Judge Salvatore Sirna, Case 20STCV48320 2023-03-24 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 20STCV48320, Date: 2023-03-24 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: March 24, 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

Defendant Aurora Charter Oaks-Los Angeles, LLC’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, No. 17.1

Respondent: Plaintiff Joshua Acosta

Defendant Aurora Charter Oaks-Los Angeles, LLC’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 1-43, 45-173, 175-185, 188-224

Respondent: Plaintiff Joshua Acosta

Defendant Aurora Charter Oaks-Los Angeles, LLC’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission, Set One, Nos. 36-184

Respondent: Plaintiff Joshua Acosta

Plaintiffs Joshua Acosta’s Motions to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 12.4, 15.1, 16.1, 16.2, 16.3, 16.4, 16.5, 16.6, 16.7, 16.8, and 16.9

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 DENIED. Plaintiff Joshua Acosta’s Request for Sanctions in Opposition is also DENIED.

Defendant Aurora Charter Oaks-Los Angeles, LLC’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, No. 17.1 is GRANTED. Plaintiff Joshua Acosta is ordered to serve further, complete code-compliant responses without objection within forty-five (45) days of the issuance of this order. Furthermore, Defendant’s request for sanctions is GRANTED and sanctions are awarded in the amount of $660, payable within thirty (30) days of the issuance of this order.

Defendant Aurora Charter Oaks-Los Angeles, LLC’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 1-43, 45-173, 175-185, 188-224 is GRANTED IN PART as to Nos. 1-15, 17-24, 29-37, 39, 42, 50-84, 86-99, 103-105, 107, 112-146, 151-173, 178-184, 195-198, 204-209, 211-219, and 221-223, and DENIED IN PART as to Nos. 191-193. Plaintiff Joshua Acosta is ordered to serve further, complete code-compliant responses without objection within forty-five (45) days of the issuance of this order. All requests for sanctions are DENIED.

Defendant Aurora Charter Oaks-Los Angeles, LLC’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission, Set One, Nos. 36-184 is GRANTED IN PART as to Nos. 179, 180, 182, 183, and 184 and DENIED IN PART as to the rest. Plaintiff Joshua Acosta is ordered to serve further, complete code-compliant responses without objection within forty-five (45) days of the issuance of this order. All requests for sanctions are DENIED.

Plaintiffs Joshua Acosta’s Motions to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 12.4, 15.1, 16.1, 16.2, 16.3, 16.4, 16.5, 16.6, 16.7, 16.8, and 16.9 is GRANTED IN PART as to Nos. 12.4, 15.1, 16.1, 16.2, 16.3, 16.4, 16.5, 16.6, and 16.9, and DENIED IN PART as to Nos. 16.7 and 16.8. Defendants Aurora Charter Oaks-Los Angeles, LLC; Signature Healthcare Services, LLC; Signature Healthcare Management, LLC; Aurora Healthcare, Inc.; and Todd Smith are ordered to serve further, complete code-compliant responses without objection within forty-five (45) days of the issuance of this order. All requests for sanctions 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 March 24, 2023.

ANALYSIS

Motion for a Stay of Discovery

Aurora Defendants move to stay discovery pending the outcome of their motions for summary judgment or adjudication. For the following reasons, the court DENIES the Aurora Defendants’ motion.

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.)

Discussion

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. The court disagrees.

Pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 5278, “Individuals authorized under this part to detain a person for 72-hour treatment and evaluation pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 5150) or Article 2 (commencing with Section 5200), or to certify a person for intensive treatment pursuant to Article 4 (commencing with Section 5250) or Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 5260) or Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 5270.10) or to file a petition for post-certification treatment for a person pursuant to Article 6 (commencing with Section 5300) shall not be held either criminally or civilly liable for exercising this authority in accordance with the law.”

In response, Plaintiff Acosta argues the Aurora Defendants have not established good cause for a stay of discovery. However, the existence of pending motions for summary judgment that invoke an immunity defense is sufficient to provide good cause for a stay of discovery. It would be an undue burden and/or expense for a party to respond to discovery requests when a pending motion may result in summary judgment for the responding party on the grounds of immunity.

Plaintiff Acosta also contends the court already rejected this immunity defense in ruling on a demurrer to Acosta’s First Amended Complaint (FAC). In the court’s April 27, 2022 ruling, the court found section 5278 immunity did not apply based on the allegations pled in the FAC. Because “[i]mmunity under section 5278 does not extend to ‘negligent acts, intentional torts, or criminal wrongs committed during the course of the detention, evaluation, or treatment’” (Julian v. Mission Community Hospital (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 360, 393, quoting Gonzalez v. Paradise Valley Hospital (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 735, 742), Acosta’s FAC avoided this immunity by pleading Aurora Defendants’ employees brutally attacked Acosta.

However, in a June 20, 2022 ruling on Acosta’s demurrer to Aurora Defendants’ Joint Amended Answer, the court explained its decision on section 5278 immunity was made on the basis of facts pled by Acosta. The court also noted that the Aurora Defendants’ answer provided new allegations regarding Acosta’s conduct, including that Acosta was violent and threatening which resulted in Aurora Defendants’ staff attempting to subdue Acosta. Ultimately, the fact that the court has previously rejected this defense at the demurrer stage does not prevent the Aurora Defendants from successfully establishing it at the summary judgment stage. Nonetheless, the court finds this is not sufficient to establish good cause for the Aurora Defendants to restrict Acosta from conducting discovery, especially when they have propounded discovery requests on Acosta as well. Accordingly, the court DENIES their motion.

Lastly, the court considers Plaintiff’s request for sanctions. Plaintiff requests sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 and 2023.010. However, these sections do not authorize the court to impose monetary sanctions for discovery abuse absent another specific provision allowing for the award of sanctions. (City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 466, 504.) Thus, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for sanctions.

Motions to Compel Further

Aurora LLC moves to compel further responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for admission from Plaintiff Acosta. Acosta also moves to compel further responses to form interrogatories from Aurora Defendants. For the following reasons, the court GRANTS Aurora LLC’s motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories; DENIES IN PART Aurora LLC’s motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories Nos. 191-193 and GRANTS IN PART Aurora LLC’s motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories Nos. 1-15, 17-24, 29-37, 39, 42, 50-84, 86-99, 103-105, 107, 112-146, 151-173, 178-184, 195-198, 204-209, 211-219, and 221-223; GRANTS IN PART Aurora LLC’s motion to compel further responses to requests for admission as to Nos. 179, 180, 182, 183, and 184 and DENIES IN PART Aurora LLC’s motion to compel further responses to requests for admission as to Nos. 178 and 181; and, lastly, GRANTS IN PART Acosta’s motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories as to Nos. 12.4, 15.1, 16.1, 16.2, 16.3, 16.4, 16.5, 16.6, and 16.9, and DENIES IN PART Acosta’s motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories as to Nos. 16.7 and 16.8.

Legal Standard

A party may file a motion compelling further answers to interrogatories or requests for admissions if it deems the responses are inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection in the responses is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300; 2033.290.) The motion shall be accompanied with a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b); 2033.290, subd. (b).) Each answer in the response must be “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits,” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (a).) and “[i]f an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (b).) The court must impose sanctions on a party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further unless the party acted with substantial justification or other circumstances make imposing a sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (d); 2033.290, subd. (d).)

Aurora LLC’s Form Interrogatories

Aurora LLC moves to compel further responses to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1, arguing Acosta’s objections are without merit. The court agrees.

Form Interrogatory 17.1 essentially asks for all facts supporting Acosta’s responses to requests for admission that were not unqualified admissions. In response, Acosta objected on the grounds that (1) the interrogatory is not self-contained and (2) Acosta has not yet answered the requests for admission. Because this objection is without merit, the court GRANTS Aurora LLC’s motion.

Aurora LLC’s Special Interrogatories

Aurora LLC moves to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 1-43, 45-173, 175-185, 188-224. Subsequently, Aurora LLC has agreed to withdraw Nos. 16, 25-28, 38, 40, 41, 44-49, 85, 100-102, 106, 108-111, 147-150, 174-177, 185-190, 194, 199, 200-203, 210, 220, and 224. As a result, Aurora LLC now only moves to compel further responses to Nos. 1-15, 17-24, 29-37, 39, 42, 50-84, 86-99, 103-105, 107, 112-146, 151-173, 178-184, 191-193, 195-198, 204-209, 211-219, and 221-223, contending Acosta refused to answer questions regarding Acosta’s contentions, supporting facts, background information, identification of witness, and existence of reports. The court DENIES IN PART Aurora LLC’s motion as to Nos. 191-193 and GRANTS IN PART Aurora LLC’s motion as to the rest of the special interrogatories.

As noted by Aurora LLC, Acosta refused to provide any answers to Aurora LLC’s first set of special interrogatories and merely objected to each and every one. The court categorizes and addresses Acosta’s objections as follows: form objections, procedural objections, and substantive objections.

Form Objections

Acosta makes six different types of form objections to Aurora LLC’s special interrogatories. First, Acosta objects to Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 42, 112, and 195, arguing they violate Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.060, subdivision (f), which states “No specially prepared interrogatory shall contain subparts, or a compound, conjunctive, or disjunctive question.” The court OVERRULES these objections.

Second, Acosta objects to Nos. 21, 22, 23, and 24, contending Aurora LLC lacks standing to propound the interrogatory without further foundation. The court OVERRULES these objections.

Third, Acosta objects to Nos. 50, 51, 52, 55, 56, 57, 60, 61, 62, 65, 66, and 67, maintaining they are unintelligible because defendant is an entity. The court OVERRULES these objections.

Fourth, Acosta objects to Nos. 89, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 179, 183, 184, 192, and 193, arguing they are not self-contained. The court OVERRULES these objections.

Fifth, Acosta objects to Nos. 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 132, 133, 134, 135, 137, 138, 151, 152, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, and 171, contending they reference causes of action not brought. The court OVERRULES these objections.

Sixth and last, Acosta objects to No. 95, maintaining it is overbroad and vague. The court disagrees and OVERRULES this objection.

Procedural Objections

Acosta makes two types of procedural objections to Aurora LLC’s special interrogatories. First, Acosta objects to Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 53, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 221, 222, and 223, arguing these interrogatories are premature as the discovery process has just begun. The court finds these objections are without merit and are OVERRULED.

Additionally, Acosta objects to all interrogatories after No. 35, contending they violate Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.030 by exceeding the limit of 35 special interrogatories. However, because Aurora LLC provided a declaration in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.050 that justified the additional special interrogatories, the court finds Acosta’s objections are without merit and are OVERRULED.

Substantive Objections

Acosta makes three types of substantive objections to Aurora LLC’s special interrogatories. First, Acosta objects to Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, and 191, maintaining they are legal contention interrogatories that violate attorney-client privilege or work product protections. The court OVERRULES the objections to all identified interrogatories except No. 191, to which the court SUSTAINS Acosta’s objection.

Second, Acosta objects to Nos. 42, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 63, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 88, 89, 182, 183, 191, 192, and 193, arguing they lack relevance. The court OVERRULES the objections to all identified interrogatories except No. 191, 192, and 193, to which the court SUSTAINS Acosta’s objections.

Third, Acosta objects to Nos. 90, 91, and 92, arguing the violate Acosta’s privacy rights by disclosing medical history or treatment unrelated to litigation. The court OVERRULES these objections.

Aurora LLC’s Requests for Admission

Aurora LLC moves to compel further responses to Requests for Admission, Set One, Nos. 36-184, contending Acosta refused to answer the requests for admissions and instead asserted objections to each one. However, according to Acosta’s further responses attached as Exhibit A to supplemental declaration of Aurora LLC’s counsel (filed 2/3/2023), Acosta did provide responses in the form of a denial to all of Aurora LLC’s Requests for Admission except Nos. 178-184. As detailed below, the court GRANTS IN PART Aurora LLC’s motion as to Nos. 179, 180, 182, 183, and 184 and DENIES IN PART Aurora LLC’s motion as to Nos. 178 and 181.

Request for Admission No. 178

Plaintiff Acosta’s objection to this request for admission is SUSTAINED on the grounds that it is vague as phrased. Thus, the court DENIES Aurora LLC’s motion as to this request for admission.

Request for Admission No. 179

Plaintiff Acosta’s objections to this request for admission are OVERRULED. Thus, the court GRANTS Aurora LLC’s motion as to this request for admission.

Request for Admission No. 180

Acosta’s objections to this request for admission are OVERRULED. Thus, the court GRANTS Aurora LLC’s motion as to this request for admission.

Request for Admission No. 181

Acosta’s objection to this request for admission is SUSTAINED on the grounds that asks for a medical opinion on the necessity of the paternal grandmother being transported to the hospital. Thus, the court DENIES Aurora LLC’s motion as to this request for admission.

Request for Admission No. 182

Acosta’s objections to this request for admission are OVERRULED. Thus, the court GRANTS Aurora LLC’s motion as to this request for admission.

Request for Admission No. 183

Acosta’s objections to this request for admission are OVERRULED. Thus, the court GRANTS Aurora LLC’s motion as to this request for admission.

Request for Admission No. 184

Acosta did not provide a response to this request for admission. Thus, the court GRANTS Aurora LLC’s motion as to this request for admission.

Acosta’s Form Interrogatories

Plaintiff Acosta moves to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 12.4, 15.1, 16.1, 16.2, 16.3, 16.4, 16.5, 16.6, 16.7, 16.8, and 16.9. As detailed below, the court GRANTS IN PART Acosta’s motion as to Nos. 12.4, 15.1, 16.1, 16.2, 16.3, 16.4, 16.5, 16.6, and 16.9, and DENIES IN PART as to Nos. 16.7 and 16.8. Although Plaintiff Acosta’s supplemental declaration references Nos. 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, and 12.6, the court will not address those responses as they were not raised in the original motion on July 25, 2022.

Form Interrogatory 12.4