Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 22STCV06510, Date: 2023-10-20 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV06510 Hearing Date: October 20, 2023 Dept: 8
Tentative Ruling¿¿
¿¿¿
HEARING DATE: October 20, 2023¿
¿¿¿
CASE NUMBER: 22STCV06510
¿¿¿
CASE NAME: Barbara
Benson, et al. v. Brius LLC, et al.
¿¿¿
MOVING PARTY: (1) – (4) Plaintiffs, Barbara Benson, Deceased, by and
through her successor in Interest Daniel Benson, and Daniel Benson,
individually
RESPONDING PARTY: (1) Defendant Rockport Healthcare Support Services, LLC (No
Opposition)
(2)
Defendant Sol Healthcare, LLC (No Opposition)
(3)
Defendant, Driftwood Healthcare &
Wellness Center, LLC (No Opposition)
(4)
Defendant Rockport Administrative Services, LLC (No Opposition)
TRIAL DATE: March 25, 2024
¿¿¿
(2)
Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set
One, to Defendant Sol Healthcare, LLC
(3) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents,
Set One, to Defendant Driftwood Healthcare & Wellness Center, LLC
(4)
Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set
One, to Defendant Rockport Administrative Services, LLC
¿
Tentative Rulings: (1) GRANT as to RFPs 52 and
79. Verified further response and the
responsive documents including the operating agreement are order to be produced
by 11/20/23
(2)
As to RFP Nos. 13, 15, 17, 21, and 32, SOL
to explain why it did not verify whether it ever had possession of the
requested documents; a further verified response may be required. As to RFP Nos. 45 and 54, GRANT motion and
order verified further response and the responsive documents to be produced by
11/20/23
(3), (4) Continue hearing in light of
the 136 pages of separate statements presented to the Court. A truncated amended Separate Statement for
each motion is needed that discusses recurring or similar issues in the voluminous
discovery requests at issue
I. BACKGROUND¿¿¿
¿¿¿
A. Factual¿¿¿
¿¿¿
On February 22, 2022, Plaintiff,
Barbara Benson, Deceased, by and through her Successor in Interest, Daniel
Benson, and Daniel Benson, Individually, filed a Complaint against Defendants,
Brius, LLC, Brius Management Co., Shlomo Rechnitz, Driftwood Healthcare &
Wellness Center, LLC, Citrus Wellness Center, LLC, Rechnitz Citrus GP,
Boardwalk West Financial Services, LLC, Driftwood-Let, LLC, Sytr Real Estate
Holdings, LLC, Rockport Healthcare Support Services, LLC, Rockport
Administrative Services, LLC, SOL Healthcare, LLC, Rechnitz Core GP, and DOES 1
through 150, inclusive.
The Complaint alleges causes of
action for: (1) Negligence/Willful Misconduct; (2) Elder Abuse and Neglect; (3)
Violation of Patients’ Bill of Rights; and (4) Wrongful Death.
Plaintiffs claim that on April
11, 2022, Plaintiffs propounded Requests for Production of Documents, Set One
on Defendants. Plaintiffs also note that after a lengthy discovery process, the
parties attended an IDC on April 5, 2023 where the parties agreed that as to
the remaining issues, Plaintiffs would prepare a meet and confer letter,
schedule a further teleconference “meet and confer” with defense counsel, and
schedule a further IDC if necessary or proceed to motions to compel. Plaintiffs
note that their counsel sent correspondence setting forth remaining issues in
relation to those issues which remained outstanding as to all defendants on
April 18, 2023. Following this, Plaintiff notes that the parties engaged in two
further meet and confer conferences on May 4, 22023 and May 10, 2023. In these
meet and confer meetings, Plaintiffs note that parties were able to come to
resolutions on a number of disputed requests. The parties agreed that Defendants
would have through May 26, 2023 to provide their further supplemental
responses, and Plaintiffs would have through June 16, 2023 to file any motion
to compel.
Plaintiffs note that on July 17,
2023, Defendants served “Second Further Responses,” which addressed some but
not all of the outstanding issues, and now Plaintiff brings this motion. Plaintiffs
further contend that the parties pursued significant informal settlement
discussions, and to allow for settlement discussions and in the hope of
minimizing costs and avoiding unnecessary law and motion, the parties agreed to
further extensions of Plaintiffs’ motion to compel deadlines, including a final
extension through September 11, 2023. Now, Plaintiffs bring the below motions
in order to compel further responses to the remaining Requests for Production
of Documents.
B. Procedural¿¿¿
¿¿
On September 11, 2023, Plaintiffs filed these Motions to
Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents. To date, no
opposition has been filed. On October 12, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of
Non-Opposition.
¿II. ANALYSIS¿¿
¿¿
A.
Legal
Standard
Further, where there has
been no timely response to a Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.010 demand, the
demanding party must seek an order compelling a response. (CCP § 2031.300.)
Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work
product. Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief
from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded. There
is no deadline for a motion to compel responses. Likewise, for failure to
respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court
before filing the motion. Where the motion seeks only a response to the
inspection demand, no showing of "good cause" is required.
B. Discussion
Rockport Healthcare Support Services, LLC (RFP Nos. 52
and 79)
Plaintiffs
argue that they are entitled to the sought-after information because such
information is relevant and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Plaintiffs note the requested information is relevant
because included in Plaintiffs’ allegations is the contention that the
defendant entities are mere alter egos of one another or are operating as
components of a single enterprise, and to that end, Plaintiffs seek discovery
to determine the nature of those relationships. Plaintiffs argue that they are
entitled to the documents which evidence the nature and extent of the
relationship between the various co-defendants and the extent to which each is
participating in the operation, management and control of FACILITY or are
otherwise profiting therefrom. Plaintiffs also contend that their claims are
subject to a heightened burden of proof which requires Plaintiffs to conduct
discovery in greater depth than that which would prove mere negligence. Specifically,
Plaintiffs note that in order to prove elder abuse, they must establish by
clear and convincing evidence fraud, oppression, malice, or reckless neglect.
Plaintiffs
note that RFP No. 52 seeks Defendant, Rockport Healthcare Support Services, LLC
to produce all documents, charts, exhibits, memorandums, letters, and emails
which describe the business relationship between them and Rockport
Administrative Services, LLC during the time period of February 23, 2016
through and including February 23, 2021. In Defendant’s further response, it
indicated the following: “Responding party will comply with the request in part
by producing responding party’s Operating Agreement and Statement of Information.”
Plaintiffs argue that further response to the request are required because of
the “in part” portion of the response. Plaintiffs argue that to the extent that
Defendant is refusing to produce documents in response to Request No. 52, it
must identify with particularity each document it is refusing to produce, as
well as clearly set forth the specific grounds for the objection/refusal. The
Court agrees.
The Court
finds that this request seeks relevant information. If Defendant objects, in
part, to a portion of the request, for example, a date range being irrelevant,
than Defendant may assert such objections. However, the supplemental further
response fails to identify which parts of the request Defendant seeks to
respond to, which part they will not be responding to, and objection to certain
parts of the request, if any. As such, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ request to
RFP No. 52, and orders Defendant’s further code-compliant response.
Further,
Plaintiffs also note that RFP No. 79 requests the production of the Operating
Agreement which was in effect during the time period of Plaintiff’s Admission
at Facility. Here, the Court notes that Defendant’s Further Response to RFP No.
79 affirmed that they would comply with this request in full. However,
Plaintiffs brought this motion because they contend despite Defendant’s
affirmative response, Defendant failed to provide an responsive documents. The
Court orders Defendant to provide the documents it affirmatively responded that
it would. As such, Plaintiffs’ Motion as to RFP No. 79 is GRANTED.
Sol Healthcare, LLC (RFP Nos. 13, 15, 17, 21, 32, 45, and
54)
As noted
above, Plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to the sought-after information
because such information is relevant and reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs note the requested information is
relevant because included in Plaintiffs’ allegations is the contention that the
defendant entities are mere alter egos of one another or are operating as
components of a single enterprise, and to that end, Plaintiffs seek discovery
to determine the nature of those relationships. Plaintiffs argue that they are
entitled to the documents which evidence the nature and extent of the
relationship between the various co-defendants and the extent to which each is
participating in the operation, management and control of FACILITY or are
otherwise profiting therefrom. Plaintiffs also contend that their claims are
subject to a heightened burden of proof which requires Plaintiffs to conduct
discovery in greater depth than that which would prove mere negligence.
Specifically, Plaintiffs note that in order to prove elder abuse, they must
establish by clear and convincing evidence fraud, oppression, malice, or
reckless neglect.
Here, as to
RFP Nos. 13, 15, 17, 21, and 32, Plaintiffs argue that Defendant’s further
responses to the requests are not Code-compliant. In further response to these
requests, Defendant, SOL Healthcare, LLC stated: “After diligent search and
reasonable inquiry, responding party is unable to comply with the request
because the documents are not in their possession, custody or control. On
information and belief, if the requested documents exist, they are in the
possession, custody, or control of defendant Brius, LLC.” Plaintiffs contend
this is not a code-compliant response because the more information is required,
e.g., the documents are no longer in the responding party’s possession, or were
never in responding party’s possession. The Court disagrees with Plaintiffs’
semantics argument. Here, as noted by Plaintiff, Code of Civil Procedure §
2031.230 requires that a code compliant statement of inability to comply may
note that the documents are no longer in possession of such documents. As the
Court reads Defendant SOL’s response, it appears clear enough that its response
makes clear that it does not have possession of said documents, but the Court
will require an explanation and potentially a verified further response as to
whether SOL ever had possession of the sought-after documents that it no longer
has.
As to RFP
Nos. 45 and 54, Defendant has responded, in its supplemental responses, that it
“…withdraws the previously asserted objections except not reasonably
particularized, vague and ambiguous, overbroad in scope, and burdensome,
harassing and oppressive. Responding party further responds as follows:
Responding party will comply with the request in part by producing the
applicable Operating Agreements for responding party which describe the
business relationship between responding party and” both Shlomo Rechnitz and Rechnitz
Core GP. Plaintiffs argue that because Defendant has indicated it will respond
in part, it is required to comply with Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.24(b) and
that they must identify with particularity, each document it is refusing to
produce, as well as clearly setting forth the specific grounds for the
objection/refusal. The Court agrees. It is not enough for Defendant to merely note
that they will comply in part by producing the applicable operating agreements
without objecting to a period of time which it argues is irrelevant to produce.
As such, this Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ request ad orders Defendant SOL
Healthcare, LLC to produce Code-compliant responses.
Driftwood Healthcare & Wellness Center, LLC (RFP Nos.
6, 15, 41, 45-49, 58, 60, 72, 76-77, 91, and 101)
The separate
statement as to this Defendant is 41 pages long. Plaintiffs are ordered to provide
a truncated further Separate Statement that combines similar requests or
similar responses as to reasons why a further response is required. The Court will inquire at the hearing as to
how much time counsel needs and will set the continued hearing accordingly
Rockport Administrative Services, LLC (RFP Nos. 1 - 56,
79, and 91)
The separate statement as to this Defendant is 95 pages
long. Plaintiffs are ordered to provide a truncated further Separate Statement
that combines similar requests or similar responses as to reasons why a further
response is required. The Court will
inquire at the hearing as to how much time counsel needs and will set the continued
hearing accordingly¿¿¿¿