Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 23NWCV00008, Date: 2024-02-13 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV00008, Date: 2024-02-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV00008 Hearing Date: February 13, 2024 Dept: C

Carlota Saenz By and Through Her SII Yolanda Saenz, et al. vs Riviera Nursing & Convalescent Home Inc., et al

Case No.: 23NWCV00008

Hearing Date: February 13, 2024 @ 10:30 AM

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set One) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Plaintiff to give notice.

Background

This is a case of professional negligence against Defendant Riviera Healthcare Center (“Defendant”). Decedent Carlota Saenz was admitted to Riviera Healthcare Center in February 2017 at age 88. Plaintiffs allege that throughout her five-plus year admission to Riviera Healthcare Center, the Decedent fell multiple times, with one fall resulting in a hip fracture. Plaintiffs allege the decedent prematurely passed away on March 3, 2022, at age 93, partly as a result of her fractured hip.

On April 7, 2023, Defendant served its responses to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production, Set One. In response to Request for Production Nos. 44 and 54-55, Defendant provided substantive responses along with applicable objections. (Stein Decl. ¶ 2).

Defendant objected to Request for Production Nos. 54-55 because the records sought were protected by the California Constitution and California Civil Code Section 3295, making the documents sought not discoverable until Plaintiff made a prima facie showing of liability pursuant to Civil Code Section 3294, which Plaintiff failed to do. (Stein Decl. ¶ 3).

Meet and Confer Requirement

A motion¿to compel further responses to requests for production “shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(b)(2).)¿ The declaration must state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented in the motion.¿ (Code Civ. Proc. § 2016.040.)¿

The Court finds that Plaintiff has fulfilled the meet and confer requirement.

Separate Statement

A motion to compel further responses requires a separate statement. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a).) Plaintiff properly filed a separate statement.

Legal Standard

A party may make a demand for production of documents and propound interrogatories without leave of court at any time 10 days after the service of the summons on, or appearance by, the party to whom the demand is directed, whichever occurs first. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.020, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.020, subd. (b).) The demand for production of documents is not limited by number, but the request must comply with the formatting requirements in Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.030.

The party whom the request is propounded upon is required to respond within 30 days after service of a demand, but the parties are allowed to informally agree to an extension and confirm any such agreement in writing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.060, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.060, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.070, subd. (a) - (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.070, subd. (a) - (b).)

If a party fails to timely respond to a request for production or interrogatories, the party to whom the request is directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230, and waives any objection, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)

Discussion

“Unless otherwise limited by order of the court … any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved … if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (C.C.P. §2017.010). The purpose of discovery is to assist the parties to ascertain the truth. (Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 376). Liberality in allowing discovery is typically the rule. (Davies v. Superior Court (1984) 36 Cal.2d 291, 300.)

Request for Production No. 44: YOUR corporate minutes from the last two (2) years.

Plaintiffs argue that they have requested corporate documents the facility maintains, including corporate meeting minutes and documents reflecting the budget of the facility. This information is relevant in determining what the responsibilities, rights, and duties of Defendants were, what the corporate purpose of the facility was, as well as what responsibilities and level of control the managing agents had. Plaintiffs contend this information is relevant to Plaintiffs’ Elder Abuse Claim.

In Opposition, Defendant Riviera argues that on May 26, 2023, it served Plaintiff with Supplemental Responses to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents, Set One, reiterating that Defendant intended to and would stand on its prior objections. (Stein Decl. ¶ 5).

On January 30, 2024, Defendant served Plaintiff with Further Supplemental Responses to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents, Set One, Request No. 44, indicating that Defendant was unable to comply with the request because the documents sought do not, and never existed. (Stein Decl. ¶ 6). Accordingly, the Court finds that that Defendant has properly responded to Request No. 44.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Response to Request No. 44 is DENIED.

Request for Production No. 54: ANY DOCUMENTS reflecting YOUR budget for the last 2 years.

Request for Production No. 55: ANY DOCUMENTS reflecting ANY changes to YOUR budget in the last 2 years. The above-described DOCUMENTS and/or items are believed to be currently in the possession or control of Defendant FACILITY, and/or its attorneys, are believed not to be privileged, are believed to be relevant to the subject matter of this action and are believed to be reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence in this action.

Defendant argues that discovery into its financial condition is improper because Plaintiffs have not moved, and the Court has not determined, that there is a substantial probability that Plaintiff will prevail on a claim under Cal. Civ. Code Section 3294. (Civ. Code § 3295(c).)

“Upon motion by the plaintiff supported by appropriate affidavits and after a hearing, if the court deems a hearing to be necessary, the court may at any time enter an order permitting the discovery otherwise prohibited by this subdivision if the court finds, on the basis of the supporting and opposing affidavits presented that the plaintiff has established that there is a substantial probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim pursuant to Section 3294.” (Cal. Civ. Code § 3295(c).)

Plaintiffs contend that Defendant confuses the budget for a nursing home with the information protected by Civil Code Section 3295. The budgetary documents for a nursing home are critical to proving understaffing and underbudgeting by Defendant. They are also critical to evidencing purposeful conduct (i.e, recklessness, malice, oppression) by the nursing home to prioritize profits over patient care. According to Plaintiffs, Civil Code § 3295 protects the discovery of a company’s profits/losses, bank statements and tax returns, not the budgetary documents at issue here.

The Court determines that the budgetary documents requested by Plaintiffs fall squarely within the protection afforded by Civil Code § 3295. Section 3295 protects against pretrial discovery by plaintiff of the “financial condition of the defendant.” It can hardly be disputed that the budgetary documents requested by Plaintiffs relate to the financial condition of the Defendant. Plaintiffs cite no authority for their argument that Section 3295 only protects “a company’s profits/losses, bank statements and tax returns.”

Plaintiffs argue that where the financial condition of a party is at issue, discovery of revenues, expenses and financial statements is permitted. In support of this argument, Plaintiffs cite Flora Crane Service, Inc. v. Superior Court of San Francisco (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 767, 779 and Rawnsley v. Superior Court (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 86, 91. Both of these cases, however, involve discovery of financial information to prove alter ego liability, which has no application here.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Response to Requests Nos. 54 and 55 is DENIED.