Judge Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case Number: 23PSCV01001, Date: 2024-02-26 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 23PSCV01001, Date: 2024-02-26 Tentative Ruling

CASE NAME: Clyde Donald Atkinson v. MJB Partners, LLC dba Pomona Vista Care Center

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Response from MJB Partners, LLC dba Pomona Vista Care Center to Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 14, 15, and 16

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses as to Special Interrogatory No. 14, but DENIES as to Special Interrogatory Nos. 15 and 16. Defendant MJB must provide a further responses to Special Interrogatory No. 14 within 30 days of the Court’s order.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.

This is an elder abuse and wrongful death case. On April 6, 2023, plaintiff Clyde Donald Atkinson, by and through his Personal Representative, Monica Davis, and Monica Davis, as Personal Representative of the Estate and on Behalf of the Heirs of Clyde Donald Atkinson (collectively, Plaintiff) filed this action against defendants MJB Partners, LLC dba Pomona Vista Care Center (MJB), Sun Mar Management Services (collectively, Defendants) and Does 1 through 100, alleging causes of action for elder abuse and neglect (Welfare & Institutions Code, § 15600 et seq.), violation of residents’ Bill of Rights (Health and Safety Code, § 1430(b)), negligence, and wrongful death.

Following an unsuccessful informal discovery conference on January 10, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 14, 15, and 16 on February 1, 2024. On February 9, 2024, MJB filed an opposition. Plaintiff did not file a reply.

(a) On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply:

(2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate.

(b)(1) A motion under subdivision (a) shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.

Plaintiff filed the moving papers for this motion on February 1, 2024. Based on the February 26, 2024 hearing date, the deadline for Plaintiff to file the moving papers was January 31, 2024. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).) Nevertheless, the proof of service indicates Plaintiff served the moving papers on January 29, 2024. Also, MJB did not raise this issue in its opposition. The Court therefore exercises its discretion to still consider the motion, but admonishes Plaintiff to comply with the requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure going forward. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1300, subd. (d); Juarez v. Wash Depot Holdings, Inc. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1197, 1202.)

A motion to compel further responses requires the parties to meet and confer before bringing such a motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b)(1).) Counsel for Plaintiff provided a declaration indicating Plaintiff’s efforts to meet and confer. (Voas Decl., ¶¶ 4-6.) Unable to resolve their disagreement, the parties proceeded to an Informal Discovery Conference on January 10, 2024, wherein the parties were still unable to resolve their disagreement. (Minute Order (1/10/24).) The Court finds Plaintiff’s meet-and-confer efforts satisfactory.

Plaintiff seeks an order compelling MJB to provide further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 14, 15, and 16. These interrogatories seek the disclosure of the identities and contact information of Mr. Atkinson’s roommates while he was a resident at MJB’s facility, plus the identities and contact information of any Responsible Party and Resident Representatives, as those terms are purportedly defined in the Health and Safety Code.[1] Plaintiff contends MJB’s objections to these interrogatories are without merit, as the identities and locations of percipient witnesses are discoverable matters.

Plaintiff also contends that such witnesses are likely to have witnessed the conditions and operations of MJB’s facility. Plaintiff then argues that MJB bears the burden of showing that the requested information is privileged. Plaintiff further contends that the identities and contact information of any such percipient witnesses is not medical information under HIPAA and the California Medical Information Act (CMIA).

In opposition, MJB argues that the identities and contact information Plaintiff seeks is protected health information under HIPAA because it relates to health care treatment that residents received at MJB’s facility, and may not be disclosed per Smith v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 136, 140. MJB contends this information also constitutes individually identifiable health information under HIPAA, and that MJB is prohibited from disclosing such information under the CMIA absent an authorization, of which none has been requested or provided.

MJB further argues that privacy protections extend to third parties’ medical records, and that Plaintiff must show a compelling need for the disclosure of such third party information. MJB contends Plaintiff has not demonstrated a compelling need for such information, as this lawsuit arises out of a single incident, not a pattern of neglect, and that the events potentially witnessed by third parties does not rise to the level of a compelling need. MJB then argues if the disclosure of the identities of residents’ responsible parties is compelled, notice must be given by MJB before any such disclosure. Finally, MJB contends disclosure of the requested information would violate HIPAA and the CMIA absent a court order.

The Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to the disclosure of the identities and addresses of the roommates of Mr. Atkinson, but not the identities and address of all of the residents’ Responsible Parties or Resident Representatives. The roommates are the most likely to be percipient witnesses to the events surrounding Mr. Atkinson’s injury, and Plaintiff is generally entitled to the disclosure of the identities and locations of such persons, notwithstanding their having been residents in a health care facility. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010 [“Discovery may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter…”]) The Court finds MJB’s citation to Smith unpersuasive, as that case was decided specifically in the context of the psychotherapist-patient privilege, not that of a healthcare facility and its residents. (See Smith, supra, 118 Cal.App.3d 136, 141 [“We… therefore hold that the identity of [psychologist’s] clients is protected under the psychotherapist-client privilege.”])

Moreover, even though the Court agrees with MJB that the disclosure of Mr. Atkinson’s roommates’ identities and contact information necessarily would divulge the fact of their receiving health care treatment at MJB’s facility, such privacy interests must be balanced against the Plaintiff’s right to obtain discovery. (John B. v. Superior Court (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1199 [“The right to privacy, however, is not absolute. In appropriate circumstances, this right must be balanced against other important interests. [Citation.]”) The Court finds that the disclosure of Mr. Atkinson’s roommates’ identities and contact information outweighs the roommates’ privacy concerns here. To rule otherwise would unduly curtail Plaintiff’s right to seek discovery of percipient witnesses. (See Id.; Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.) This is especially important given that Mr. Atkinson is dead and unable to identify who his roommates were. Additionally, as noted in the parties’ respective briefs, the Court does have the discretion to order medical information disclosed. (Civ. Code, § 56.10, subd. (b)(1); 45 C.F.R. § 164.512, subd. (e).)

However, with respect to the Responsible Parties and Resident Representatives of all of MJB’s residents, the Court finds this to be excessive and outweighed by privacy concerns. (See Evid. Code § 352; John B., supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 1199.) The Court agrees with MJB that the scope of this case revolves primarily around an incident that shorty preceded Mr. Atkinson’s death, not necessarily a pattern of neglect or misconduct over an extended period of time. (See Compl., ¶¶ 12-25.)

Moreover, whereas Special Interrogatory No. 14 is limited to Mr. Atkinson’s roommates, Special Interrogatory Nos. 15 and 16 extend to all residents and their respective Responsible Parties and Resident Representatives. The Court finds the scope of the latter interrogatories to be excessive and largely speculative as to their probative value compared to the invasion of privacy interests here. (See Evid. Code § 352; John B., supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 1199.) It stands to reason that Mr. Atkinson’s roommates would have percipient witness information regarding the events surrounding his injury and subsequent death. But, it does not stand to reason that all of the other residents and their Responsible Parties or Resident Representatives would be percipient witnesses to those events. Accordingly, the Court finds that the privacy interests of the residents at MJB’s facility and their respective Responsible Parties and Resident Representatives outweigh Plaintiff’s right to obtain discovery. (See John B., supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 1199.)

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses as to Special Interrogatory No. 14, but DENIES as to Special Interrogatory Nos. 15 and 16.

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d).)

Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions against MJB in the amount of $1,400.00 for having brought this motion. Given the Court’s denial of the majority of Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses, the Court finds that MJB acted with substantial justification in maintaining their objections and opposing Plaintiff’s motion. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.

[1] The Court was unable to find the definitions of these terms in the code provision Plaintiff cited. California Health and Safety Code section 1418.81(d) mentions “responsible party,” but does not actually define it, while sections 1599.60-1599.84 do not mention the term “resident representative.” Nevertheless, MJB did not dispute these definitions in its opposition, so the Court will proceed with the understanding based on Plaintiff’s purported meanings of these terms.