Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV09453, Date: 2023-10-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV09453    Hearing Date: October 20, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: October 20, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

(2) Motions to Compel Deposition and Production of Documents

Moving Party: Plaintiff Brittney Crawford

Responding Party: Defendant Blue Cross of California

T/R:     PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS AND PRODUCE DOCUMENTS ARE GRANTED.

PLAINTIFF TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers, oppositions, and replies.

“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action … without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent's attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.”  (CCP § 2025.450(a).)

Plaintiff moves to compel PMK depositions and to produce documents from Defendant. Plaintiff alleges Defendant failed authorize out-of-network surgery for Plaintiff in bad faith. The subpoenas seek information regarding Defendant’s member grievance review procedures. Plaintiff requests information relating to Defendant’s settlement agreement with the Department of Managed Healthcare concerning issues with Defendants’ grievance procedures and information from the employee-monitoring software used to monitor the employees who handled Plaintiff’s grievance.

The first deposition subpoena, served on June 2, 2023, requests PMK deposition testimony on:

1. Anthem’s receipt, review, and response to each of the following documents from the Department of Managed Health Care: (a) Final Report of a Routine Survey of Blue Cross of California (date issued to Plan March 24, 2015); (b) Routine Survey Follow-Up Report of Blue Cross of California (December 16, 2016); (c) Routine Survey Follow-Up Report of Blue Cross of California (August 9, 2022); (d) the Accusation in Enforcement Matter 15-268.

2. The Stipulated Settlement Agreement in Enforcement Matter 15- 268 entered into with Department of Managed Health Care.

3. The Corrective Action Plan undertaken and performed in connection with the Stipulated Settlement Agreement in Enforcement Matter 15- 268.

4. The resources and money devoted to correcting any of the deficiencies cited in the Accusation and Stipulated Settlement Agreement or as part of the Corrective Action Plan.

The second deposition subpoena, served on June 22, 2023, requests PMK deposition testimony on:

1. The software or hardware system or systems used by Anthem, in 2020 and/or 2021, to monitor, capture, and/or record the work performed by personnel in Anthem’s Grievance and Appeals (“G&A”) department while such personnel were working on a grievance or appeal (the “System”). This subject matter includes, without limitation, the types of information captured by the System and the methods by which such information can be exported, accessed, or viewed.

2. The retention policy with respect to the information captured by the System as such policy existed in 2020 and 2021.

3. The purpose or purposes for which Anthem uses information captured by the System.

4. The information captured by the System for the following Anthem personnel on the specified dates including, without limitation, the interpretation of the information: a. Anita Rajan, August 25, 2020; b. Zesa Consolacion, August 25, 2020; c. Morisa Pomerantz, July 16, 2021; d. Yu-Luen Hsu, July 16, 2021.

Plaintiff asserts this information is relevant to Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant failed to properly investigate grievances regarding its refusal to authorize an out-of-network referral for needed surgery.

In opposition, Defendant argues that neither subpoena seeks relevant information. Defendant asserts that the settlement agreement between Defendant and the Department of Managed Health does not concern any of Plaintiff’s individual claims. Defendant also represents that Plaintiff has already deposed the employees responsible for handling Plaintiff’s grievance and the documents requested from the employee-monitoring software do not exist.

The requested information is relevant to Plaintiff’s claims and is properly discoverable. (The Court makes no ruling at this time as to what evidence will be admitted at trial.) To the extent Defendant asserts that certain requested documents do not exist it may say so in code-compliant discovery responses.

Plaintiff’s motions are GRANTED.