Judge: Richard Y. Lee, Case: 30-2020-01151355, Date: 2022-09-29 Tentative Ruling
Defendant Orora Visual, LLC (“Defendant”) moves to compel Plaintiff St. Jude Hospital Center, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) to serve further responses to Requests for Production Nos. 4, 6-8, 14, 16, 20, and 22 and Special Interrogatory Nos. 3, 7, 8, 10-12, 14, 17, 19, 20, 21, and 23.
As an initial matter, Plaintiff argues Defendant’s Motions fail to comply with California Rules of Court, Rules 3.1110 and 3.1113. Rule 3.1110(a) requires that a notice of motion state the grounds for issuance of the order requested and Rule 3.1113(a) requires that a motion be filed with a supporting memorandum. Plaintiff’s notices of motion each state the nature of the order requested and that the motions are based on the memorandum of points and authorities, among other things. The memorandums of points and authorities include citations to the applicable Code sections and Defendant’s legal arguments in favor of further responses. The Court finds that the Motions comply with Rules 3.1110 and 3.1113.
Requests for Production
Request No. 4
This request seeks any and all documentation reflecting the Hospital’s policies for establishing UC rates, gross charges, or chargemaster rates for goods and services during the relevant time. In response, Plaintiff pointed to the chargemaster rates that are public record and available at the OSHPD website.
Defendant argues a further response is required because Plaintiff’s identification of the OSHPD website does not set forth the policies for how Plaintiff establishes the ultimate gross charges and cost for medical services and goods provided to patients.
Plaintiff contends this request is overbroad and unlimited as to time and scope and responding would impose an undue burden and expense. Plaintiff also argues that it is not required to produce publicly available documents equally accessible to Defendant.
Plaintiff’s argument ignores the true issue with regard to this request. Though Plaintiff has directed Defendant to where it can find the chargemaster rates, which are publicly available, that is not what the request seeks. Rather, it seeks Plaintiff’s policies for establishing those rates. Plaintiff’s response is therefore insufficient and incomplete. The request is not overbroad. It is limited to the relevant time period, which is defined as the 12-month period before and after the date the goods and services were provided and seeks a narrow category of documents related to Plaintiff’s policies for establishing its rates charged. Thus, the Court GRANTS the Motion as to this request.
Request No. 6
This request seeks Plaintiff’s billing and collections policies for the relevant time. In response, Plaintiff stated it would produce in .pdf format documents SJS000001-SJS001394 subject to a protective order.
Defendant argues a further response is required because Plaintiff’s 1394-page document production does not set forth any policies for billing and collections that were in place at the time of treatment for the patient referenced in the Complaint and, if any responsive documents were produced, Plaintiff must provide clarity as to which documents are responsive pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.280.
Plaintiff contends it produced the billing statements for services provided to the patient and the documents are self-explanatory.
Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.280(a) requires that any documents produced in response to a demand be identified with the specific request number to which the documents respond. Here, Plaintiff has failed to comply by refusing to identify exactly which documents were being produced in response to this request and, instead, pointing to its entire 1394-page production. Plaintiff’s contention that it produced billing statements is unavailing. This request seeks Plaintiff’s billing and collections policies. Billing statements are not responsive. Thus, the Court GRANTS the Motion as to this request.
Request No. 7
This request seeks all documents reflecting the amount that other area hospitals charge and/or accept for providing the same or similar goods and services as those listed on the subject medical bills. In response, Plaintiff asserted objections that the request is vague, ambiguous, unintelligible, overbroad and burdensome, calls for expert opinion, seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine, seeks documents that are confidential and trade secrets from which Plaintiff and third parties derive value and subject to contractual confidentiality provisions and the right to privacy.
Defendant contends the amounts charged and accepted for similar medical services by hospitals in the area is typically a factor relied upon by hospitals in reaching the amounts charged and the reasonable value of services provided on medical bills. Thus, the request seeks relevant information and further response is required.
Plaintiff contends this request is seeking third-party discovery from Plaintiff and Defendant should subpoena the documents from the appropriate third-party hospitals.
Notably, Plaintiff’s response to this request does not state that Plaintiff has no responsive documents in its custody or control. To the extent Plaintiff does have any responsive documents in its custody and control, Plaintiff should produce those documents in response to this request. Defendant is not required to subpoena those documents from third parties if they are already in Plaintiff’s possession. Plaintiff offers no support for its objections that the documents are protected by any confidentiality provisions or the right to privacy. The Court finds the remaining objections to be boilerplate and lacking in merit. Thus, the Court GRANTS the Motion as to this request.
Request No. 8
This request seeks all documents reflecting the amounts that the Hospital actually accepts or received from other patients or payers when it provides the same or similar goods and services as those listed on the subject medical bills. In response, Plaintiff stated it would produce SJS001395-SJS001600, which is marked as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY” pursuant to the parties’ stipulated protective order.
Defendant argues the documents produced are incomplete and are missing the data for the outpatient chemo drug therapy and treatment received by the patient alleged in the Complaint. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff has stated it has this information but refuses to produce it due to the manner in which it is stored.
Plaintiff contends the spreadsheet produced details the amounts paid to the Hospital from 2016-2019 for the goods and services listed on the patient’s bills. To the extent Defendant needs clarity on the spreadsheet, Plaintiff asserts Defendant can notice a deposition.
In the parties’ meet and confer efforts, counsel for Plaintiff stated that production of “outpatient chemo treatment payer data” is not feasible because of the way the information is stored, and Defendant must therefore look to the data for oncology services included on the produced spreadsheet. (Declaration of Benson E. Garrett, Ex. 9.)
Plaintiff offers no evidence in support of its assertion that the outpatient chemo drug therapy and treatment data cannot be produced based on the manner in which it is stored. Though a party may object to discovery of electronically stored information on the grounds that it is not reasonably accessible, Plaintiff’s objections to this request is not based on such grounds. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(d).) Even if Plaintiff’s objections had been based on such grounds, it is still Plaintiff’s burden to demonstrate that the data is from a source that is not reasonable accessible because of undue burden or expense. (Id., § 2031.310(d).) Plaintiff has not met that burden here. Thus, the Court GRANTS the Motion as to this request.
Request No. 14
This request seeks all documents reflecting Plaintiff’s policy or preference with respect to obtaining its patients’ consent to pay for goods and services. In response, Plaintiff stated it would produce in .pdf format documents SJS000001-SJS001394 subject to a protective order.
Defendant contends it has reviewed the document production and cannot determine which documents are responsive to this request and Plaintiff must provide further clarity.
Plaintiff contends it produced medical records for all seven claims for the patient and those records contain the responsive documents.
As with Request No. 6, Plaintiff has failed to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.280(a) by refusing to identify exactly which documents were being produced in response to this request and, instead, pointing to its entire 1394-page production. Plaintiff’s contention that it produced medical records for the subject patient is unavailing. This request seeks Plaintiff’s policies regarding patients’ consent to pay, which would not be included in the medical records for the single patient at issue. Thus, the Court GRANTS the Motion as to this request.
Request No. 16
This request seeks all documents reflecting Plaintiff’s financial assistance policy. Plaintiff objected on the grounds that the request seeks irrelevant information, is vague and ambiguous, is overbroad, necessitates the preparation of a compilation or summary, seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine, violates the right to privacy of third parties, and seeks protected health information and/or medical information.
Defendant argues the financial assistance policy is another factor in evaluating and assessing the charges, rate of reimbursement, and alleged damages here and Defendant is entitled to seek the documents sought by this request.
Plaintiff contends the documents sought are irrelevant.
Plaintiff provides no argument or authority in support of its assertion that the documents regarding its financial assistance policy are irrelevant. Plaintiff has sued Defendant on the allegation that Defendant has failed to fully reimburse it for services rendered to Defendant’s policyholder. Any policy Plaintiff has in place regarding financial assistance to patients is relevant to Plaintiff’s claimed damages. Thus, the Court GRANTS the Motion as to this request.
Request No. 20
This request seeks all documents reflecting the reasonable value of the hospital goods and services provided to the patient as alleged in the Complaint. In response, Plaintiff stated it would produce in .pdf format documents SJS000001-SJS001394 and SJS001395-SJS001600, which is marked as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY” pursuant to the parties’ stipulated protective order.
Defendant argues this production is incomplete because, as with request no. 8, the spreadsheet is missing data for the outpatient chemo drug therapy and treatment provided to the patient.
Plaintiff contends the charges on the billing records produced reflect the reasonable value of the services provided because the amounts charged are the usual and customary amounts for those services.
As with request no. 8, Plaintiff offers no evidence in support of its assertion that the outpatient chemo drug therapy and treatment data cannot be produced based on the manner in which it is stored. Plaintiff has not met its burden under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310(d). Thus, the Court GRANTS the Motion as to this request.
Request No. 22
This request seeks documents identifying the hospital representative(s) referenced in the Complaint. In response, Plaintiff stated it would produce in .pdf format documents SJS000001-SJS001394.
Defendant contends the documents do not clearly identify the individuals who spoke with Defendant as alleged in the Complaint because the call logs have hospital representative usernames that do not include a person’s first or last name.
Plaintiff contends this request would necessitate the preparation of a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary from documents in Defendant’s possession.
As discussed below, the Motion to Compel Plaintiff to serve further response to Special Interrogatory No. 17, which asks Plaintiff to identify the individuals at issue in this request, is GRANTED. As such, the Court finds no further response to this request to be necessary and DENIES the Motion as to this request.
Special Interrogatories
Interrogatory No. 3
This interrogatory asks Plaintiff to identify all documentation, recordings, transcripts or the like, the Hospital contends supports its claim of breach of an implied-in-fact contract against Defendant to pay the subject medical bills, including all documents incorporated in, integrated into, referenced by, otherwise made part of, or necessary to interpret such alleged contract. In response, Plaintiff refers Defendant to SJS000001-SJS001394.
Defendant argues Plaintiff should provide a straightforward and complete answer to this interrogatory rather than making Defendant guess as to which of the 1394 pages produced are responsive.
Plaintiff argues the medical records for the services provided are the documentary evidence of the implied-in-fact contract, which it has identified in the records produced.
Plaintiff’s response cites to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, which states that a responding party may refer to writings from which a response may be derived or ascertained if the response would necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from the documents of the party to whom the interrogatory is directed, and if the burden or expense of preparing or making it would be substantially the same for the party propounding the interrogatory as for the responding party. Here, this interrogatory does not necessitate any compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from documents. Rather, it is asking Plaintiff to identify all documents upon which it relies for its implied-in-fact contract claim. Plaintiff’s reference to section 2030.230 and its entire 1394-page document production is insufficient. Thus, the Court GRANTS the Motion as to this interrogatory.
Interrogatory No. 7
This interrogatory asks Plaintiff to state the average amount paid to it for the goods and services listed on the subject medical bills for the relevant time period. In response, Plaintiff refers to documents SJS000001-SJS001394 and SJS001395-SJS001600.
Defendant states it cannot determine from the referenced documents which contain the requested information and though Plaintiff has produced the spreadsheet with financial information of the average amounts paid for the same type of services rendered at issue here, the spreadsheet is missing outpatient chemo drug therapy and treatment.
The dispute over this interrogatory is the same as that over request nos. 8 and 20. Plaintiff contends the data for outpatient chemo drug therapy and treatment cannot be produced due to the manner in which it is stored. As discussed above, Plaintiff offers no evidence in support of this assertion. Moreover, this assertion demonstrates that Plaintiff has access to this data. Thus, there is no reason Plaintiff cannot provide the numbers from the data in response to this request. Moreover, the Court finds Plaintiff’s reference to section 2030.230 and its entire 1394-page document production, plus the additional spreadsheet production, to be insufficient. Thus, the Court GRANTS the Motion as to this interrogatory.
Interrogatory No. 8
This interrogatory asks Plaintiff to describe the ways in which it determines, tracks, records, or ascertains the amounts paid to it by various payers for the goods and services provided. Plaintiff objected on the grounds that the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous, is overbroad, seeks irrelevant information, is compound, and seeks protected health information.
Defendant contends Plaintiff has failed to provide a full and complete response and its objections lack merit.
Plaintiff contends it has produced a comprehensive spreadsheet detailing the amounts paid and how the data was determined, tracked, recorded, and ascertained is irrelevant. Plaintiff further asserts a person most knowledgeable deposition is a more appropriate discovery vehicle for this information.
Plaintiff here alleges that Defendant has failed to fully reimburse it for services rendered to Defendant’s policyholder. How Plaintiff tracks and records the amounts paid to it for goods and services provided is relevant to Plaintiff’s claimed damages. The Court therefore does not agree that the information sought is irrelevant. Further, Plaintiff’s other objections to this interrogatory lack merit. Thus, the Court GRANTS the Motion as to this interrogatory.
Interrogatory No. 10
This interrogatory asks Plaintiff to state the percentage of accounts for which it collected 100% of its UC rates during the relevant time period. Plaintiff objected on the grounds that the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous, is oppressive to the extent it requires Plaintiff to perform calculations, seeks premature expert opinion, seeks irrelevant information, is compound, and seeks protected health information.
Defendant argues it is entitled to conduct discovery into industry standards, reasonable value policies, factors, calculations, reasonable rate of reimbursement, and Plaintiff’s policies and practices reflecting calculations of UC rates and changes for its goods and services rendered, and further response is required.
Plaintiff argues Defendant can ascertain what it seeks from the spreadsheet produced, which details the amounts paid to it from 2016-2019 for the goods and services listed on the patient’s bills.
The spreadsheet includes the amounts paid to Plaintiff for goods and services listed on the patient’s bills, but Plaintiff does not state that it includes whether the amounts paid are the full amount of Plaintiff’s UC rates. To the extent it does not reflect this, Defendant cannot ascertain what it seeks from the spreadsheet produced. Further, the spreadsheet only relates to goods and services listed on the patient’s bills, but this interrogatory seeks payment of UC rates without such limitation. Thus, the Court GRANTS the Motion as to this interrogatory.
Interrogatory No. 11
This interrogatory asks Plaintiff to identify the persons involved in setting Hospital UC rates, pricing, and/or chargemaster rates. Plaintiff objected on the grounds that the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous, seeks information that is irrelevant, and is compound.
Defendant contends the identify of individuals is required because those individuals have information or can speak about the underlying charges for medical services in this action and how they were determined.
Plaintiff asserts a person most knowledgeable deposition is a more appropriate discovery vehicle for this information.
Plaintiff provides no argument or authority in support of its assertion that Defendant should be required to seek this information through deposition rather than by interrogatory. Defendant is entitled to discover the identity of people who have knowledge of Plaintiff’s setting of rates, as the setting of rates is relevant to the claims raised by Plaintiff. Thus, the Court GRANTS the Motion as to this interrogatory.
Interrogatory No. 12
This interrogatory seeks all factors considered by Plaintiff or its agents when establishing UC rates, chargemaster rates, including any applicable policies or procedures. Plaintiff objected on the grounds that the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous, seeks information that is irrelevant, seeks premature expert opinion, seeks information that is confidential and trade secret, and is compound.
Defendant asserts it will limit this interrogatory to the UC rates and, with this limitation, the information is required to assess and evaluate Plaintiff’s alleged damages.
Plaintiff asserts a person most knowledgeable deposition is a more appropriate discovery vehicle for this information.
Again, Plaintiff provides no argument or authority in support of its assertion that Defendant should be required to seek this information through deposition rather than by interrogatory. Thus, the Court GRANTS the Motion as to this interrogatory.
Interrogatory No. 14
This interrogatory asks Plaintiff to identify any statement the Hospital contends constitutes an admission of liability for any portion of the amounts sought in this lawsuit whether made by Defendant, or anyone on any Defendant’s behalf, to the Hospital or in the Hospital’s presence, or to Hospital’s knowledge was ever made to or in the presence of some other person, or that the Hospital contend could be construed in any way to support the Hospital’s allegations. In response, Plaintiff refers to documents SJS000001-SJS001394.
Defendant states it cannot determine from the referenced documents which contain the requested information and further response is required to provide a clear and straightforward response.
Plaintiff argues evidence supporting its causes of action is the medical records for the patient that have already been produced.
Plaintiff’s response cites to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230. Here, this interrogatory does not necessitate any compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from documents. Rather, it is asking Plaintiff to identify all statements it contends constitute an admission of liability for any portion of the amounts sought from Defendant. Plaintiff’s reference to section 2030.230 and its entire 1394-page document production is insufficient. Thus, the Court GRANTS the Motion as to this interrogatory.
Interrogatory No. 17
This interrogatory asks Plaintiff to identify its representative who spoke to Defendant and/or Defendant’s agent(s) to verify patient benefits as alleged in the Complaint, including the originating area code and phone number, date of each communication, and destination fax number. In response, Plaintiff refers to documents SJS000001-SJS001394.
Defendant contends the documents do not contain the identity of individuals responsive to this interrogatory. Plaintiff contends the medical records produced are responsive.
This interrogatory does not necessitate any compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from documents. Rather, it is asking Plaintiff to identify each of its representatives who spoke with Defendant to verify the patient’s benefits, as alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint. Plaintiff’s reference to section 2030.230 and its entire 1394-page document production is insufficient. Thus, the Court GRANTS the Motion as to this interrogatory.
Interrogatory No. 19
This interrogatory asks Plaintiff to identify the usual and customary rate of reimbursement for the specific hospital goods and services identified in Plaintiff’s Complaint. In response, Plaintiff refers to documents SJS000001-SJS001394 and SJS001395-SJS001600.
Defendant contends the documents produced can be interpreted in different ways and Defendant should not have to guess what Plaintiff’s usual and customary rate of reimbursement is based on the documents.
Plaintiff contends it has produced OSHPD records detailing the amounts paid to it from 2016-2019 for the goods and services listed on the patient’s bills.
This interrogatory is asking Plaintiff to identify the UC rate of reimbursement for certain goods and services. Plaintiff’s production of records showing amounts paid to it is not sufficient to show Plaintiff’s UC rate of reimbursement. Further, this interrogatory does not necessitate any compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from documents. Plaintiff’s reference to section 2030.230 and its entire 1394-page document production, plus the additional spreadsheet production, is insufficient. Thus, the Court GRANTS the Motion as to this interrogatory.
Interrogatory No. 20
This interrogatory asks Plaintiff, if the persons identified in response to No. 17 are no longer employed by Plaintiff, to identify when they left employment and how they may now be contacted. Plaintiff refers to documents SJS000001-SJS001394.
This interrogatory does not necessitate any compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from documents. Plaintiff’s reference to section 2030.230 and its entire 1394-page document production is insufficient. Thus, the Court GRANTS the Motion as to this interrogatory.
Interrogatory No. 21
This interrogatory asks Plaintiff to indicate whether the patient is eligible for financial assistance under the Hospital’s written financial assistance policy. If the Hospital lacks information sufficient to determine Defendant’s eligibility for assistance under the financial assistance policy, the interrogatory asks Plaintiff to state all efforts undertaken by the Hospital to determine whether Defendant is eligible for financial assistance under its policy. Plaintiff objected on the grounds that the interrogatory is compound and seeks protected health information.
The Court agrees that the interrogatory is compound, in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.060(f). Thus, the Court DENIES the Motion as to this interrogatory.
Interrogatory No. 23
This interrogatory asks Plaintiff to state, for each product line and service line identified in response to No. 22, Plaintiff’s total charges, total reimbursements, and total costs for the relevant time period. Plaintiff refers to documents SJS000001-SJS001394.
This interrogatory does appear to require Plaintiff to prepare a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from documents and the burden or expense of preparing such a summary would be substantially the same for either party. Thus, the Court finds Plaintiff’s reliance on 2030.230 in response to this interrogatory to be appropriate. However, Plaintiff must specify the documents related to this interrogatory with sufficient detail to permit Defendant to locate and to identify the documents from which the answer may be ascertained. Plaintiff’s reference to its entire document production is insufficient. Thus, the Court GRANTS the Motion as to this interrogatory.
All further responses are due within 20 days.
Defendant to give notice.