Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 22STCV13111, Date: 2024-08-16 Tentative Ruling

REQUESTING ORAL ARGUMENT PER CRC 3.1308

The Court will attempt to post all Tentative Rulings at least the day prior to the hearing by 3:00 p.m.; however, the Court does not post Tentative Rulings for all matters.  

The Court will indicate in the Tentative Ruling whether the Court is requesting oral argument.  For cases where the Court is not requesting argument, then the Court is guided by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) where the Court requests notice of intent to appear.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, a party seeking argument should notify "all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue."  The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no argument is requested.   

Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412.

Notice of the ruling must be served as indicated in the tentative.  Remote appearances are permitted for all law and motion unless otherwise indicated by the Court.  

Case Number: 22STCV13111    Hearing Date: August 16, 2024    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTION TO AUTHORIZE ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES DISCLOSURE

NOTICE:

The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter.  The Court is guided by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) whereby notice of intent to appear is requested.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument is requested and any party seeking argument should notify all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue.  The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no argument is received.  

Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412.

ALLEGATIONS: 

Anita Aslanyan (Plaintiff) brings this action against Providence St. Joseph Health Center (Providence) and THC Orange County, LLC dba Kindred Hospital Los Angeles (THC). Plaintiff alleges that Providence and THC failed to properly care for her deceased father Razmik Aslanyan (Decedent). Plaintiff states a singular cause of action for professional negligence.

Before the Court is a motion made by THC to authorize the County of Los Angeles Adult Protective Services (APS) to disclose various investigative reports concerning Decedent. THC argues these reports are necessary to show that Plaintiff was financially abusing Decedent. Plaintiff has filed no opposition to this motion. APS has also filed no response to this motion, presumably because they were not served with notice.

ANALYSIS: 

The Court begins with an analysis of the grounds for THC’s motion. THC seeks a Court order requiring the disclosure of investigative reports generated by Adult Protective Services. THC states the grounds for their motion is 5 USC 552a(b)(11). This code section is commonly referred to as the Freedom of Information Act. 5 USC 552a(b)(11) states:

No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains, unless disclosure of the record would be…pursuant to the order of a court of competent jurisdiction…

The Freedom of Information Act is not applicable to California public agencies.  In California, motions seeking document requests from nonparties are typically brought pursuant to C.C.P. §§ 2020.010 and 2025.480(a). (See Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1342, 1350 [discovery from nonparties is governed by C.C.P. §§ 2020.010, et seq., and is primarily carried out by way of subpoena]; C.C.P. § 245.580(a) [If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production.].)  Requests for documents from state and county agencies would be governed by the Public Records Act codified under the California Government Code.   The moving party does not cite to or argue disclosure under the Public Records Act, nor, as indicated herein, property notice the involved public agency.

The above C.C.P sections explicitly authorize motions to compel production from a non-party and have an established judicial framework by which the Court can evaluate such motions. THC’s vague request for a court order compelling APS to produce documents is without such statutory basis or judicial framework. Further, the Court cannot treat this motion as though it were brought pursuant to C.C.P. § 2025.480(a) because THC did not serve a deposition subpoena upon APS.

The statutes relied upon in THC’s brief also do not authorize this motion. THC cites to Welfare and Inst. Code (WIC) § 15633. This code section does not establish grounds for THC’s motion. WIC § 15633, merely permits an agency to disclose information if they are presented with a court order to do so. THC also cites to WIC § 10850(a) which permits an agency to disclose otherwise confidential information in the context of a criminal prosecution for violation of Penal Code § 368. This statute is entirely inapplicable to this civil action for negligence.

Even if THC has served a deposition subpoena and brought this motion pursuant to the correct authority, the fact remains that they did not serve notice of this motion on APS. It is axiomatic that a crucial component of any motion asking the Court to compel production must be served on the person/entity who would be bound by the order.

Given THC’s motion is procedurally defective in several manners, the motion is DENIED.

--- 

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records. 

ORDER 

THC Orange County, LLC dba Kindred Hospital Los Angeles’s Motion to Authorize Disclosure came on regularly for hearing on August 16, 2024, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows: 

THE MOTION IS DENIED.  

THC TO GIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.