Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 21STCV07986, Date: 2022-12-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV07986    Hearing Date: December 7, 2022    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49 

Date: 12-7-2022

Case #21STCV07986 

Trial Date: 3-27-23

FURTHER RESPONSES

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Abel Luna

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Caremeridian, LLC dba Neurorestorative Oso North

RELIEF REQUESTED 

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents (set one)

SUMMARY OF ACTION 

On February 2, 2019, Plaintiff Abel Luna was involved in an automobile accident, thereby leading to traumatic injuries, including paralysis. Following discharge from the hospital, Plaintiff was transferred to a six (6) bed congregate living health facility operated by Defendant CareMeridian, LLC dba Neurorestorative OSO North (CareMeridian).

During Plaintiff’s residency at the facility, Plaintiff developed multiple pressure which staff failed to discover and/or properly assess and/or treat, thereby requiring admission to the hospital. Plaintiff also alleges neglectful care of the surgical incision in his sacral region. Plaintiff also alleges a failure to attend to basic custodial needs as well, including hygienic attention.

On March 1, 2021, Plaintiff filed a complaint for Dependent Adult Abuse, and Negligence. On November 5, 2021, the action was transferred from the personal injury hub court to Department 47, Chatsworth. On September 22, 2022, the case was assigned to Department 51. Plaintiff filed a 170.6 challenge, and the case was reassigned to Department 49 on October 3, 2022.

RULING: Granted.

Plaintiff Luna moves to compel further responses to Request for Production of Documents (set one), numbers 25, 37-38, 41, and 71 from defendant CareMeridian, LLC dba Neurorestorative OSO North (CareMeridian). In summary, Plaintiff seeks documents regarding meeting minutes involving patient care (number 20); prior complaints and citations regarding pressure injuries and intubation problems, as well as alleged understaffing thereby leading to compromised patient care (numbers 37-38); accident and occurrence reports involving pressure and/or intubation (number 41); and, exit interviews with staff involved with patient care during the relevant period of Plaintiff’s time in the facility. CareMeridian responded with objections, including undue burden, vague and ambiguous, unintelligible, overly broad, relevance, third party privacy. Plaintiff challenges the validity of the objections, argues for redacted production of third party records, and notes the refusal to produce a privilege log requested during the meet and confer process.

Defendant denies any “gamesmanship,” and notes that the dispute involves five of 95 requests for production only. Defendant reiterates the broad time frame of the requests, specifically, a period well beyond the patient period of stay, and concerns over third party privacy. The requirement of searching the records for such a broad time frame in and of itself constitutes a burden.

Plaintiff in reply reiterates the basis of discovery, including discovery into 2021.

The form of question objections lack merit. Defendant may not intentionally misconstrue a work for obstreperous purposes. “Indeed, where the question is somewhat ambiguous, but the nature of the information sought is apparent, the proper solution is to provide an appropriate response.” (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783 superseded by statute on unrelated ground as stated in Guzman v. General Motors Corp. (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 438, 444.) Defendant lacks support for the objections.

“But ‘[f]or discovery purposes, information is relevant if it “might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement….” [Citation.] Admissibility is not the test and information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence. [Citation.] These rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery [citation], and (contrary to popular belief), fishing expeditions are permissible in some cases. [Citation.]’ (Citations.)” (Cruz v. Superior Court (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 646, 653–654.) The information sought regarding the care and treatment of Plaintiff is relevant. As addressed below, the court separates the inquiry between the time frame and the actual information.

On the burdensome objection, objecting parties must file evidence detailing the amount of work involved, in order to support objections based upon burden and oppression. (West Pico Furniture Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417.) “[S]ome burden is inherent in all demands for discovery. The objection of burden is valid only when that burden is demonstrated to result in injustice.” (Id. at p. 418.) “When discovery requests are grossly overbroad on their face, and hence do not appear reasonably related to a legitimate discovery need, a reasonable inference can be drawn of an intent to harass and improperly burden. When a judge evaluates such factors to determine whether a party has acted reasonably and in good faith in attempting informal resolution, a factual component of decision, derived from the trial judge's knowledge of the case, is inevitably involved.” (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431.)

The time frame itself involves a represented period of February 9 to March 11, 2019 for an undisputed six bed facility. While Plaintiff seeks a significantly broader time frame, under this more limited period, nothing in the requests or opposition supports a finding of burdensome or oppressive production. The court therefore finds no basis to bar production as it relates to the period of stay involving Plaintiff.

The court, however, acknowledges the request for a period of 2.5 years—a time frame well beyond the stay. The court finds this request unsupported for purposes of the subject motion, and therefore, as stated above, limits discovery to the stay period.

Defendant raises valid objections over third party individual information, including both former employees and patients. The parties cannot waive such rights of third parties. The mere identification of former employees will not violate their privacy privilege. However, any efforts to obtain contact information of said employees may require consideration of a provision allowing the employee to decline contact. Any potential individuals should be given the opportunity to either consent or object, before discovery responses revealing their private information. (Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 360, 374-375; Belaire-West Landscape, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 554, 561-562.)

On the individual patients, their information is also protected. While production can be compelled the court orders the parties to craft a solution protecting the confidential information. The parties may enter into a protective order to redact patient information, or may create a third party notification system allowing for an opt out of the disclosure of any identifying information. (Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 370; Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center v. Superior Court (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 288, 307, 311; Belaire-West Landscape, Inc. v. Sup. Ct., supra, 149 Cal.App.4th at pp. 561-562.) If the parties are unable to determine a solution for notice and opt out, the court can order the appointment of a discovery referee for the limited purpose of examining the information and reviewing the results.

Finally, Defendant is ordered to produce a privilege log, if any documents remain withheld on privilege grounds other than third party privacy. (Code Civ. Proc., 2031.240, subd. (c).)

In summary, the motion is granted as to the five items under the time frame for the patient period of care. The parties may craft a protective order, a notification system in compliance with the cited authority, or consult a referee for purposes of any third party discovery compliance issues. Nothing in the motion limits potential future discovery, including a broader time frame if warranted, but the court currently finds no basis of discovery beyond the care time frame.

The court denies the request for sanctions.

Plaintiff to give notice.