Judge: Theodore R. Howard, Case: 21-1230092, Date: 2022-08-04 Tentative Ruling

 Plaintiff Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Compel Defendant Oscar Health Plan of California’s (“Defendant”) Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (“RFP”), Set One, Nos. 6, 11, 12, 13, 30, 32, 38 and 39 is GRANTED.

If a timely motion to compel has been filed, the responding party has the burden to justify any objection or failure fully to answer the discovery requests.  (Coy v. Sup.Ct. (Wolcher) (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221; Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98 [burden shifts to objector after good cause shown for RFPs]; Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 725, 733 [party claiming the privilege has burden of establishing preliminary facts necessary to support objection].)

General objections to discovery are improper; they must be specific. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a)(3) [inspection demands]; see also, Korea Data Systems Co. Ltd. v. Sup.Ct. (Aamazing Technologies Corp.) (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1513, 1516.)

On a motion to compel further RFP, the moving party must “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).)  “[A]bsent a claim of privilege or attorney work product, the party who seeks to compel production has met his burden of showing good cause simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.”  (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.)

Plaintiff has set forth good cause justifying the discovery sought by the disputed RFPs.  The categories appear generally relevant to the claims and defenses in this litigation.  (See CCP §2031.310(b); FAC ¶ 7-30; Plaintiff’s Separate Statement.)

Defendant’s responses and supplemental responses to the disputed RFPs consisted entirely of boilerplate objections.  As determined above, the RFPs seek documents that are generally relevant to the claims and defenses in this litigation.  Thus, Defendant’s objection based on relevancy lacks merit.  As the California Supreme Court reaffirmed in Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541, “a civil litigant's right to discovery is broad. ‘[A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action ... if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.’”  “The discovery statutes were intended to curtail surprises, enable each side to learn as much as possible about the strengths and weaknesses of its case, and thereby facilitate realistic settlements and efficient trials.”  (Id. at 543, fn. 3.)  Because the categories appear generally relevant to the claims and defenses in this litigation, the Court finds that further responses are warranted.

Defendant’s argument that the disputed RFPs are objectionable because of alleged deficiencies in Plaintiff’s FAC lacks merit.  A demurrer to a complaint does not justify refusal to answer discovery unless a protective order is sought and obtained from the court.  “Pleading deficiencies generally do not affect either party's right to conduct discovery[.]”  (Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1429, 1436 fn 3.)

Defendant offers no reasoned argument for its objections based on vagueness, ambiguity, or overbroad/unduly burdensome and thus has failed to meet its burden of justifying those objections.  (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255 [responding party’s burden to justify objection]; see also, Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 549 [“An ‘objection based upon burden must be sustained by evidence showing the quantum of work required.’”].)  Further, the categories at issue appear narrowly tailored and reasonable in scope.

Defendant also failed to offer any legal or factual authority in support of its privilege objection.  (State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 625, 639.)  Defendant did not address the privilege objection in its opposition or separate statement and, thus, failed to meet its burden of establishing preliminary facts necessary to support the objection.  (Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 725, 733.)

Defendant also failed to offer any argument in support of its objections based on trade secret, proprietary information, and privacy and, thus, failed to meet its burden of justifying these objections.  Further, Defendant’s concerns regarding trade secret, proprietary information, and privacy are minimized due to entry of the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order.  (See ROA 27.)

Accordingly, the Motion is GRANTED.

Further responses are to be served within 20 days of the date of this ruling.

Moving party to give notice.