Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV00003, Date: 2024-05-14 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23NWCV00003 Hearing Date: May 14, 2024 Dept: C
Gertrud Jacoby, By and Through Her Successor in
Interest, Brian Jacoby, et al. vs La Mirada Post Acute LLC, et al.
Case No.: 23NWCV00003
Hearing Date: May 14, 2024 @ 9:30 AM
#3
Tentative Ruling
Plaintiff to give notice.
Background
This is a wrongful death action. Plaintiff Gertrud Jacoby
(“Plaintiff”) was a resident at Defendant La Mirada Post Acute LLC’s (“Defendant”)
skilled nursing facility. On January 3,
2023, Plaintiff and Successor in Interest Brain Jacoby brought this action
against Defendant alleging the following causes of action: (1) Elder Abuse and
Neglect and (2) Violation of Residents’ Rights, (3) Negligence, and (4)
Wrongful Death. The Complaint alleges
that Defendant’s “consistent failure to turn and reposition PLAINTIFF, keep her
clean and dry, and ensure she received adequate hydration and nutrition … led
to the development of her significant skin injuries and ultimately her death.”
(Complaint, ¶ 41.)
On April 17, 2023, Plaintiff
propounded Special Interrogatories, Set One, upon Defendant. (Voas Decl., ¶ 2.)
On June 16, 2023, after Plaintiff granted extensions of time to respond,
Defendant served unverified responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories,
Set One. (Voas Decl., ¶ 3.) Over the following few months, the parties met and
conferred on outstanding discovery matters. (Voas Decl., ¶ 5.) On January 2,
2024, Defendant served a verification for Special Interrogatories, Set One. (Ibid.)
On January 25, 2024, the parties again met and conferred on Special
Interrogatories 13, 14, and 15, and confirmed that Defendant intended to stand
by its objections to the interrogatories. (Voas Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. 2.)
·
Special Interrogatory No. 13: Please
IDENTIFY all roommates of PLAINTIFF at the FACILITY during the RELEVANT TIME
PERIOD.
·
Special Interrogatory No. 14: Please IDENTIFY the
RESPONSIBLE PARTY for all residents of the FACILITY during the RELEVANT TIME
PERIOD.
·
Special Interrogatory No. 15: Please
IDENTIFY the RESIDENT REPRESENTATIVE for all residents of the FACILITY during
the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.
Defendant objects to the special interrogatories as overbroad,
burdensome, harassing, and irrelevant. Defendant
also objects on the grounds that the requests violate the privacy rights of
third parties under the Federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability
Act (“HIPAA”) and California’s Confidentiality of Medical Information Act
(“CMIA”).
Plaintiff argues that there is
no bar to disclosure because the interrogatories only seek the identity of certain
individuals, not their medical or health information within the meaning of the
HIPPA or CMIA.
Legal Standard
“The 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 (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.)
Discussion
Plaintiff’s Special
Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 13, 14, and 15, request the identities of
Plaintiff’s roommates and the identities of “Responsible
Parties” and “Resident Representatives” of all residents at Defendant’s
facility during Plaintiff’s approximate five-week residency.
HIPAA provides the following
definition of “health information”:
Health information means “any
information, whether oral or recorded in any form or medium,
that:
1. Is
created or received by a health care provider, health plan, public health
authority, employer, life insurer, school or university, or health care
clearinghouse; and
2. Relates
to the past, present, or future physical or mental health or
condition of an individual; the provision of health care to an individual; or
the past, present, or future payment for the provision of health care to an
individual.”
45 C.F.R. §160.103 (italics
added).
With respect to Special
Interrogatory No. 13, the Court finds that patients at Defendant’s facility
have a legally protected privacy interest and a reasonable expectation of
privacy in their identities because such information was received by a health
care provider and relates to the provision of health care to an individual.
A party asserting a privacy
right must also demonstrate a serious invasion of privacy. (Williams, supra,
at 552.) With respect to Special Interrogatory No. 13, Plaintiff only seeks the
identity of Plaintiff’s roommates; Plaintiff does not seek their medical
information. The Court determines that
disclosure of the identity of Plaintiff’s roommates is necessary to discover
potential witnesses to Plaintiff’s treatment at Defendant’s facility in the time
period leading up to Plaintiff’s death. As
long as the roommates receive notice of the lawsuit, assurance they are under
no obligation to talk to Plaintiff’s Counsel, and an opportunity to opt out of
disclosure, revealing their identities entails no serious invasion of privacy.
(Id., at 555.) The Court orders Defendant to make diligent efforts to
obtain updated contact information for Plaintiff’s roommates and to provide
them with actual notice, consistent with the language in Williams cited
above, permitting them to opt out of disclosure of their information. The opt-in procedure proposed by
Defendant is disfavored. (Ibid.)
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
motion to compel further response to Special Interrogatory No. 13 is GRANTED,
subject to the notice procedures set forth above.
With respect to Special
Interrogatories Nos. 14 and 15, Plaintiff requests the identities of
“Responsible Parties” and “Resident Representatives” for all residents
at Defendant’s facility during the relevant time period. Plaintiff argues that these individuals are
likely to have factual information which could support Plaintiff’s allegations
that the facility had a pattern of understaffing, undertraining staff, and
underfunding. Defendant argues that responding
to the requests would be unduly burdensome because Defendant’s facility has 142
beds. Plaintiff’s motion to compel
further responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 14 and 15 is GRANTED in part. Defendant is ordered to disclose the
identities of responsible parties/resident representatives for Plaintiff’s
roommates during the relevant time period.
Disclosure is subject to the notice procedures set forth above. Defendant is not ordered to disclose the identities
of responsible parties/resident representatives for residents in other patient
rooms. The Court determines that the
probative value of such information is speculative, and production would be
unduly burdensome.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) is
GRANTED in part, subject to the limitations set forth above. Defendant shall provide further responses within
60 days unless the parties agree to a longer period of time.
Sanctions
Plaintiff requests sanctions
in the amount of $1,400.00.
The court shall impose a
monetary sanction against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a
motion to compel further responses to interrogatories or demand for production
of documents unless the party subject to the sanction acted with substantial
justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (Code of Civ. Proc.,
§§ 2030.300, subd. (d), 2031.310, subd. (h), 2033.290, subd. (d).)
Given the limitations imposed
upon the Plaintiff’s discovery requests, the Court finds that Defendant acted
with substantial justification in opposing the motion.
Accordingly, the request for
sanctions is DENIED.