Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 20STCV48320, Date: 2023-02-17 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, counsel are advised to check this website periodically to determine whether any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling. Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Department G at (909) 802-1104 prior to 8:30 a.m. the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 20STCV48320    Hearing Date: February 17, 2023    Dept: G

Defendants Aurora Charter Oaks-Los Angeles, LLC; Signature Healthcare Services, LLC; Signature Healthcare Management, LLC; Aurora Healthcare, Inc.; and Todd Smith’s Motion to Stay Discovery

Respondent: Plaintiff Joshua Acosta

Plaintiffs Joshua Acosta’s Motions for Protective Order Regarding Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 36-224

Respondent: Defendants Aurora Charter Oaks-Los Angeles, LLC; Signature Healthcare Services, LLC; Signature Healthcare Management, LLC; Aurora Healthcare, Inc.; and Todd Smith

Plaintiffs Joshua Acosta’s Motions for Protective Order Regarding Special Interrogatories, Set Two

Respondent: Defendants Aurora Charter Oaks-Los Angeles, LLC; Signature Healthcare Services, LLC; Signature Healthcare Management, LLC; Aurora Healthcare, Inc.; and Todd Smith

Plaintiffs Joshua Acosta’s Motions for Protective Order Regarding Requests for Admissions, Set One, Nos. 36-183

Respondent: Defendants Aurora Charter Oaks-Los Angeles, LLC; Signature Healthcare Services, LLC; Signature Healthcare Management, LLC; Aurora Healthcare, Inc.; and Todd Smith

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants Aurora Charter Oaks-Los Angeles, LLC; Signature Healthcare Services, LLC; Signature Healthcare Management, LLC; Aurora Healthcare, Inc.; and Todd Smith’s Motion to Stay Discovery is DEEMED MOOT.

Plaintiffs Joshua Acosta’s Motions for Protective Order Regarding Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 36-224 are DENIED.

Plaintiffs Joshua Acosta’s Motions for Protective Order Regarding Special Interrogatories, Set Two are DENIED.

Plaintiffs Joshua Acosta’s Motions for Protective Order Regarding Requests for Admissions, Set One, Nos. 36-183 are DENIED.

BACKGROUND

This is a personal injury action. Plaintiff Joshua Acosta (Acosta) was involuntarily committed to the Aurora Charter Oak Hospital, a psychiatric hospital in Covina, where Acosta was allegedly attacked and beaten by hospital employees.

On January 27, 2023, Acosta and Plaintiff Veronica Gallegos (Gallegos), Acosta’s mother, filed a Third Amended Complaint (TAC) against Aurora Charter-Oak-Los Angeles, LLC (Aurora LLC); Nageswara R. Guntupalli, M.D; William M. Gillespie, M.D.; Signature Healthcare Services, LLC (Signature LLC); Signature Healthcare Management, Inc. (Signature Inc.); Aurora Health Care, Inc. (Aurora Inc.); Todd Smith (Smith); and Does 1 through 10 alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of mandatory duty pursuant to CANRA; (2) civil conspiracy based on statutory violations of CANRA; (3) negligent failure to render aid; (4) violation of the Bane Act, Civil Code section 52.1; (5) violation of the Ralph Act, Civil Code section 51.7; (6) negligent supervision, management, and retention; (7) battery; (8) fraud by intentional misrepresentation; (9) fraud by intentional concealment; (10) negligent infliction of emotional distress; (11) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (12) premises liability; (13) non-delegable duty doctrine; (14) peculiar risk doctrine; and (15) breach of duty established by Penal Code section 273, subdivision (d).

On March 7, 2022, Acosta filed five motions for protective orders in response to special interrogatories set one that were propounded by Aurora LLC, Aurora Inc., Signature LLC, Signature Inc., and Smith (collectively, Aurora Defendants). On April 12, Acosta filed an omnibus motion for a protective order regarding the first set of the Aurora Defendants’ requests for admission.

On April 14, 2022, Aurora Defendants filed a motion to compel further responses to their special interrogatories, form interrogatories, and requests for admission.

On June 17, 2022, Acosta filed a motion for a protective order in response to Aurora Defendants’ second set of special interrogatories.

On September 22, 2022, Aurora Defendants filed motions for summary judgment or adjudication. On October 14, they also filed a motion to stay discovery pending the outcome of their motions for summary judgment or adjudication.

On November 30, 2022, the court discharged a previous OSC Re: Discovery Referee and directed parties to file declarations listing all pending discovery motions and describing parties’ meet and confer efforts. A hearing on the motions is set for February 17, 2023.  

ANALYSIS

Aurora Defendants move to stay discovery pending the outcome of their motions for summary judgment or adjudication. Acosta also moves for protective orders in response to Aurora Defendants’ requests for admission and two sets of special interrogatories. For the following reasons, the court deems MOOT the Aurora Defendants’ motion and DENIES Acosta’s motions for protective orders.

Legal Standard

“The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party, deponent, or other natural person or organization from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420, subd. (b).) The court has considerable discretion in granting and crafting protective orders. (Raymond Handling Concepts Corp. v. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 584, 588.) 

Aurora Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery

Aurora Defendants seek to stay discovery on the grounds that their pending motions for summary judgment invoke immunity under Welfare and Institutions Code section 5278. However, because the Aurora Defendants’ motions for summary judgment or adjudication have since been removed from the court’s calendar, the Aurora Defendant’s motion is DEEMED MOOT.

Acosta’s Motions for Protective Orders

In moving for a protective order in response to Aurora Defendants’ first set of special interrogatories, Acosta argues they are oppressive, voluminous, duplicative, largely unfocused, and call for information of which Acosta clearly lacks personal knowledge.  In response to the Aurora Defendants’ second set of special interrogatories and requests for admission, Acosta makes similar arguments. However, in light of the liberal policy of allowing discovery, the court finds Acosta has not demonstrated good cause for the court to impose protective orders. (See Forthmann v. Boyer (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 977, 987.)

Accordingly, Acosta’s motions for protective orders are DENIED.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Aurora Defendants’ motion for a stay of discovery is DEEMED MOOT and Acosta’s motions for protective orders are DENIED.