Judge Thomas D. Long, Case Number: 23STCV15562, Date: 2023-08-22 Tentative Ruling

On July 5, 2023, Plaintiff Rogelio Bautista Cruz filed this action against Defendants ALAL, LLC dba Kei-Ai Los Angeles Healthcare Center (erroneously sued as Alal LLC), Aspen Skilled Healthcare Inc., and Aspen Healthcare Services, LLC.

On August 11, 2023, Plaintiff served a deposition subpoena on Cedars Sinai Medical Center – Billing for personal appearance and production on September 13, 2023. (Crownover Decl. ¶ 3.) Plaintiff seeks his own records that are under Cedars Sinai’s custody and control. Cedars Sinai did not attend or produce the records. (Crownover Decl. ¶¶ 4-5.)

On September 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel compliance with the deposition subpoena.

A party may move to compel a non-party’s compliance with a subpoena that requires the attendance of a witness or production of documents. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1.) Unlike a motion to compel a party’s deposition under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, the movant is not required to show good cause or include an accompanying meet and confer declaration.

The unopposed motion is GRANTED. Cedars Sinai Medical Center – Billing is ordered to produce the documents within 30 days.

The request for sanctions is granted in part. Cedars Sinai Medical Center – Billing is ordered to pay sanctions of $1,000.00 to Plaintiff within 30 days. (See Crownover Decl. ¶ 7.)

On July 20, 2023, Plaintiff served Request for Identification and Production of Documents, Set One on Defendant ALAL LLC. After being granted an extension of time, ALAL served responses on September 12, 2023. Plaintiff met and conferred about the deficiencies, and ALAL agreed to provide further supplemental responses and/or responsive documents to certain RFPs by October 6, 2023. (Joint Statement at p. 3.)

On October 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice of partial withdrawal. Only RFP Nos. 15, 16, 45, 56, 58, 60, 61, and 63 remain at issue.

A party may move to compel a further response to a demand for production of documents if the demanding party deems that the statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete; the representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; or an objection in the response is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).) The motion must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).)

RFP No. 15 requests all time cards and other time recordings during Plaintiff’s residency in the facility for all personnel who were direct caregivers, and RFP No. 16 requests the same from temporary and/or agency staff. After objecting, ALAL stated that “the sign in sheets, assignment and staffing sheets for staff on the units to which plaintiff was admitted while he was admitted are attached as Exhibit C.” Additionally, “Census sheets with additional staffing information are attached as Exhibit D.” Exhibit C includes documents through February 2023. Plaintiff contends that records from February 12, 2023 through June 2, 2023 have not been produced. ALAL states in its response that it requested the remainder of the records and will provide them to Plaintiff when received. The motion is GRANTED. ALAL must provide supplemental production within 30 days.

RFP No. 45 requests all documents upon which ALAL relied to ensure that the personnel who provided nursing services to Plaintiff were fit to perform their duties during Plaintiff’s residency. ALAL objected and responded that “the competency files for staff assigned to care for plaintiff have been requested and will be produced when received.” In the Joint Statement, ALAL stated that it “agreed to produce competency files responsive to this request,” but “objects to the production of personnel files” due to third parties’ privacy rights. The motion is GRANTED. ALAL must provide supplemental production within 30 days. If ALAL’s “competency files” exclude certain documents based on privacy objections, then ALAL must also provide a privilege log. At this stage, without production of any documents, the Court cannot determine what ALAL means by “competency files” and whether that is fully responsive to the request.

RFP Nos. 56, 58, 60, 61, 63 request all documents provided to ALAL by any named defendant referencing the facility’s staffing levels, census levels, interaction with the State of California Department of Public Health, and budgets from June 1, 2022 through June 2, 2023. They also provide for the redaction of the names of all non-Plaintiff residents. ALAL’s objections are overruled. The motion is GRANTED. ALAL must provide supplemental production, including a privilege log if necessary, within 30 days.

The request for sanctions is denied. ALAL agreed to supplement some of its responses before Plaintiff filed this motion, and Plaintiff in fact withdrew most of this motion after receiving those supplemental responses. ALAL therefore acted with substantial justification. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).)

On July 20, 2023, Plaintiff served Special Interrogatories, Set One on Defendant ALAL LLC. After being granted an extension of time, ALAL served responses on September 12, 2023. Plaintiff met and conferred about the deficiencies, and ALAL agreed to provide further supplemental responses and/or responsive documents to certain RFPs by October 6, 2023. (Joint Statement at p. 3.)

On October 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice of partial withdrawal of his motion. Only Special Interrogatory Nos. 39 and 40 remain at issue.

A party may move to compel a further response to interrogatories if the demanding party deems an answer to be evasive or incomplete, if an exercise of the option to produce documents is unwarranted or inadequate, or if an objection is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)

Special Rog. No. 39 requests the identity of each resident of the facility when Plaintiff was a resident. Special Rog No. 40 requests the identity of the responsible party (under Welfare & Institutions Code section 14110.8) or patient’s representative (under Title 22, California Code of Regulations section 72527 and Health & Safety Code section 123105, subdivision (e)) for each resident during the same time period. This request violates the medical privacy rights of third parties. ALAL’s privacy and HIPAA objections are sustained.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit. If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court