Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22STCV2209, Date: 2024-05-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV2209    Hearing Date: May 16, 2024    Dept: C

WALICKI v. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SPECIALTY CARE, LLC

CASE NO.:  22STCV2209

HEARING:  05/16/24

#5

Plaintiff MATTHEW WALICKI’s Motion to Compel Further Responses by Defendant SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SPECIALTY CARE, LLC to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents (set one) is GRANTED.

Moving Party to give Notice.

This action for elder abuse was filed by Plaintiff MATTHEW WALICKI (“Plaintiff”) against Defendants SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SPECIALTY CARE, LLC; KINDRED HEALTHCARE OPERATING, LLC; KINDRED HEALTHCARE, LLC (collectively “Defendants”) on July 8, 2022. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants “failed to effectively develop, implement, and modify care plans for Mr. Walicki’s individualized care needs. Further, [Kindred] failed to effectively develop, implement, and modify adequate infection control.” (Complaint ¶44.) Plaintiff alleges that due to Kindred’s failure to develop adequate care plans and infection control procedures, Plaintiff contacted C. Auris during his admission to Kindred which resulted in his isolation, and then premature discharge to avoid exposing others to C. Auris. (See Complaint ¶46.)

Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts the following causes of action:

(1) Dependent Adult Abuse and Neglect; and

(2) Negligence/Negligence Per Se

Plaintiff now moves to compel Kindred’s Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents Nos. 17-40 and 49-59.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has submitted meet and confer declarations in compliance with CCP §2016.040.

“On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) A state of compliance with the demand is incomplete. (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive. (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.” (CCP §2031.310(a).)

A motion to compel further responses to a request for production “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.” (CCP §2031.310(b).) “Good cause” may be found to justify discovery where specific facts show that the discovery is necessary for effective trial preparation to prevent surprise at trial. (Associated Brewers Dist. Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1967) 65 Cal.2d 583,588.) Where there is no privilege issue or claim of attorney work product, the burden to show “good cause” is met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance. (Glenfed Development Corp. v. Sup. Ct. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.)

The Motion to Compel Further is granted in its entirety. RPD Nos. 17-40 and 49-59 seek policies and procedures effective at Kindred Hospital – La Mirada during Plaintiff’s admission. As indicated above, Plaintiff alleges that Kindred failed to implement proper policies and procedures during his hospitalization at Kindred. Moreover, in Opposition, Kindred does not oppose the substance of the Motion. Rather, Kindred argues that the documents should only be produced subject to entry of a protective order to ensure that Plaintiff’s attorney will not utilize any proffered policies and procedures for any matter unrelated to this action.

The Court has reviewed Kindred’s subject responses. Kindred has not justified the objections asserted herein. Kindred is obligated to produce whatever responsive documents they have that are presently within their possession, custody, or control, or state that they do not have any documents responsive to a given request, within the aforementioned time frame. A statement of inability to produce the documents must comply with statutory requirements. (CCP §§2031.220 and 2031.230.)

The Motion to Compel Further Responses as to RPD (set one) is GRANTED. Defendant SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SPECIALTY CARE, LLC ORDERED to provide further verified responses and documents, without objections, to RPD (set one) Nos. 17-40 and 49-59 no later than 30 days from the Court’s issuance of this Order. This date may be extended pursuant to agreement of the parties. 

On its own motion, the Court ORDERS that a protective order should be entered to govern the disclosure of implicated documents produced or that are to be produced throughout the course of discovery. (CCP §2031.060(b).) Therefore, it is ORDERED that documents to be produced by SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SPECIALTY CARE, LLC in response to the discovery at issue which contain confidential policies and procedures are “Protected Documents.” The Protected Documents and the information contained therein shall be treated by all parties as confidential. Except upon the prior written consent of CALIFORNIA SPECIALTY CARE, LLC or upon further order of this Court, the Protected Documents or information contained therein may be shown, disseminated, or disclosed only to: the parties of this litigation and/or their counsel of record in this case; or employees of counsel or of associated counsel who assist in the preparation of this case; or experts and consultants retained by the parties to this litigation.

Sanctions

“[T]he court shall impose a monetary sanction…against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand, 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.” (CCP §2031.310(h).)

Given the relatively mixed ruling, sanctions are DENIED.