Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 21STCV07986, Date: 2022-10-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV07986    Hearing Date: October 14, 2022    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49 

Date: 10/14/2022

Case #21STCV07986 

PLAINTIFF ABEL LUNA’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY DEFENDANT CAREMERIDIAN, LLC dba NEURORESTORATIVE OSO NORTH TO PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,085.00

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Abel Luna

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Caremeridian, LLC dba Neurorestorative Oso North

RELIEF REQUESTED 

Defendant be ordered to provide full and complete further verified responses without objections to Special Interrogatories (“SROGS”) Set One Nos. 20 and 42-43 and monetary sanctions.

SUMMARY OF ACTION 

This action arises out of the care and treatment Plaintiff Abel Luna (Plaintiff) received at Defendant Providence Health System Southern California dba Providence Holy Cross Medical Center between 2/2/19 and 3/8/19 after being involved in a motor vehicle collision which resulted in Plaintiff suffering multiple spinal fractures and paralysis.  (Compl. ¶¶26-35). Plaintiff alleges that he developed multiple pressure sores during his stay at Defendant’s facility which Defendant’s staff failed to discover and/or properly assess and/or treat resulting in Plaintiff’s further injury.  (See Compl. ¶¶36-56, 60-80).    

On September 17, 2021, Plaintiff propounded the discovery at issue.

On August 15, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant discovery motion.

On October 3, 2022, Defendant filed its opposition to the motion.

On October 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed its reply in support of its motion.

RULING: See Individual Requests.

Interrogatory No. 20: The question in this request asks Defendant to “IDENTIFY each charge nurse who was responsible for providing care to PLAINTIFF while he was a patient at the FACILITY during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.” (Separate Statement (“SS”) p. 2) (capitalization original). In response to this interrogatory, Defendant responded by referring to Plaintiff’s medical records that were previously produced in Set No. 1 because “[t]he burden or expense of preparing or making this summary would be substantially the same for Plaintiff as for [Defendant].” (SS p. 2.)  

Plaintiff avers that after a review of the medical records, “none of these references identify the individual who was acting as the charge nurse . . . [i]t is impossible for Plaintiff to identify which Registered Nurse was acting as a charge nurse during their shift based on a review of the medical records alone.” (Motion p. 8.) In opposition, Defendant advances the following arguments: (i) there is no “charge nurse” at Defendant’s six-bed facility thus a nurse “who worked any shift during . . . was essentially serving as a charge nurse;” (ii) Defendant already provided a 6,964 page record wherein an “R.N.” is listed at the time of each shift such that “[Plaintiff] was to simply find the R.N. assigned to a shift, and that would be someone serving as a charge nurse;” (iii) alternatively, Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 2 provided Plaintiff with a list of all the R.N.s who worked at that facility. (Opp. pp. 4-5.) In its Reply, Plaintiff argues “[n]o documents were provided to identify the R.N.s assigned to any specific shift or date.” (Reply p. 3:13-14; see also p. 3:15-16 [“Moreover, there are over 19 occasions in the medical records that vaguely refer to an “RN” performing direct patient care without out any indication of their identity.”].)

Here, it appears both parties are providing contradictory representations wherein Plaintiff argues it does not have any names of any nurses whereas Defendant argues Plaintiff has the names. While the court is somewhat unpersuaded by Plaintiff’s narration because Defendant has responded to nearly 140 special interrogatories and requests for production that presumably have provided the nurses’ names, the court will nevertheless take Plaintiff’s argument as true.

Therefore, to the extent that Defendant has not provided names of any nurses (R.N., CNA, and/or LVN) in any other discovery request, the court GRANTS the motion as to Request No. 20. However, if during the hearing the court learns that Defendant has already provided the names of any nurses in other responses, then the court will DENY the motion because Plaintiff has not advanced any authority to establish Defendant would have an easier method of identifying the responsive information than to go through Plaintiff’s medical records.

Interrogatory No. 42 and 43. These two requests ask Defendant to describe complaints, citations, and/or deficiencies levied against its facility over a specified period of time. To both, Defendant responded with the following: “Objection. (1) privacy; (2) overly broad and (3) not relevant nor reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (SS pp. 4-5.) Plaintiff explains it later modified these requests to adhere to the court’s concern in its May 5, 2022 ruling regarding Defendant Providence’s discovery wherein, to similar discovery, the court ruled that the requests were overbroad and burdensome. Accordingly, Plaintiff offered to limit the scope to “solely a description of the compliant, citation, and/or deficiency which involved pressure injuries, intubation of patients, care of patients, and nursing understaffing.” (Motion p. 10.) In Opposition, Defendant avers that the requests are still unlimited in subject matter, unlimited in time, vague in that Plaintiff does not offer definitions to the requests, and that “pressure injuries and inadequate care and intubation is not even an issue in this case.”

Here, first and foremost, the court does not find that Plaintiff has narrowed the scope of interrogatories because merely changing the request from “describe in detail” to provide a “description” ultimately seeks the very information the court was concerned about. Second, as for relevancy, the court agrees with Defendant that some of the requests sought are irrelevant. For example, while Plaintiff required intubation, the purported negligence pertaining to the use of this device was only alleged Defendant Providence. (See Compl. ¶39.) Moreover, the result of any pressure injury resulting from the endotracheal tube-securing device was only alleged against Defendant Providence. (Compl. ¶40.) As for “inadequate care of patients,” the court finds the term vague. In any event, the court need not engage in further analysis as it is Plaintiff’s burden in its SS to provide a statement of the factual and legal reasons as to why further responses are necessary, but Plaintiff’s SS merely provides conclusions.

Therefore, the court DENIES request Nos. 42 and 43.

As both sides had substantial justification for its respective positions, monetary sanctions are denied.

Moving party to give notice.