Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 23CMCV01841, Date: 2024-03-21 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23CMCV01841 Hearing Date: March 21, 2024 Dept: A
23CMCV01841
Sergio Armando Mayagoitia v. Prime Healthcare Services, et al.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER
I.
ARGUMENTS
The complaint
alleges claims for negligence and elder abuse arising from injuries sustained
by Plaintiff while in Defendants’ care. Plaintiff served request for production
of documents on Defendant, Prime Healthcare Services – St. Francis, LLC (“Defendant
”). Defendant served responses on
January 26, 2024. The parties resolved some of their differences, but
objections to some requests remain, all of which Plaintiff contends are without
merit.
In opposition,
Defendant argues that the separate statement is misleading and defective. Defendant
will respond to five of the remaining requests rendering the motion moot in
part. The remaining responses to Plaintiff’s requests are appropriate.
In reply, Plaintiff
argues that Defendant is acting in bad faith by agreeing to supplement
responses that Defendant promised on February 6, 2024. It is improper for
Defendant to withhold documents based on attorney-client privilege or other
basis without a privilege log.
II.
LEGAL STANDARDS
A
motion to compel further responses to a document request is proper where the
moving party believes the responding party’s statement of compliance is
incomplete, or a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, evasive,
and/or an objection in the response is without merit or too general. (Code
Civ. Proc., § 2031.310.)
The
scope of discovery is liberally construed in favor of disclosure “as a matter
of right unless statutory or public policy considerations clearly prohibit it.”
(Greyhound
Corp. v. Superior Court of Merced County (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 355,
377-378.) The broad scope of permissible discovery includes “any matter, not
privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending
action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter
either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.)
III.
DISCUSSION
Initially
at issue in this motion were requests 19, 21, 22, 25-27, 30-33, 37, and 38.
Defendant impliedly concedes the propriety of requests 22, 25, 26, 30, and 38,
since Defendant “intends” to provide verified responses before Plaintiff’s
reply brief is due. (Opp. 2:1-3.) This leaves the following requests:
Request 19
By
agreeing to produce documents responsive to these requests, Defendant concedes
the discoverability of the documents. Plaintiff argues that production was not
complete because Defendant failed to produce an “Inter-Rater Reliability Report”
referenced in the policy and procedure manual. Defendant argues that the report
is published yearly, and such a document is not prepared for “each shift” as
Plaintiff requested.
The
response is not code compliant. Defendant is required to affirm that a diligent
search and reasonable inquiry were made and specify the reason for its
inability to comply, among other information.
Request 21
Plaintiff
requests documents showing Defendant’s compliance with statutory requirements
for nursing staff development for each wing, unit, or station of the hospital where
decedent was a patient. Defendant agreed to comply with the request in full,
but now contends the request is overbroad, vague, ambiguous, and irrelevant. Defendant
contends that the request should be limited to training for the care of
pressure sores.
The
limitation is too narrowly drawn. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant was
negligent in developing patient care in general, including assessment, and
providing nutrition, hygiene, planning, intervention, and evaluation.
(Complaint, ¶ 25.) Defendant is ordered to provide documents responsive to the
request.
Defendant
has not established with competent evidence that compliance with the document
request will be unreasonably burdensome and oppressive. (West
Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court In and For Los Angeles
County (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417.)
An objection based upon burden requires evidence
showing the quantum of work required. An objection based on oppression requires
a showing of either an intent to create an unreasonable burden or that the “ultimate
effect of the burden is incommensurate with the result sought.” (Id.)
Defendant relies on the conversations
defense counsel had with “representatives” which is not competent to support
the objection. (Munoz decl., ¶ 5.) Additionally, Defendant’s remedy is to move
for a protective order, not refuse to respond or unilaterally impose
limitations on Plaintiff’s discovery. Defendant did not support these
objections with any evidence.
Request 27, 31, 32
Plaintiff
requests documents of “organized in-service education program” for all patient
care personnel in compliance with California Code of Regulations [“CC&R”] §
70214. Plaintiff also requests documents showing validation of patient care
personnel including nurses. These requests are relevant to training practices
and whether Defendant complied with regulatory training and competency
validation under CC&R 70161.1.
The
requests are not overbroad, vague, or ambiguous, nor has Defendant sustained
the objection based on burden and oppression with any evidence. Defendant also
contends that Plaintiff is required to give notice to third parties whose
records are being sought. Defendant does
not adequately explain whose privacy rights are implicated or why discovery
should be denied. Plaintiff offered a stipulated protective order to protect
against disclosure of personal information. (SS 23:26-28.)
Finally,
Defendant may not unilaterally determine that the documents are protected from
discovery and refuse to comply. This is an issue for the Court to decide.
Request 33
Plaintiff
requests documents that Defendant relied on to ensure that hospital patient
care personnel provided basic care services to decedent. Plaintiff alleges that
staff providing care to decedent was insufficient and not adequately trained. Accordingly,
Plaintiff is permitted to discover their identities as witnesses, and to establish
whether they were competent and trained to provide care. Defendant’s claim of
right to privacy is not supported by any evidence or substantive argument and
does not warrant withholding documents. Moreover, Plaintiff agreed to sign a
protective order. (SS 23:26-28.)
Request 37
Plaintiff
requests documents required by law to be maintained consisting of minutes of
meetings of the governing body and medical staff during the time period in
question and concerning operations where decedent was housed. As Plaintiff
requests that patients’ names be redacted, Defendant’s objection based on
privacy (although Defendant does not identify whose privacy rights are at
issue) is without merit. Defendant cannot withhold documents based on its own
determination of what is relevant to Plaintiff’s claim.
Plaintiff
is entitled to an award of sanctions for fees and costs incurred as Defendant
has not shown substantial justification for its objections. (Code
Civ. Proc., § 2031.310 subd (h).) The Court finds that counsel’s hourly
rate of $1,000 per hour is excessive given the motion’s lack of complexity and
lack of support other than what counsel believes his colleagues have been
awarded. (Stephen M. Garcia decl., ¶ 13, fn. 2.) The Court also finds that
additional time spent by a paralegal is duplicative of counsel’s work.
IV.
CONCLUSION
Based
on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion, and orders Defendant to
provide further, verified, supplemental responses without objection and to
produce documents responsive to requests 19, 21, 22, 25-27, 30-33, 37 and 38, within
10 days. The order applies to Requests 22, 25, 26, 30, and 38, to which
Defendant subsequently agreed to respond since Plaintiff’s reply does not
indicate that Defendant provided supplemental responses and production before
the reply brief was due as Defendant represented in its opposition.
The Court
imposes monetary sanctions of $1,400 ($350 per hour x 4 hours to prepare
motion, reply, and to appear). The Court also awards costs of $750 for court
reporter expenses and $60 for a filing fee totaling $2,210 of against Defendant,
Prime Healthcare Services – St. Francis, LLC, and its attorneys of record Kelly
Trotter & Franzen, jointly and severally. Monetary sanctions are to be paid
to Plaintiff’s counsel within 10 days.