Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 22STCV30426, Date: 2023-08-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV30426    Hearing Date: April 22, 2024    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:      April 22, 2024                                     TRIAL DATE: November 5, 2024

CASE:                         MICAELA DUARTE, by and through her Successor in Interest, ELIZABETH DUARTE, individually, v. EISENHOWERS HEALTHCARE, LLC dba PASADENA GROVE HEALTH CENTER; MELODY HEALTHCARE, LLC; KRISTEN UGALDE, nominal defendant; HUMBERTO DUARTE, nominal defendant, ANDREW L. DUARTE, nominal defendant; RENEE DUARTE, nominal defendant; CASSANDRA ROBLES, nominal defendant; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive.

CASE NO.:                 22STCV30426

DISCOVERY MOTIONS

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiffs Micaela Duarte, by and through her successor in interest, Elizabeth Duarte, and Elizabeth Duarte

RESPONDING PARTY:      Defendant Eisenhower Healthcare LLC dba Pasadena Grove Health Center (“Eisenhower”)

SERVICE:                              Filed January 5, 2024, January 26, 2024, February 9, 2024, and February 13, 2024

OPPOSITION:                       Filed April 9, 2024

REPLY:                                   Filed April 15, 2024

RELIEF REQUESTED

             Plaintiffs move to quash subpoenas and move for an order compelling further responses to their discovery requests.

BACKGROUND

            This case arises out of Plaintiffs Micaela Duarte (“Decedent”), by and through her successor in interest, Elizabeth Duarte and Elizabeth Duarte’s (“Plaintiffs”) claim that Decedent was the victim of elder abuse and neglect while in the care of a 24-hour skilled nursing facility. Plaintiff alleges that Decedent was admitted into the care of Pasadena Grove Health Center (“Facility”) on April 2, 2021. Plaintiff alleges that Facility failed to properly care for and treat Decedent, which eventually caused her death on March 26, 2022. Plaintiff filed this complaint on September 16, 2022, alleging four causes of action for (1) elder abuse and neglect, (2) negligence/willful misconduct, (3) violation of patient’s bill of rights, and (4) wrongful death.

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiffs’ motion to quash subpoenas is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to re-serve the two subpoenas with he language seeking “all mental health records, psychotherapy notes, [and] psychiatric records” omitted.

            Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses is GRANTED as to their special interrogatories.

            Plaintiffs’ motions to compel further responses are DENIED as to their requests for the production of documents sets one and two.

            All requests for sanctions are DENIED.

LEGAL STANDARD

            Motion to Compel Further

On receipt of a response to discovery requests, the party requesting may move for an order compelling further responses for interrogatories (Code Civ. Proc. 2030.300), requests for admission (Cod. Civ. Proc. section 2033.290), and request for production (Code Civ. Proc. section 2031.310). “Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or any specific later date to which the requesting party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the requesting party waives any right to compel further response to the requests for admission.” (Code Civ. Proc. section 2033.290, subd. (c).

Motion to Quash Subpoenas

“Any consumer whose personal records are sought by a subpoena duces tecum and who is a party to the civil action in which this subpoena duces tecum is served may, prior to the date for production, bring a motion under Section 1987.1 to quash or modify the subpoena duces tecum. Notice of the bringing of that motion shall be given to the witness and deposition officer at least five days prior to production. The failure to provide notice to the deposition officer shall not invalidate the motion to quash or modify the subpoena duces tecum but may be raised by the deposition officer as an affirmative defense in any action for liability for improper release of records.” (Code Civ. Proc. section 1985.3, subd. (g).)

            Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1, subdivision (a), provides: “If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b), or upon the court's own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders. In addition, the court may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.”

DISCUSSION

            Motion to Quash Subpoenas

            Plaintiffs move to quash two subpoenas served for Micaela Duarte’s medical records. The subpoenas were served on San Gabriel Valley Medical Center and USC Arcadia Hospital and sought Decedent’s medical records between January 1, 2018, and April 30, 2022. (Siegel Decl. ¶¶ 2-3, Exhibits A and B.) Plaintiffs argue that Eisenhower improperly seeks “all mental health records, psychotherapy notes, [and] psychiatric records”.

The California Constitution provides Californians with a right to privacy. (Cal. Const., art. 1, section 1.) The California Supreme Court has held that “[t]he party asserting a privacy right must establish a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552 (“Williams”), citing Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 35.) “The party seeking information may raise in response whatever legitimate and important countervailing interests disclosure serves, while the party seeking protection may identify feasible alternatives that serve the same interests or protective measures that would diminish the loss of privacy. A court must then balance these competing considerations.” (Ibid.)

It is “well-settled” that patients “have a right to privacy with respect to information contained in . . . medical records.” (Grafilo v. Wolfsohn (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 1024, 1034.) “Medical patients’ privacy interest, our Supreme Court has observed, derives from their expectation of privacy in their physician's files, which ‘may include descriptions of symptoms, family history, diagnoses, test results, and other intimate details concerning treatment.’ ” (Ibid.) Psychotherapist-patient privilege is an aspect of the patient’s constitutional right to privacy. (McGovern v. BHC Fremont Hospital, Inc. (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 181, 198.)

Plaintiffs have established a valid privacy interest. Further, Plaintiffs have established a reasonable expectation of privacy because the documents sought are part of Decedent’s medical records, and such a disclosure constitute a serious threatened intrusion. In opposition, Eisenhower contends that the information is necessary because Decedent’s mental health has been placed at issue in the present case. Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that Decedent had a history of psychosis and dementia. (Complaint  ¶¶ 28.) Plaintiffs generally allege that Eisenhower failed to provide proper care to Decedent. (Id. ¶ 40.)

Plaintiffs have established a valid privacy interest but Defendants have failed to demonstrate a legitimate and important countervailing interest supporting disclosure. Decedent’s mental health, while relevant to her underlying condition, is not a key component of any of Plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs do not allege an emotional distress claim. Defendant’s subpoenas seek documents protected by Decedent’s privacy rights.

Plaintiffs’ motion to quash subpoenas is granted. Defendant is ordered to re-serve the two subpoenas with the language seeking “all mental health records, psychotherapy notes, [and] psychiatric records” omitted.

Motions to Compel Further

Plaintiffs move for an order compelling Eisenhower to provide further responses to its requests for the production of documents set one, requests for the production of documents set two, and special interrogatories. Plaintiffs provide they served their discovery requests on Defendant on March 3, 2023. (Siegel Decl. ¶ 2.) Plaintiffs provide that Defendants repeatedly provided deficient responses. (Id. ¶ 5.)

The court first addresses the issues presented in Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to their special interrogatories. In opposition, Eisenhower primarily contends that confidential information is in the form of employee’s contact information. Eisenhower provides that it attempted to work with Plaintiff to agree to a protective order, but Plaintiffs refused to agree to a protective order. The court recognizes that while “current and former employees unquestionably have a legitimate expectation of privacy in their addresses and telephone numbers” (Puerto v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1252), Eisenhower has failed to establish an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy and a threatened intrusion that is serious. Thus, Eisenhower’s assertion of their employee’s privacy rights fail to satisfy the requirements as stated in Hill. The court turns to the specific discovery requests at issue.

Special Interrogatory No. 1: IDENTIFY all CNAs, RNs, LVNs, RNAs, Physical Therapists and Occupational Therapists, Dietary aides and Registered Dieticians, who provided assessments, services, or care to PLAINTIFF at FACILITY from December 30, 2021 through and including January 20, 2022. [As used herein, the term “IDENTIFY” shall mean to state the name, address, telephone number, and license number if applicable; as used herein, the term “PLAINTIFF” shall mean Plaintiff MICAELA DUARTE; as used herein, the term “FACILITY” shall mean the skilled nursing facility located at 1470 North Fair Oaks Avenue, Pasadena, CA 91103, which is known as PASADENA GROVE HEALTH CENTER.]

Special Interrogatory No. 2: IDENTIFY all CNAs, RNS, LVNs, and RNAs who were assigned to the same floor, wing or unit as PLAINTIFF at FACILITY from December 30, 2021 through and including January 20, 2022

Special Interrogatory No. 5: IDENTIFY each person responsible for setting the operating budget of the FACILITY for the operating budgets which were in force and effect during PLAINTIFF’s RESIDENCY period at the FACILITY.

Special Interrogatory No. 8: IDENTIFY the individual at FACILTY during PLAINTIFF’s RESIDENCY who was primarily responsible for finding methods or ways to improve FACILITY’s five-star ratings(s) given to FACILITY by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Special Interrogatory No. 16: Please describe each DOCUMENT utilized by nursing personnel to obtain their patient assignments at the start of each shift, and which was utilized at FACILITY during the time period of PLAINTIFF’s RESIDENCY PERIOD at the FACILITY

            Eisenhower is ordered to provide further responses to Plaintiffs’ special interrogatories numbers 2, 5, 8, and 16. Eisenhower, if it decides, may move for a protective order.

            In opposition to Plaintiffs motion to compel further responses to the two sets of the requests for the production of documents, Eisenhower provides it has produced nearly 5,400 pages of documents. (Opposition at p. 6.) Plaintiffs’ arguments that further responses should be compelled revolve around their claim that Defendants’ objections lack merit and that Defendants’ responses are not code compliant. Notably, Plaintiffs argue that “[i]t is impossible to know whether Defendant has produced all responsive documents or not.” (Reply at p. 7:6-7.) The court agrees, especially when Plaintiffs’ separate statements lack any discussion of the documents actually produced and whether the responses are sufficient.

California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345 requires a separate statement to include “[a] statement of the factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses, answers, or production as to each matter in dispute”. Plaintiffs’ separate statements are deficient in that they lack any discussion of the voluminous documents purportedly produced or why Defendant should be ordered to provide further responses as to each discovery requests. Rather, Plaintiffs merely repeatedly argue that Defendant’s objections are meritless. Much like Defendant's boilerplate objections are not helpful to Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs’ separate statements do not provide sufficient grounds to compel further.

Lastly, the court emphasizes that “[c]ivil discovery is intended to operate with a minimum of judicial intervention. ‘[I]t is a “central precept” of the Civil Discovery Act ... that discovery ‘be essentially self-executing[.]’ ” (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 402.)

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs’ motion to quash subpoenas is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to re-serve the two subpoenas with he language seeking “all mental health records, psychotherapy notes, [and] psychiatric records” omitted.

            Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses is GRANTED as to their special interrogatories.

            Plaintiffs’ motions to compel further responses are DENIED as to their requests for the production of documents sets one and two.

            All requests for sanctions are DENIED.

            Moving party to give notice.

Dated:   April 22, 2024                                               ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court indicating their

intention to submit.  alhdeptx@lacourt.org