Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 24NNCV00614, Date: 2025-04-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NNCV00614    Hearing Date: April 4, 2025    Dept: A

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

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 required 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: 

Annie Lawhorn (Plaintiff) brings this action against Emanate Health dba Queen Of The Valley Hospital (Emanate) and Alexander A. Maglunog M.D. (Maglunog). Plaintiff alleges that Emanate and Maglunog were negligent with regard to an operation for the removal of Plaintiff’s gallbladder. Plaintiff alleges that as a result of this negligence, she has experienced substantial medical complications. 

Before the Court are three motions by Plaintiff. Plaintiff moves to compel Emanate’s further responses to her Form Interrogatories, Request for Production of Document (RFPD), and Request for Admissions (RFA). Emanate opposes each motion, arguing they are moot in light of Emanate’s supplemental production. The Court finds the motions are not mooted by Emanate’s production after the filing of the motions, though some issues appear to have been resolved. As such, the Court’s tentative ruling seeks to resolve the outstanding disputes as identified in Plaintiff’s Reply briefing.

ANALYSIS: 

I.                    LEGAL STANDARD 

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories

On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that the responses contain: (1) answers that are evasive or incomplete, (2)¿an unwarranted or insufficiently specific exercise of an option to produce documents in lieu of a substantive response, or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections.  (C.C.P. §¿2030.300(a).) The responding party has the burden of justifying the objections thereto. (Coy v. Sup.Ct. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-21.)

Motion to Compel Further Responses to RFPD

A motion to compel further responses to RFPD may be brought based on: (1) incomplete statements of compliance; (2) inadequate, evasive, or incomplete claims of inability to comply; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections.  (C.C.P. § 2031.310(c).) 

A motion to compel further production must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand. (See C.C.P. § 2031.310(b)(1).) In Digital Music News LLC v Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216 at 224, the Court defined “good cause” as a showing that there “a disputed fact that is of consequence in the action and the discovery sought will tend in reason to prove or disprove that fact or lead to other evidence that will tend to prove or disprove the fact.”  

If the moving party has shown good cause for the requests for production, the burden is on the objecting party to justify the objections. (Kirkland v. Sup.Ct (2002) 95 Cal. App.4th 92, 98.) 

Motion to Compel Further Responses on RFA

On receipt of a response to requests for admission, the party requesting admissions may move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems that either or both of the following apply: (1) an answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete or (2) an objection to a particular request is without merit or too general. (C.C.P. § 2033.290(a).)

II.                 MERITS

RFAs Nos. 7, 20, 25, 26, & 27

Plaintiff contends that these RFA remain at issue because Emanate provided no supplemental admission to them. For sake of clarity, the Court reproduces the RFA which are still at issue below:

RFA No. 7: “Admit that the quality of care provided by Alexander Maglunog to patients at YOUR FACILITY was not reviewed by YOU or YOUR Medical Staff.”

RFA No. 20: Admit YOU have never performed any review of Dr. Alexander Maglunog relating to the SURGERY.”

RFA No. 25: “Admit that YOU took no action or precautions whatsoever regarding Dr. Alexander Maglunog's provision of services at YOUR FACILITY even after YOU knew that in the course of performing cholecystectomies Dr. Alexander Maglunog had injured a patient's common bile duct on more than one occasion”

RFA No. 26: “Admit that there was no peer review investigation after Dr. Alexander Maglunog injured the PLAINTIFF'S common bile duct.”

RFA No. 27: “Admit that YOU did not submit a Health and Safety Code §1279.1 report on Dr. Alexander Maglunog relating to PLAINTIFF'S injury which is the subject of this lawsuit.”

(See Ritholz Decl. Exh. A, attached to motion.)

As to each RFA, Emanate asserted objections on grounds (1) that the request was overburdensome and vague, (2) that the request was overbroad and remote, and (3) that the request sought information privileged as attorney work product, attorney/client privilege, and Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1156, 1157, and (4) that the requested documents were not relevant.

In their opposition, Emanate only briefs its objections as concerns the California Evidence Code. As Emanate has advanced no argument in support of their other objections, Emanate necessarily failed to uphold their burden to demonstrate their merit. Accordingly, the Court need only address the objections on grounds Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1156, 1157. These sections read, in relevant part, as follows:

In-hospital medical or medical-dental staff committees of a licensed hospital may engage in research and medical or dental study for the purpose of reducing morbidity or mortality, and may make findings and recommendations relating to such purpose…the written records of interviews, reports, statements, or memoranda of such in-hospital medical or medical-dental staff…shall not be admitted as evidence in any action or before any administrative body, agency, or person. (Cal Evid. Code § § 1156(a).)

Neither the proceedings nor the records…of a peer review body, as defined in Section 805 of the Business and Professions Code…shall be subject to discovery. (Cal Evid. Code § § 1157(a).)

In the Court’s view, none of the remaining RFA require the production of documents subject to privilege under Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1156, 1157. RFA Nos. 27 and 25 do not request any information in connection with a peer review at all. RFA Nos. 7, 20, and 26 merely ask Emanate to admit whether any peer review was conducted of Dr. Maglunog, they do not ask Emanate to produce the content of any such reviews. Emanate sets forth no reason that these statutes prohibit them from either making or denying the admissions.

As such, the motion to compel further responses as to is GRANTED RFA Nos. 7, 20, 25, 26, & 27.

RFPD Nos. 18, & 25-27

Plaintiff contends that these RFA remain at issue because Emanate’s supplemental responses remain deficient. As to each RFPD, Emanate asserted objections on grounds (1) that the request was overburdensome and vague, (2) that the request was overbroad and remote, and (3) that the request sought information privileged as attorney work product, attorney/client privilege, and Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1156, 1157, and (4) that the requested documents were not relevant. Emanate has preserved these objections and rendered supplemental responses to each. The Court will address each request in turn.

RFPD No. 18

This RFPD requests “Any and all incident reports relating to Plaintiff.” (See Ritholz Decl. Exh. A, attached to motion.) In its supplemental response to RFPD No. 18, Emanate maintains the previously asserted objections. Emanate only adds that, “Pursuant to a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, this responding defendant is not in possession, custody or control of any non-privileged documents responsive to this Request because the requested items have never existed.” (Opp. Exh. B, at p. 21.)

The Court agrees that Emanate’s supplemental response, coupled with its objection on grounds of privilege, is evasive. Emanate’s response only concerns what they have self-identified as “non-privileged” documents.

C.C.P. § 2031.240(c) provides:

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)   If an objection is based on a claim of privilege or a claim that the information sought is protected work product, the response shall provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log.

(2)   It is the intent of the Legislature to codify the concept of a privilege log as that term is used in California case law. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to constitute a substantive change in case law.

Here, Emanate does not identify any factual information by which Plaintiff could evaluate the merit of their objections. Emanate implies that it has responsive documents which are privileged but has not stated what those documents are. The failure to provide a privilege log is only further indicative of this failure to provide the required information.

As such, Emanate’s response to RFPD No. 18 is insufficient and further response should be compelled.

RFPD No. 25

This requests asks for, “All past and pending malpractice claims against Dr. Alexander Maglunog which also included a such a claim against YOU.” Emanate’s supplemental response maintained its objections and stated:

Pursuant to a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, this responding defendant is no longer in possession, custody or control of any documents responsive to this Request. In an effort to comply and to assist with obtaining equally available documents, Responding defendant identifies the following cases that are responsive to this Request: Cernas (Case No. 24PSCV00003); Endricks (Case No. BC525354); Gastelum (Case No. 24PSCV03237); Lucious (Case No. 23PSCV00189).

(Id. at p. 23.)

C.C.P. 2031.230 requires that a statement of inability to comply with a request for production must include, “specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party.” Emanate’s supplemental response does not so state and is thus not code compliant.

Further, the declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel clearly establishes that there are documents responsive to this request which are not being produced. Plaintiff’s counsel states they are aware of at least nine lawsuits naming as Defendant both Dr. Maglunog and Emanate. (Ritholz Reply Decl. ¶ 3.) Emanate briefs no reason they did not identify these cases or produce documents related to them. As such, Emanate’s response to RFPD No. 25 is insufficient and further response should be compelled.

RFPD No. 26

This request asks for, “Any and all DOCUMENTS pertaining to any incident involving injury to a patient's common bile duct during surgery involving Dr. Alexander Maglunog over the ten (10) years at YOUR hospital.” Emanate’s supplemental response was that “[p]ursuant to a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, non-privileged responsive documents do not exist.” (Opp. Exh. B at p. 24.) This response suffers the same deficiencies as the response to RFPD No. 18. Without a privilege log or other attendant information, Emanates response is evasive. 

As such, Emanate’s response to RFPD No. 25 is insufficient and further response should be compelled.

RFPD No. 27

This request asks for, “All past and pending Summonses and Complaints filed against Dr. Alexander Maglunog which also included YOU as a Defendant.” Emanate’s supplemental response is identical to its supplemental response to RFPD No. 25. For reasons stated above, the Court finds this response insufficient.

As such, Emanate’s response to RFPD No. 27 is insufficient and further response should be compelled.

FROG Nos. 12.1, 15.1, & 17.1

Form Interrogatory No. 12.1 asks Emanate to identify and provide contact information for all witnesses. (Opp. Exh. B, p. 23.) Emanates initially objected to this request on grounds that the term “incident” was vague. (Id.) While Emanate appears to maintain this objection, it does not provide any brief in justification. In the Court’s view the use of the term “incident” is not too vague that Emanate could not respond to the demands. Emanate appears to agree, as they rendered a supplemental response identifying each witness. (Id. p. 23-24.) Emanate refused, however, to provide any contact information and that non-physician employees could be contacted through Emanate’s counsel. (Id.)

The supplemental response remains deficient. While the Court understands that certain information as to current employees may not be discoverable by virtue of constitutional privacy rights, Emanate has not stated any objection on those grounds. In short, Emanate has not objected on privacy grounds and has provided an incomplete response. 

As such, Emanate’s response to FROG No. 12.1 is insufficient and further response should be compelled.

Form Interrogatory No. 15 asks Emanate to identify all facts, witnesses, and documents in support of each of Emanate’s affirmative defenses. (Id. at p. 25.) Upon review the Court finds Emanate’s supplemental response to be insufficient. Rather than specifically identify any facts or documents, Emanate makes only general aversions. For example, Emanate replied that its fourth affirmative defense is “…based on the consents she signed and the informed consent that was obtained prior to the subject procedure.” Responses which vaguely reference the existence of some unidentified documents are not sufficient.

As such, Emanate’s response to FROG NO. 15.1 is insufficient and further response should be compelled.

Form Interrogatory asks Emanate to identify information relied upon in their responses to RFA. Emanate maintains that they cannot provide further response to this interrogatory because they concern RFA Nos. 7, 20, and 25-27, to which Emanate has objected on grounds of Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1156, 1157. As previously stated, the Court finds Emanate’s objections on these grounds to be without merit.

As such, Emanate’s response to FROG NO. 15.1 is insufficient and further response should be compelled.

Sanctions

The Court has discretion to impose a monetary sanction against a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct. (C.C.P. § 2023.030(a).) Sanctions are only mandatory as against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (C.C.P. §§ 2030.300(d), 2031.310(h).)

Here, the Court does not find that Emanate acted with substantial justification in opposing these motions. While Emanate provided supplemental responses, it maintained a great wealth of objections which are completely omitted from their Opposition. The only objection substantively briefed by Emanate was on grounds of Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1156 & 1157. The plain language of those statutes shows they apply only to the production of peer review reports and say nothing about a refusal to identify if such reports have been made. In the Court’s view, Emanate’s maintaining this objection was not substantially justified.

Accordingly, sanctions are assessed in the amount of $ 2,040 as against Emanate and their counsel, jointly and severally. This amount reflects four hours of attorney work at the stated rate of $465 per hour, plus the $60 filing fee for each motion. (Ritholz Decl. ¶ 3.) In the Court’s training, experience, and expertise, this amount is appropriate to compensate Plaintiff in bringing these motions to obtain compliance with discovery.

--- 

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 

Annie Lawhorn’s Motion to Compel Further Responses came on regularly for hearing on April 4, 2025, 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 TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO IS GRANTED AS TO FORM INTERROGATORY NOS.  12.1, 15.1, & 17.1, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NOS. 18, & 25-27, AND REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NOS. 7, 20, 25, 26, & 27.

FURTHER RESPONSES DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS.

SANCTIONS ARE ASSESSED IN THE AMOUNT OF $ 2,040 AS AGAINST EMANATE AND THEIR COUNSEL, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY.

SANCTIONS PAYABLE WITHIN 30 DAYS.

PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.