Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 23STCP00500, Date: 2023-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCP00500    Hearing Date: January 4, 2024    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further is GRANTED IN PART, with the narrowed scope set forth below. Defendant is sanctioned, jointly and severally with counsel, $1,050 payable within 30 days.

On 2/21/2023, Walter Pearce (Plaintiff) filed suit against Gardena Retirement Center, Inc. dba Gardena Retirement Center (Defendant), alleging: (1) dependent adult abuse/neglect; and (2) negligence.

            Now, Plaintiff moves to compel compliance with RFPs.

Discussion

Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to RFP Nos. 12-15, 21, 23, 38, 46, 53, and 58.

After review, the Court agrees and disagrees in part.

As for RFP Nos. 12-15, these requests concern Department of Social Services (DSS) Records. While relevant, the requests seek all citations, statements of deficiencies, and surveys regardless of their connection to this action. This action concerns Defendant’s alleged failure to maintain controls over the water temperature. Accordingly, these requests are limited to citations, statements of deficiencies, and surveys which concern excessively hot water. Moreover, the scope of January 1, 2020 to present is too broad. The Court limits the scope to July 1, 2021 to present.

As for RFP No. 21, this request seeks all documents which reflect the census (patient population) of the facility during Plaintiff’s admission. Plaintiff argues good cause exists to compel its production because this is relevant to determine whether Defendant was adequately staffed to meet resident needs according to state rules and regulations. The Court agrees.

As for RFP No. 23, this request seeks work schedules/and or assignment sheets “for all personnel who provided direct care to residents at YOUR FACILITY, to include Registered Nurses, Med Techs, Licensed Vocational Nurses, Certified Nursing Assistants, and caregivers who worked at YOUR FACILITY for each shift during PLAINTIFF’s ADMISSION.” The Court agrees this is relevant to Plaintiff’s contention that the Defendant’s facility was so understaffed so as to cause injury to the Plaintiff and as to violate applicable staffing regulations.

As for RFP No. 38, this RFP requests that Defendant: “Produce all DOCUMENTS that reflect the acuity of the general resident population at YOUR FACILITY during PLAINTIFF’s ADMISSION. Specifically, this request does not intend for the responding party defendant to produce the specific identification and personal information of any individuals, residents at YOUR FACILITY. The specific identifiable materials and documents requested may be redacted as to any individual patient identity issues.” While the number of acute patients does not tend to show whether or not the staff specifically neglected Plaintiff here, the manner in which staffing, or sufficiency of staffing, is determined in a health facility is by looking at the facility as a whole, not by individual, and then utilizing their education, training and experience to decide the “acuity” (need of care) level of the resident census (number) as a whole and then determine the necessary levels of staffing. As such, this request is necessary and relevant to the analysis here of whether or not the facility was adequately staffed. However, the scope of the request is clearly overbroad, in that the acuity of the general resident population can be determined through a narrower scope of documents. The parties are to meet and confer to determine an appropriate scope for this otherwise relevant request.

As for RFP No. 46, this request seeks Defendant’s bylaws which were in effect during Plaintiff’s admission. The corporate Defendant’s bylaws will help Plaintiff identify those individuals and/or entities who had authority to control the daily operations of the facility, which is relevant to the legal issues of duty, breach, and ratification, as well as to the identity of other potential unnamed individuals or entities responsible for the harm suffered by Plaintiff. Accordingly, good cause exists to compel production of this request.

As for RFP No. 53, this request seeks production of “any and all “Unusual Occurrence Reports” YOU submitted to Community Care Licensing from January 1, 2021 through February 28, 2022. Specifically, this request does not intend for the responding party defendant to produce the specific identification and personal information of any individuals, residents at YOUR FACILITY. The specific identifiable materials and documents requested may be redacted as to any individual patient identity issues.” The Court limits this request to reports concerning excessively hot water.

Finally, as for RFP No. 58, this request seeks production of “all of YOUR Incident Reports regarding resident accidents which occurred at YOUR FACILITY from January 1, 2021 through February 26, 2022.” Again, this request is limited to reports concerning excessively hot water.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further is granted in part, with the narrowed scope set forth above. Defendant is sanctioned, jointly and severally with counsel, $1,050. ($350 x 3 hr.)

It is so ordered.

Dated:  January    , 2024

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.