor Code § 232.5, (3) Retaliation in violation of California Business and Professions Code § 510, (4) Discrimination on the Basis of Age in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), (5) Discrimination on the Basis of Disability in violation of FEHA, (6) Failure to Prevent Discrimination in violation of FEHA, (7) Retaliation in violation of FEHA, (8) Failure to Prevent Retaliation in violation of FEHA, (9) Failure to Accommodate in violation of FEHA, (10) Failure to Engage in a Good Faith Interactive Process in violation of FEHA, and (11) Wrongful Termination in violation of Public Policy.

On September 26, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for issue and evidentiary sanctions against Defendant Kerlan-Jobe Surgery Center, LLC (“Surgery Center”).  On November 1, 2023, Plaintiff filed an amended motion for issue and evidentiary sanctions against Defendant Surgery Center.  On December 19, 2023, Plaintiff filed a second amended motion for issue and evidentiary sanctions against Defendant Surgery Center.  On January 11, 2024, Defendant Surgery Center filed an opposition.  On January 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed a reply. 

On January 30, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion in part and denied in part. 

On March 8, 2024, Defendant Kerlan-Jobe Surgery Center filed a statement regarding its compliance with the January 30, 2024 Order and attached its further responses.

On March 20, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendant’s March 8, 2024 statement of compliance. 

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 provides that, “[t]o the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method . . . , the court, after notice to any affected party, person, or attorney, and after opportunity for hearing, may impose . . . [monetary, issue, evidence, or terminating] sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process . . . .”  Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010 provides that “[m]issues of the discovery process include, but are not limited to, the following: . . . (d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery. . . . (g) Disobeying a court order to provide discovery . . . .”

“Nevertheless, absent unusual circumstances, such as repeated and egregious discovery abuses, two facts are generally prerequisite to the imposition of a nonmonetary sanction. There must be a failure to comply with a court order and the failure must be willful.”  (Lee v. Lee (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1553, 1559.)  “Even where nonmonetary sanctions are called for, they ‘ “...’should be appropriate to the dereliction, and should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery.’ [Citations.] ‘ “... [¶] The sanctions the court may impose are such as are suitable and necessary to enable the party seeking discovery to obtain the objects of the discovery he seeks, but the court may not impose sanctions which are designed not to accomplish the objects of discovery but to impose punishment.’ ” ’ [Citations.]”  (Biles v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1327.)

“A trial court has broad discretion when imposing a discovery sanction.”  (Lee, supra, 175 Cal.App.4th at p.1559.)  “In exercising this discretion [for nonmonetary sanctions], a variety of factors may be relevant, including, 1) the time which has elapsed since [the discovery requests] were served, 2) whether the party served was previously given a voluntary extension of time, 3) the number of [the discovery requests] propounded, 4) whether the unanswered questions sought information which was difficult to obtain, 5) whether the answers supplied were evasive and incomplete, 6) the number of questions which remained unanswered, 7) whether the questions which remain unanswered are material to a particular claim or defense, 8) whether the answering party has acted in good faith, and with reasonable diligence, 9) the existence of prior orders compelling discovery and the answering party's response thereto, 10) whether the party was unable to comply with the previous order of the court, 11) whether an order allowing more time to answer would enable the answering party to supply the necessary information, and, 12) whether a sanction short of dismissal or default would be appropriate to the dereliction.”  (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 796–797.)

Discussion

            Defendant’s statement regarding its compliance with the January 30, 2024 Order filed on March 8, 2024 shows that it served on Plaintiff its code-compliant responses without objections to Requests for Production, Set One, Nos. 61, 63, 65-72, 74-76, 100, 101, 103, 106, 1071, 108, 115, 116, 118, and 119 with the temporal limitation of January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2021, along with responsive documents.  (3/8/24 KJSC Statement.)  Defendant attached as Exhibit A copies of its responses at issue.  (Id.)  As to requests Nos. 1, and 3-6, the Court ordered Defendant to provide a privilege log identifying any documents withheld or redactions made.  On February 29, 2024, Defendant also served on Plaintiff a privilege log identifying redactions made to the responsive documents produced, including the patient records responsive to Nos. 1, and 3-6, which Defendant attached as Exhibit B as a true and correct copy of its privilege log.  (3/8/24 KJSC Statement.)  Defendant states that it provided unique identifiers to the patient records with bates numbers KJSC 000443-000726 so that Plaintiff may identify which documents correspond to a specific patient.  (Id.)  Defendant also explains that the parties did not file a joint statement due to Plaintiff’s counsel’s unavailability at the time of filing. 

            In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Defendant failed to meet the February 29, 2024, deadline to avoid issue sanctions. 

Plaintiff asserts that Defendant failed to comply with the January 30, 2024 Order to provide further responses to RPD Nos. 1, 3-6, 61, 63, 65-72, 74-76, 100, 101, 103, 106, 107, 108, 115, 116, 118, and 119.  Plaintiff states there were no written responses to RPD Nos. 1, 3-6, and all written responses relating to remaining RPDs were not code compliant as Defendant stated that discovery was ongoing and reserved the right to change its answers rather than producing all documents.  In some instances, Defendant agreed to produce all documents only “if they exist” making it unclear if and when any documents would ever be produced.  Also, where Defendant stated it will produce all documents, Plaintiff states that either zero documents were produced or Defendant produced a portion of documents in a disorganized production with pages missing without specifying which bates labeled documents respond to which request.  Finally, Plaintiff states that Defendant’s motion for protective order (“MPO”) seeking relief from responding to RPD One on grounds of patient and business privacy and relevance was denied in June 2023, and August 1, 2023, and the Court ordered complete responses without objections.  However, Plaintiff points out that Defendant produced a privilege log stating that it is still withholding documents — despite agreeing to produce all documents — based on privacy and lack of relevance and other waived and overruled objections rather than on attorney work product.  Thus, Plaintiff argues that issue sanction no. 1-23 is warranted.

Failure to Comply with the January 30, 2024 Order

On January 30, 2024, the Court ordered Defendant Kerlan-Jobe Surgery Center, LLC to provide a code-complaint response including a privilege log identifying any documents withheld or redactions made as to Request for Production, Set One No. 1, and 3-6 and further provide responsive documents with only redactions that have been stipulated or identified and supported with a privilege log within twenty (20) days of notice of that order, where Defendant’s failure to do so would result in issue sanction 1 being granted.  The Court also ordered Defendant Kerlan-Jobe Surgery Center, LLC to provide a code-complaint response to Request for Production, Set One Nos. 61, 63, 65-72, 74-76, 100, 101, 103, 106 107, 108, 115, 116, 118, and 119 with the temporal limitation of January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2021 without objection and provide responsive documents within twenty (20) days of notice of this order, where Defendant’s failure to do so would result in issue sanctions 2-23 being granted.  The Court denied Plaintiff’s request for issue sanctions 24-29.  Finally, the Court ordered the parties to file a joint statement no later than March 8, 2024, identifying whether Defendant Kerlan-Jobe Surgery Center complied with the order and attaching Defendant’s further responses. 

Plaintiff shows that issue sanction 1 to RPD no. 1, 3-6 is warranted because Defendant failed to comply with the Court order by (1) failing to provide any written responses to RPD nos. 1, 3-6; (2) failing to include the last 4 digits of the actual patient ID number, making it unclear whether the records produced are actual patient records or whether Defendant accurately matched the surgery record with the anesthesia record to the same patient when renumbering, redacting all remaining non-personally identifying information (Gevorkian Decl., Exhib. 9); (3) failing to produce records for the years 2018, 2020, 2021 despite evidence that confirming surgeries were continued (id. ¶ 9); and (4) failing to produce records identified in RPD nos. 1, 3-5, such as Time-Out checklists, nurse logs, and other documents.  (Opp. pp. 7-10.) 

Plaintiff also sufficiently explains that issue sanctions nos. 2-23 are warranted because Defendant failed to provide complete code compliant responses by February 29, 2024.  Specifically, Plaintiff shows that (1) written response to RPD Nos. 61, 63, 65-72, 74-76, 100-101, 103, 106-108, 115-116, 118-119 were not code compliant as Defendant stated that it would produce all documents only “if they exist,” without indicating whether the documents would be produced and/or what documents it was withholding; (2) Defendant did not produce any documents as to RPDs nos. 66-69, 74, 75-76, 100, 106 and 118; (3) Defendant failed to provide certain documents that it indicated it would provide in response to RPD no. 101 and 108 and also improperly withheld information on grounds of privacy and relevance; and (4) failed to produce any documents as to RPD nos. 107, 115, and 119 despite the Court’s finding that the response stating “no documents exist” was not credible.  Plaintiff concludes that all issue sanctions are warranted because Defendant’s disorganized document production contains missing pages and fails to comply with Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.280(a), which requires the responding party to specify which bates labeled documents in its production respond to which request.  The Court agrees that Defendant’s responses are deficient and fail to comply with the directives in the January 30, 2024 order.

Thus, issue sanctions 1-23 are warranted.

            Issue Sanction: One

            RPDs 1, and 3-6 requested various information regarding surgery patients of Dr. ElAttrache from January 1, 2018 to the date of production.  In response to each of these requests, Defendant Surgery Center responded stating that “Defendant will comply with this request and produce all non-privileged documents in its possession, custody, or control. See KJSC 000443-726.”  (Gevorkian Decl. ¶ 6, Exh. 7; Nesbit Decl. ¶ 17, Exh. I.)  Plaintiff contends that the response is non-compliant as it is raising privilege and may be withholding documents based on privilege, some redactions of documents were overbroad, and that there are gaps in the documents produced and more documents should have been produced.  Plaintiff therefore seeks an issue and evidentiary sanction finding that “[i]t be established that during Plaintiff’s tenure, Dr. Neal S. ElAttrache regularly and needlessly induced his patients under total general anesthesia an hour or more before their surgery actually began and that Defendant Kerlan-Jobe Surgery Center, LLC is precluded from introducing evidence to the contrary at trial.”

            “[T]wo facts are generally prerequisite to the imposition of a nonmonetary sanction. There must be a failure to comply with a court order and the failure must be willful.”  (Lee v. Lee (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1553, 1559.)  Moreover, “[e]ven where nonmonetary sanctions are called for, they ‘ “...’should be appropriate to the dereliction, and should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery.’ [Citations.] ‘ “... [¶] The sanctions the court may impose are such as are suitable and necessary to enable the party seeking discovery to obtain the objects of the discovery he seeks, but the court may not impose sanctions which are designed not to accomplish the objects of discovery but to impose punishment.’ ” ’ [Citations.]”  (Biles v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1327.)

            Here, the August 1, 2023 Order is silent as to whether any privilege was waived.  As set forth in the August 1, 2023 Order Defendant Surgery Center did respond to some of the 205 propounded RPDs on July 10, 2023 after the protective order had been denied.  (Gevorkian 7/24/23 Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. 2.)  This July 10, 2023 response to some of the RPDs on July 10, 2023 included general objections based on privilege. 

            Waivers of privilege are generally prescribed by statute.  For example, as explained in Korea Data Systems Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1513 and People ex rel. Lockyer v. Superior Court (2004) 122 Cal.App.4^th, 1060 a preliminary objection in response to an entire discovery request was sufficient to prevent a waiver of attorney client privilege.  In Korea Data Systems Co., the Court of Appeal addressed whether a failure to comply with the specificity requirements of making a claim of privilege – i.e., concurrently producing a privilege log – could result in the waiver of attorney client privilege.  The Court of Appeal concluded that the trial “court erred in finding the attorney-client privilege waived by the untimely filing of a privilege log.”  (Korea Data Systems Co., supra, 51 Cal.App.4th at p.1516.)  The Court of Appeal further noted that “[w]hile the code calls for more specific responses than were originally provided, and while we recognize the use of ‘boiler plate’ objections as were provided in this case may be sanctionable, the appropriate sanction is not a judicially imposed waiver of the attorney-client privilege.”  (Ibid.) 

            In People ex rel. Lockyer, the Court similarly concluded that “[b]ecause the [opposing party] timely objected on the grounds of privilege, they preserved these objections, regardless of whether the objections were sufficiently detailed in their response or privilege log and the court, as a matter of law, could not find that they had waived these privileges.”  (People ex rel. Lockyer v. Superior Court (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1060, 1074–1075, [italics added].) 

            In sum, Korea Data Systems Co. and People ex rel. Lockyer stand for the proposition that boiler-plate objections – objections merely stating attorney client privilege – and a failure to concurrently produce a privilege log do not result in waiver of the attorney client privilege.

            Thus, the general objections based on privilege in the July 10, 2023 response was sufficient to preserve applicable and stated privileges to the remaining RPDs that the Court Ordered responses to in the August 1, 2023 Order.  However, the responses to RPDs No. 1, 3-6 are not code compliant as no privilege log was provided. 

            To provide a code-compliant response as ordered, Defendant Surgery Center was required to provide a privilege log and identify the specific privilege available.  (See CCP § 2031.240(b)(1-2), [“b) If the responding party objects to the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of an item or category of item, the response shall do both of the following: (1) Identify with particularity any document, tangible thing, land, or electronically stored information falling within any category of item in the demand to which an objection is being made. (2) Set forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection. If an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall be stated. If an objection is based on a claim that the information sought is protected work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010), that claim shall be expressly asserted.”] [Italics added.].)  Similarly, any over redaction must be supported by a privilege log for each redaction to the extent it goes beyond the redaction of personal identifying information except for the last four digits of patient records/patient identification numbers.

            To the extent, that the records are incomplete, it is unclear whether the documents do not exist, or if documents have been withheld based on privilege but not yet identified in a privilege log.  Regardless, Plaintiff fails to show that the document production is incomplete.  (See e.g., Nesbit Decl. ¶ 19, as Exhibit J [Bowdry Depo. at pp.53:24-54:7].) 

            As the responses are not code compliant as no privilege log was produced to support any unspecified claim of privilege, Defendant Surgery Center did not comply with the Court’s August 1, 2023 as to RPDs 1, and 3-6.  However, at this instance, the failure to provide a code complaint response does not appear willful as required for non-monetary sanctions. (Lee, supra, 175 Cal.App.4th at p.1559.)  Accordingly, the instant motion is continued as to Issue and Evidentiary Sanction 1 and Defendant Surgery Center must provide a code-complaint response including a privilege log identifying any documents withheld or redactions made as to RPDs No. 1, and 3-6.  Failure to do so will result in the Court determining that the failure to comply is willful and issue and evidentiary sanctions are warranted.

            Issue Sanctions 2-24

            Plaintiff seeks issue and evidentiary sanctions 2-24 on the basis that Defendant Surgery Center did not comply with the August 1, 2023 Order as to the responses to RPDs Nos. 61, 63, 65-72, 74-76, 100, 101, 103, 106 107, 108, 115, 116, 118, 119 and 152.  However, as the Court’s August 1, 2023 Order did not order a response to RPD No. 152, Defendant Surgery could not fail to comply with the August 1, 2023 Order with any response to that request.  (Order 8/1/23 at pp.4:11-17, 14:9-11.)  Accordingly, the corresponding issue and evidentiary sanction no. 24 is plainly not warranted. 

            As to the remaining RPDs and the request for issue and evidentiary sanctions, Plaintiff contends that Defendant Surgery Center’s responses are improperly including objections.  Each response to RPDs Nos. 61, 63, 65-72, 74-76, 100, 101, 103, 106 107, 108, 115, 116, 118, and 119 provide that:

After a reasonable and diligent inquiry, Defendant is unable to comply with this request because Plaintiff has refused to clarify and/or narrow the time and scope of this request o as so phrased, Defendant is unable to locate or identify documents responsive to this request without having to expend substantial time and resources to do so. Defendant is willing to further meet and confer with Plaintiff to understand and narrow the time and scope of this request to determine if there are documents that are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to the allegations in Plaintiff’s lawsuit.

(Gevorkian Decl. ¶ 6, Exh. 7; Nesbit Decl. ¶ 17, Exh. I, [Bold and Italics Added].)          

            Defendant Surgery Center’s responses are improper as it is objecting based on the burden it would take to respond and Defendant Surgery Center was ordered to provide a response without objection.  (Order 8/1/23.)  The Court agrees that the requests are overbroad as no time frame is specified as to any of these RPDs and thus seeking all documents from the Surgery Center’s conception from at least before 1997 to today.  Even Plaintiff’s evidentiary sanctions are limited to the relevant time period.  However, to the extent that it was not reasonably possible to respond to any ordered RPD, it was incumbent on Defendant Surgery Center to request a limitation from the Court at the hearing or through a reconsideration motion.  Further, Defendant Surgery Center could have requested relief through a writ.  It was not proper for Defendant Surgery Center to merely assert objections in violation of the August 1, 2023 Order. 

            Thus, given that Defendant Surgery Center appears to have willfully violated the August 1, 2023 Order by asserting objections to RPDs Nos. 61, 63, 65-72, 74-76, 100, 101, 103, 106 107, 108, 115, 116, 118, and 119, non-monetary sanctions would be warranted.  However, given that the requests had no temporal limitation making them unreasonable to respond to, the Court will continue this motion as to issue and evidentiary sanctions 2-23 for Defendant to properly respond and provide responsive documents without objection to RPDs Nos. 61, 63, 65-72, 74-76, 100, 101, 103, 106 107, 108, 115, 116, 118, and 119 with the temporal limitation of January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2021.

Conclusion and ORDER

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for issue sanctions 1-23 is GRANTED, in part.  This Motion is continued to April 30, 2024, a 8:30 a.m. as discussed herein.         

Moving Parties are to give notice and file proof of service of such.

DATED:  April 2, 2024                                                          ___________________________

Yolanda Orozco

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 26

Procedural Background

On March 23, 2022, Plaintiff Kristina Holman (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant wrongful termination action against Defendants Kerlan-Jobe Surgery Center, LLC, Kerlan-Jobe, LLC, Cedars-Sinai Kerlan Jobe Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Cedars-Sinai Medical Care Foundation, and Kerlan-Jobe Orthopaedic Clinic.  On March 25, 2024, Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) against Defendants Kerlan-Jobe Surgery Center, LLC, Kerlan-Jobe, LLC, Cedars-Sinai Kerlan Jobe Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Cedar Sinai Medical Care Foundation, and Kerlan-Jobe Orthopaedic Clinic, a Medical Group Inc.  The SAC asserts eleven causes of action for (1) Retaliation in violation of Labor Code § 1102.5, (2) Retaliation in violation of Labor Code § 232.5, (3) Retaliation in violation of California Business and Professions Code § 510, (4) Discrimination on the Basis of Age in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), (5) Discrimination on the Basis of Disability in violation of FEHA, (6) Failure to Prevent Discrimination in violation of FEHA, (7) Retaliation in violation of FEHA, (8) Failure to Prevent Retaliation in violation of FEHA, (9) Failure to Accommodate in violation of FEHA, (10) Failure to Engage in a Good Faith Interactive Process in violation of FEHA, and (11) Wrongful Termination in violation of Public Policy.

On December 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed an amended motion for issue and evidentiary sanctions against Defendant Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (“CSMC”) for failure to obey court order re Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set Two.  On January 17, 2024, Defendant CSMC filed an opposition.  On January 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed a reply.

On January 30, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion in part and continued the hearing to April 2, 2024.

On November 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed an amended motion for issue and evidentiary sanctions against Defendant CSMC for failure to obey court order re Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One.  On January 25, 2024, Defendant CSMC filed an opposition.  On January 31, 2024, Plaintiff filed a reply.

On February 4, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion in part, denied in part, and continued the hearing to April 2, 2024.

To date, no joint status report was filed as directed in the January 30, 2024 and February 4, 2024 orders.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 provides that, “[t]o the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method . . . , the court, after notice to any affected party, person, or attorney, and after opportunity for hearing, may impose . . . [monetary, issue, evidence, or terminating] sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process . . . .”  Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010 provides that “[m]issues of the discovery process include, but are not limited to, the following: . . . (d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery. . . . (g) Disobeying a court order to provide discovery . . . .”

“Nevertheless, absent unusual circumstances, such as repeated and egregious discovery abuses, two facts are generally prerequisite to the imposition of a nonmonetary sanction. There must be a failure to comply with a court order and the failure must be willful.”  (Lee v. Lee (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1553, 1559.)  “Even where nonmonetary sanctions are called for, they ‘ “...’should be appropriate to the dereliction, and should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery.’ [Citations.] ‘ “... [¶] The sanctions the court may impose are such as are suitable and necessary to enable the party seeking discovery to obtain the objects of the discovery he seeks, but the court may not impose sanctions which are designed not to accomplish the objects of discovery but to impose punishment.’ ” ’ [Citations.]”  (Biles v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1327.)

“A trial court has broad discretion when imposing a discovery sanction.”  (Lee, supra, 175 Cal.App.4th at p.1559.)  “In exercising this discretion [for nonmonetary sanctions], a variety of factors may be relevant, including, 1) the time which has elapsed since [the discovery requests] were served, 2) whether the party served was previously given a voluntary extension of time, 3) the number of [the discovery requests] propounded, 4) whether the unanswered questions sought information which was difficult to obtain, 5) whether the answers supplied were evasive and incomplete, 6) the number of questions which remained unanswered, 7) whether the questions which remain unanswered are material to a particular claim or defense, 8) whether the answering party has acted in good faith, and with reasonable diligence, 9) the existence of prior orders compelling discovery and the answering party's response thereto, 10) whether the party was unable to comply with the previous order of the court, 11) whether an order allowing more time to answer would enable the answering party to supply the necessary information, and, 12) whether a sanction short of dismissal or default would be appropriate to the dereliction.”  (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 796–797.)

Discussion

            On January 30, 2024, the Court ordered Defendant Cedars-Sinai Medical Center to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $4,500.00 to Plaintiff Kristina Holman by and through counsel, within thirty (30) days of notice of that order.  The Court continued Plaintiff’s request for Issue Sanctions 1-15 to April 2, 2024.  The Court also ordered Defendant Cedars-Sinai Medical Center to serve further, verified, code compliant responses as to Request for Production, Set Two Nos. 60-65, 69, 70-75, 77, 78, 80, 81, 87, and 90-93 without objection – except as to attorney client privilege – within twenty (20) days of notice of that order and produce the respective responsive documents within thirty (30) days of notice of that order.  The Court noted that any claim of attorney-client privilege must be supported by a privilege log specifically identifying any withheld documents and sufficient information to support the claim of attorney-client privilege, and that Defendant’s failure to do so will result in the requested issue sanctions being entered against Defendant.  The Court also ordered the parties to file a declaration within thirty (30) days of notice of the order identifying whether Defendant complied with the order and including the further responses and any privilege log.

On February 4, 2024, the Court ordered Defendant Cedars-Sinai Medical Center to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $4,500.00 to Plaintiff Kristina Holman by and through counsel, within thirty (30) days of notice of that order.  The Court also denied Plaintiff’s request for Issue Sanctions 7 and 9.  The Court continued Plaintiff’s request for Issue Sanctions 1-6, 8, 10-13 to April 2, 2024 at 8:30 am.  The Court also ordered Defendant Cedars-Sinai Medical Center to serve further, verified, code compliant responses as to Request for Production, Set One Nos. 8, 10, 11, 16, 17, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 42, and 51 with the temporal limitation of January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2021, without objection and provide responsive documents no later than March 6, 2024, where Defendant’s failure to do so would result in the imposition of the remaining requested issue sanctions against Defendant.  The Court ordered Plaintiff and Defendant Cedars-Sinai Medical Center to file a joint statement no later than March 11, 2024, identifying whether Defendant Cedars-Sinai Medical Center complied with the instant order and attaching Defendant’s further responses. 

            Here, the parties have not filed the joint statement identifying whether Defendant Cedars-Sinai Medical Center complied with the instant order and attaching Defendant’s further responses.  Thus, the Court is unable to determine whether Defendant has complied with the January 30, 2024 and February 4, 2024 orders, and will continue the hearing to allow the parties to do so. 

Conclusion and ORDER

Based on the foregoing, the Court CONTINUES the motion to April 30, 2024 to allow the parties to file a joint statement.

Moving Parties are to give notice and file proof of service of such.

DATED:  April 2, 2024                                                          ___________________________

Yolanda Orozco

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court