Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 22STCV00786, Date: 2022-10-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV00786    Hearing Date: October 18, 2022    Dept: 61

Plaintiff Abigail Gomez’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production, Set One, from Defendant Millennium Multispecialty Medical Group, Inc. is GRANTED as to  16, 18, 19, 23, 24, 27, 33–36, 39, and 40. To the extent that responsive documents would reveal private medical information or employee personnel information, Defendant shall redact this information. The motion is DENIED as to Requests No. 2, 7, 26, and 32.

I.       MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER

“A party may demand that any other party produce . . . a document that is in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.010(b).) The demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that (1) a statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete, (2) a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or (3) an objection in the response is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(a).) “The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand,” and “[t]he motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b).)

A motion to compel a further response to an inspection demand must set forth specific facts showing “good cause” justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b)(1); Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.) Unless there is a legitimate privilege issue or claim of attorney work product, that burden is met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance. (TBG Ins. Services Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 444.) Once the moving party demonstrates good cause for the discovery, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure to fully respond to the inspection demand.  (Coy v Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220.)

Plaintiff Abigail Gomez moves to compel further responses from Defendant Millennium Multispecialty Medical Group, Inc. (MMMG) to requests for production No. 2, 7, 16, 18, 19, 23, 24, 26, 27, 32–36, 39, and 40. These requests seek documents describing Plaintiff’s job duties, performance or employee reviews submitted by or about Plaintiff, communications with employees and third parties about Plaintiff, and documents supporting Defendant’s cross-claims and defenses. Defendant responded with various objections, offered limited statements of inability to comply, and argues that production of certain communications or documents risks disclosing confidential medical information for Defendant’s patients.

Defendant in opposition contends that Plaintiff failed to adequately meet and confer prior to filing this motion, sending only one letter on July 29, 2022, and not following up on Defendant’s August 12, 2022 letter before filing this motion on September 14, 2022. (Opposition at pp. 6–7.)

The meet-and-confer efforts in this case were adequate prelude to the present motion. Defendant is correct that further informal efforts prior to the filing of this motion were possible, and that greater engagement may have limited the scope of this motion. But the letters exchanged by the parties, the nature of the requests (which relate to the litigation and are generally supported by good cause) as well as Defendant’s own responses to certain requests, reasonably indicated that further progress was likely to follow further meet-and-confer efforts. This is not a circumstance in which outright denial of the motion is warranted for failure to meet and confer. (See Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 432 [“A single letter, followed by a response which refuses concessions, might in some instances be an adequate attempt at informal resolution, especially when a legitimate discovery objective is demonstrated.”].)

Certain of Defendant’s responses to the requests are already sufficient, and no further responses are required as to these. These include Request No. 32, which asks for communications regarding Plaintiff exchanged between Defendants John Sedgh and Ronit Samoilzadeh, who are spouses, and whose communications are therefore protected by the spousal communication privilege under Evidence Code § 980. Although Plaintiff argues that these communications are not necessarily privileged because they are not necessarily confidential, Defendant correctly notes that upon raising the privilege, they are presumed confidential under Evidence Code § 917.

A similar result is appropriate as to Requests No. 2 and 7, which sought documents relating to Plaintiff’s job duties and work performance. Defendant construed these requests as seeking written job descriptions and performance reviews, and offered statements of inability to comply under Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.230, on the grounds that such documents had never existed. Although Plaintiff contends that Defendant may not unilaterally limit the scope of these requests, the requests themselves, in seeking all documents relating to Plaintiff’s job duties or performance — in essence, her entire employment — are so broad in scope that some reasonable, limiting construction such as Defendant provided was appropriate, at least as a starting point for meet-and-confer efforts, which Plaintiff did not seriously undertake.

Finally, Defendant was correct to object to Reqeust No. 26 as overbroad, as this request seeks all documents related to Defendant’s defenses, without differentiation.

Accordingly, the motion is properly DENIED as to Requests No. 2, 7, 26, and  32.

Some further response is warranted as to the other requests at issue in this motion, however. For Requests No. 27, 33, 34, 39, and 40, the primary objective leveled by Defendants was that the requests sought private medical or employment information. These requests, however, do not on their face seek such information: Request No. 27 seeks documents reflecting the number of workers employed by Defendant; Nos. 33 and 34 seek communications with Defendant’s employees about Plaintiff; and 39 and 40 request documents supporting Defendant’s claims that Plaintiff took items and information belonging to Defendant. The purported privacy objections arise from Defendant’s contentions regarding the nature of the responsive documents: that it possesses no employee roster, and can only produce documents illustrating the number of employees by producing private payroll records; that communications with employees regarding Plaintiff may contain private patient information; and that the documents that Plaintiff had in her possession also contained private information, which cannot be produced here. (Opposition at pp. 11–17.)

In determining whether privacy interests warrant restricting discovery, the court must perform a balancing of interests: “If there is a reasonable expectation of privacy and the invasion of privacy is serious, then the court must balance the privacy interest at stake against other competing or countervailing interests, which include the interest of the requesting party, fairness to the litigants in conducting the litigation, and the consequences of granting or restricting access to the information.” (Puerto v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1251.) Medical records and employee personnel records indeed implicate privacy interests. (See id. at p. 1252–1253 [personnel records]; John B. v. Superior Court (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1198 [medical records].)

Here, the competing need for these relevant documents to be produced in discovery and their potential to contain private information of employees and third parties may be balanced by requiring their production, with the private information redacted. Request No. 27 seeks only documents reflecting the number of Defendant’s employees. It may accordingly be answered by providing payroll records with private contact information or pay-rates redacted. If communications concerning Plaintiff, or the documents that form the basis for Defendant’s claims contain private patient information, such information may be redacted as well.

Defendant argues that these and other requests are overbroad, because they do not describe the subject matter of the communications, or contain any time-limitation. But these requests do contain a subject matter limitation — namely, that they concern Plaintiff. Such a request is supported by good cause, in that this case directly concerns communications made within Defendant’s organization to defame Plaintiff. What’s more, no time-limitation is necessary, as Defendant does not dispute that Plaintiff’s employment began in April 2019 and ended in December 2021. (FAC ¶¶ 8, 33.) The subject matter of the requests thus contains a reasonable limitation in time.

Defendant’s other objections are unpersuasive. Request No. 16 seeks communications between Defendant and third parties regarding Plaintiff, and Defendant objects that Plaintiff has not specified who these third parties are. (Opposition at p. 10.) But “third party” has a reasonably apparent meaning in this context, in that it refers to persons or entities not affiliated with Defendant. Given the nature of this action, this request is relevant and not overbroad.

A further response is also appropriate as to Requests No. 18 and 19, which sought employee and manager reviews submitted by or about Plaintiff. Although Defendant submitted a statement of inability to comply under Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.230, it did not “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.” Further responses are therefore required.

Requests No 23 and 24 also warrant further response. These requests sought documents identified in Defendant’s interrogatory responses. Defendant offered objections, no statement of compliance, and merely referred to its responses to other requests. Defendant in opposition makes no attempt to defend its objections to these requests, and does not explain the need for its evasive response, rather than a straightforward statement of compliance.

The motion is therefore GRANTED as to  16, 18, 19, 23, 24, 27, 33–36, 39, and 40. To the extent that responsive documents would reveal private medical information or employee personnel information, Defendant shall redact this information.

II.    SANCTIONS

Statute provides that the court shall impose sanctions upon a party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to interrogatories, requests for production of documents, or requests for admission, absent substantial justification otherwise. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300, subd. (d); 2031.310, subd. (h); 2033.290, subd. (d).)

Plaintiff asks for $1,560.00 in sanctions, representing five hours of work at $300 per hour, plus a $60 filing fee. No sanctions are appropriate, as Plaintiff has only obtained partial relief on this motion.