Judge: Linda S. Marks, Case: 2022-01251447, Date: 2023-07-17 Tentative Ruling

1. Motion to Compel Production filed on 3/3/23 by Prime Healthcare Huntington Beach, LLC, Prime Healthcare Anaheim, LLC, Prime Healthcare Services - Garden Grove, LLC, Prime Healthcare La Palma, LLC
2. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories
3. Motion to Compel Production filed by Optumcare Management, LLC on 3/3/23
4. Motion for Continuance of Trial filed by Optumcare Management LLC on 5/17/23

1.Plaintiffs Prime Healthcare Services – Garden Grove, LLC; Prime Healthcare La Palma, LLC; Prime Healthcare Huntington Beach, LLC; and Prime Healthcare Anaheim, LLC filed a Motion to Compel Defendant Optumcare Management LLC to provide further responses to Requests for Production, Set One, Nos. 1-4, 16-19, 22-23. Plaintiff also seeks $7,000 in sanctions.

Request for Production No.1

Moving party failed to establish how the development of the methodology is relevant. Also the term communications is overbroad.

Tentative Ruling: Request for Production No. 1 is DENIED

Request for Production Nos. 2, 4, and 19

The term communications is overbroad

Tentative Ruling: Request for Production Nos. 2, 4, and 19 are DENIED.

Request for Production No. 3

Moving party failed to establish why such documents from 2015, which are outside the relevant period (May 1 2018 to December 31, 2021, are relevant.

Tentative Ruling: Request for Production No. 3 is DENIED

Request for Production Nos. 16, 17, 18, 22, and 23

The requests are overbroad as written. These requests are not limited to billing and payments for the services provided at issue in this case.

Tentative Ruling: Request for Production Nos. 16, 17, 18, 22, and 23 are DENIED

Sanctions

Monetary sanctions are mandatory against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to requests for production, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanctions acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanctions unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (d).)

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.040:

“A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought. The notice of motion shall be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities, and accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040.)

Here, Plaintiff requests $7,000 in sanctions but the declaration filed in support of the motion does not discuss sanctions. Therefore, the declaration does not set forth the facts supporting the amount of monetary sanctions sought.

Tentative Ruling: The request for sanctions is DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.040 and 2031.310, subd. (d).)

Defendant to give notice.

2. Defendant Optumcare Management LLC (“Defendant”) filed a (1) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 1-3, 15-17, 20, 23, 25-26, and 33 and (2) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production, Nos. 13, 17-18, 25, 27-42, and 44-47.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories

The Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 1: Plaintiffs provided further responses were provided on April 7, 2023 and June 2, 2023.

Tentative Ruling: The Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 1 is MOOT

Interrogatory Nos. 2, 3, 20, 23, 25, 26, and 33: Plaintiffs stated that they would provide further responses to this interrogatory.

Tentative Ruling: The Motion to is GRANTED as to Interrogatory Nos. 2, 3, 20, 23, 25, 26, and 33.

Interrogatory Nos. 16 and 17: These interrogatories are not duplicative.

Tentative Ruling: The Motion is GRANTED as to Interrogatory Nos. 16 and 17

Interrogatory No. 15: The court finds this interrogatory duplicative.

Tentative Ruling: The Motion is DENIED as to Interrogatory No. 15

Sanctions
The separate statement filed in support of the Motion to Compel Further Special Interrogatories contains numerous typos (such as the wrong interrogatory number) that do not comply with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345 and required the court to review other documents in order to determine the full request and full response at issue.

Tentative Ruling: The request for sanctions is DENIED.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production

The Motion to Compel Further Production is MOOT as to Request for Production Nos. 13, 17, 18, 25, and 42. Further responses were provided on June 2, 2023.

Tentative Ruling: The Motion to Compel Further Production is MOOT as to Request for Production Nos. 13, 17, 18, 25, and 42.

Request Nos. 28, 29, 34, 36, 39-41, and 45-47:

Tentative Ruling: The Motion is GRANTED as to Request Nos. 28, 29, 34, 36, 39-41, and 45-47.

Request No. 45 Plaintiff stated that it would provide further responses to this request.

Tentative Ruling: The Motion GRANTED as to Request No. 45.

Request Nos. 27, 38, and 44: These requests are overbroad.

Tentative Ruling: The Motion is DENIED as to Request Nos. 27, 38, and 44

Request No. 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, and 37: Moving party has not demonstrated good cause and relevance for compelling further production.

Tentative Ruling: The Motion is DENIED as to Request No. 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, and 37

The request for sanctions is DENIED

Objection

The objection to the Declaration of Aditya Stanam is SUSTAINED. A declaration must be “so certified or declared under the laws of the State of California” pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2015.5. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2015.5.)

Moving Party to give notice.

Defendant Optumcare Management LLC’s Motion for a Trial Continuance

The court finds that the factors considered pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332 weigh in favor of a trial continuance. Given the discovery disputes in this matter, good causes exists to continue the trial date. Moreover, the court finds that the interests of justice are best served by a trial continuance.

Tentative Ruling: Defendant Optumcare Management LLC’s Motion for a Trial Continuance is GRANTED Trial is continued to a date to be determined at the hearing on this motion. _____.

Moving party to give notice