Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 24CHCV00599, Date: 2025-05-20 Tentative Ruling
Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F47, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2247. Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).
Case Number: 24CHCV00599 Hearing Date: May 20, 2025 Dept: F47
Dept. F47
Date: 5/20/25
TRIAL DATE: 5/4/26
Case #24CHCV00599
MOTION TO
COMPEL
Motion filed on 12/6/24.
MOVING PARTY: Defendants Oakmont
Senior Living of Valencia OPCO LLC; Oakmont Management Group, LLC; HSRE Oakmont
TRS, LLC
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Ingrid Penuela
NOTICE: ok
RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling
Plaintiff Ingrid Penuela to: (1) produce documents that she failed to produce
at her deposition; (2) answer questions she refused to answer at her
deposition; and (3) allow completion of her deposition.
RULING: The motion is granted, in part, and
denied, in part, as set forth below.
SUMMARY OF ACTION & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This action arises out of the care provided to Plaintiff
Jesus O. Penuela by Defendants Oakmont Senior Living of Valencia OPCO LLC;
Oakmont Management Group, LLC; and HSRE Oakmont TRS, LLC (collectively,
Defendants). On 2/27/24, Plaintiffs
Jesus O. Penuela, through his successor in interest Ingrid Penuela; Ingrid
Penuela; Catherine Penuela-Parker; Dora Penuela; Diana Dalager; Vivian Maxwell
and Claudia Duryea (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed this action against
Defendants alleging causes of action for: (1) Elder Abuse and Neglect; (2)
Negligence and (3) Wrongful Death. On
4/4/24, Defendants answered the complaint.
On 8/5/24, Defendants noticed the taking of Ingrid
Penuela’s deposition on 9/25/24. (Bocker
Decl., Ex.2). On 9/17/24, Plaintiffs
served their responses and objections to the notice. (Id., Ex.3). On 9/25/24, Defendants took the deposition of
Ingrid Penuela. (Id., Ex.4,
6). At the deposition, the deponent
testified regarding the existence of certain documents which were not produced
and refused to answer certain questions.
Id.
On 11/11/24, defense counsel sent Plaintiffs’ counsel a
meet and confer letter regarding the issues that arose during the
deposition. (Bocker Decl., Ex.5). Plaintiffs did not respond to the letter. (Bocker Decl.). Therefore, on 12/6/24, Defendants filed and
served the instant motion seeking an order compelling Plaintiff Ingrid Penuela
to: (1) produce documents that she failed to produce at her deposition; (2)
answer questions she refused to answer at her deposition; and (3) allow
completion of her deposition. Plaintiffs
have opposed the motion and Defendants have filed a reply to the opposition.
ANALYSIS
Under the broad scope of discovery, parties may generally
obtain information regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to
the subject matter involved in the action or to the determination of any motion
in the action, if the matter is either admissible or appears reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See CCP 2017.010.
CCP 2025.480 provides in relevant part:
(a) If a deponent fails to answer
any question or to produce any document, electronically
stored information, or tangible thing under the deponent's
control that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena,
the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that
answer or production.
(b) This motion shall be made no
later than 60 days after the completion of the record of the deposition, and
shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section
2016.040.
. .
.
(i) If
the court determines that the answer or production sought is subject to
discovery, it shall order that the answer be given or the production be made on
the resumption of the deposition.
The instant motion is timely as it was filed within 60
days of the completion of the deposition record on 10/7/24. (Bocker Decl., Ex.4, 6). Plaintiffs’ claim that defense counsel failed
to meet and confer in good faith before filing this motion is without merit. The Court finds that Defendants met their
obligation to meet and confer in good faith before filing the instant motion by
serving their 11/11/24 meet and confer letter on Plaintiffs’ counsel to which
no response was received. (Bocker Decl.,
Ex.5).
The document requests and questions at Ingrid Penuela’s
deposition at issue concern matters relevant to the claims and/or defenses in
this case.
Demand 3 seeks “[a]ll photographs, films or
video tapes depicting any place, object, or individual concerning the incident
which is the subject matter of JESUS O. PENUELA’S or depicting his alleged
injuries.” Plaintiff Ingrid Penuela
(Plaintiff) responded with various objections; claimed that without waiving the
objections all responsive documents in Plaintiff’s possession, custody and/or
control were previously produced; and indicated that discovery and
investigation was ongoing and reserving the right to supplement the
response. At the deposition, the
Plaintiff’s attorney instructed her not to answer the question as whether she
was aware of any other photographs or videos that had not already been produced
on the ground that it may seek a legal contention.
The Court finds the objection to be without merit. The previous question asked Plaintiff whether
she turned over all photographs that she had in her possession, custody or
control relating to the injuries claimed in this case, to which Plaintiff
responded that she did before her counsel made a belated objection on the
ground that the question “may seek a legal contention.” The Court also finds this objection to be
without merit. The question permissibly asks
Plaintiff about information regarding a factual conclusion or assertion – i.e.,
that she turned over all photographs relating to injuries at issue. See Rifkind (1994) 22 CA4th
1255, 1259. The argument in the
opposition that defense counsel can ask whether Plaintiff looked for documents,
but not narrow the question to documents that support the injuries claimed in
the case does not make sense because the deponent would seemingly have to
presume that the documents she looked for relate to the claims in this case.
Plaintiffs do not address any of the other objections
asserted in relation to this request and the Court finds them to be without
merit.
Demand 5 seeks “[a]ll telephone bills of
any telephone call which Deponent contends or alleges occurred between JESUS O.
PENUELA, or anyone acting on his behalf and any named defendant in this case
from March 1, 2021 to present. [The names and information concerning persons
other than JESUS PENUELA, the person acting on his behalf and named Defendants
shall be redacted.] [This request does not seek attorney-client communication
or attorney work product.]” Plaintiff
responded with various objections, including Plaintiffs’ right to privacy which
is focus of the opposition. Plaintiff
also states that discovery and investigation is ongoing and reserves the right
to supplement the response. At the
deposition, Plaintiff stated that she did not look for the requested phone
bills and Plaintiffs’ attorney stated she was not obligated to produce phone
bills based on the privacy objection.
In the opposition, Plaintiffs rely on City of San Jose
(2017) 2 C5th 608, without citation to any specific page in the 29 page
decision, to support their privacy objection.
The case is distinguishable from the instant case. City of San Jose concerned the private
voicemails, e-mails, and text messages of the mayor and city council members relating
to city business. Ultimately, it was
held that when a city employee uses a personal account to communicate about the
conduct of public business, the writings may be subject to disclosure under the
California Public Records Act. Here, Defendants
merely seek telephone bills regarding communications relevant to this case, not
the content of any voicemails, e-mails or text messages, and the request
specifically provides that certain non-relevant information should be redacted. Even if the request raised an issue regarding
Plaintiff’s privacy rights, the relevance and need for the information outweighs
any privacy interest in the telephone bills.
Demand 6 seeks “[a]ll written or recorded
statements or electronic recordings of any individual or witness concerning the
incident which is the subject matter of this lawsuit.” Plaintiff asserted various
objections to the request and then stated that without waiving the objections
all responsive documents in Plaintiff’s possession, custody and/or control were
previously produced; and indicated that discovery and investigation was ongoing
and reserving the right to supplement the response. At the deposition, Plaintiff stated that
she had produced all written and recorded statements in her possession, custody
and control regarding any interaction with individual witnesses concerning the
incident. Defendants take issue with the
fact that Plaintiff stated that she did
not plan on doing any further discovery or investigation with regard to any
further written and recorded statements because they claim it is inconsistent
with Plaintiff’s statement that discovery and investigation are ongoing which
Defendants claim implies that more responsive documents exist. Defendants contend that Plaintiff did not
comply with her obligation to search for documents. While the Court finds that, contrary to
Plaintiff’s assertion, the request is sufficiently particularized, the Court
finds Defendants’ position to be without merit.
In order to have produced responsive documents, Plaintiff had to have
searched for such documents. The fact
that Plaintiff included a standard statement that discovery/investigation is
continuing and she reserved the right to supplement the response if anything
additional was discovered does mean that Plaintiff did not meet her discovery
obligations with regard to this request.
Demand 10 seeks “[a]ny and all electronic
communication, other than with Deponent’s and/or Plaintiffs’ own attorney, sent
to and/or received by JESUS O. PENUELA, or anyone acting on his behalf,
including but not limited to emails, texts or posts on social media relating
and/or referring to Defendants and/or JESUS O. PENUELA and/or the incident
serving as a basis for this suit. [This request does not seek attorney-client
communication or attorney work product.]”
Again, Plaintiff responded with various objections
to the request and then stated that without waiving the objections all
responsive documents in Plaintiff’s possession, custody and/or control were
previously produced; and indicated that discovery and investigation was ongoing
and reserving the right to supplement the response. At the deposition, there was discussion
regarding Facebook posts/memories which may be responsive and which may not
have been produced. However, Plaintiff’s
attorney indicated that they would “explore whether there was anything
responsive on [Plaintiff’s] Facebook account, and if that needs to be produced,
[they] will produce it with our further responses.”
Despite the foregoing, Plaintiff now seems to contend
that no further investigation is warranted.
The Court disagrees as the deposition testimony clearly shows that
Plaintiff was not sure whether she had produced everything responsive from her
Facebook page and her counsel indicated they would look into the issue. The Court also finds that the request is
reasonably particularized and Plaintiff’s remaining objections thereto lack
merit.
Demand 11 seeks “[a]ny and all WRITINGS
evidencing any out-of-pocket expenses related to the care and treatment of
JESUS O. PENUELA serving as the basis for this suit. [As used herein and
hereinafter, the term WRITINGS shall mean that which is defined in Evidence
Code §250.]” Again, Plaintiff responded
with various objections to the request and then stated that, without waiving the objections, all responsive documents
in Plaintiff’s possession, custody and/or control were previously produced; and
indicated that discovery and investigation was ongoing and reserving the right
to supplement the response. Despite
stating that all responsive documents had previously been produced, at her
deposition, Plaintiff testified that she did not look for such documents. The two responses are inconsistent and need
clarification. The Court finds Plaintiff’s
objections to the request to be without merit.
Demand 15 seeks “[a]ny and all documents
and/or WRITINGS not previously produced in response to Defendant’s Demand for
Production, set One propounded on Deponent” and Demand 16 seeks “[a]ny
and all documents and/or WRITINGS not previously produced in response to Defendant’s
Demand for Production, set One propounded on JESUS O. PENUELA.”
In response, Plaintiff asserted various objections and
then, without waiving the objections, Plaintiff listed two additional sets of
medical records she produced.
Additionally, Plaintiff indicated that discovery and investigation was
ongoing and reserved the right to supplement the response. Without citing anything else (i.e.,
deposition testimony), Defendants contend that Plaintiff admitted that she did
not look for all documents responsive to prior requests that were not initially
produced in response to Demands for Production, Set 1. (See Separate Statement, p.13:19-p.15:9). The Court finds that Plaintiff made no such
admission.
Defendants separate statement includes a final section
titled “Factual and Legal Reasons to Compel Further Response to Remaining
Questions” without citing any other specific questions asked at the deposition
to which Defendants seek a further response.
As such, Defendants have failed to establish that a further response is
warranted as to any deposition question other than those referenced above. See CRC 3.1345(a)(4), (c)(1), (2).
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Ingrid Penuela is ordered to
appear for a second session of her deposition, on a mutually agreeable date and
time, to answer questions and/or produce documents in relation Document Demands
3, 5, 10 and 11 as set forth above.
The Court finds that Defendants have failed to establish
that any further response, production or questioning is warranted with regard
to Demands 6, 15 and 16.