Judge William A. Crowfoot, Case Number: 23AHCV00415, Date: 2024-11-15 Tentative Ruling

Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 23AHCV00415, Date: 2024-11-15 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs Rose Lee Chun Huang, individually and as successor in-interest of David Huang (“Huang”), Michael Huang, and Evelyn Huang (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) move for orders compelling defendant Aurora Las Encinas, LLC (“Defendant”) to serve further responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set Three), RFP Nos. 98, 100, 102, 104-107, 109-11, and 115, and Requests for Production of Documents (Set Four), RFP Nos. 128-129, 132-133, 135, and 137-139.

Request Nos. 98, 100, 115 request all videos depicting the area where Huang died. Defendant agreed to produce all the videos in its possession and only produced a few videos. Defendant has since provided further responses to these requests stating that responsive videos were “recorded over in the ordinary course of business.” (Opp., pp. 5-6.) These responses are Code-Compliant and the Court cannot compel Defendant to produce evidence it does not have. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED as to RFP Nos. 98, 100, and 115.

RFP No. 102 seeks Defendant’s “governing board minutes” from January 1, 2021, through January 1, 2024 (which is 2 years before and 2 years after Huang’s death on March 22, 2022). Plaintiffs contend the meeting minutes are discoverable because they could show if hospital administration had knowledge of the problems related to rounding and violence in the Mariah West Unit (where Huang was kept), or had knowledge of their employees’ unfitness, authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct, or was personally guilty of oppression, fraud or malice.

Request Nos. 104-107, and 109-111 demand documents related to Defendant’s history of patient-on-patient and patient-on-staff violence. Plaintiffs state that the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) investigation into Huang’s death included a review of various materials related to a concerning number of violent incidents at the hospital, including projects, a binder, and other materials related to a Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) project undertaken to address patient violence at the facility.

Defendant argues in opposition that the board minutes and documents regarding hospital operations are immune from discovery pursuant to Evidence Code section 1157. Section 1157 states, in relevant part:

Neither the proceedings nor the records of organized committees of medical … staffs in hospitals, or of a peer review body, as defined in Section 805 of the Business and Professions Code, having the responsibility of evaluation and improvement of the quality of care rendered in the hospital, or for that peer review body . . . shall be subject to discovery.

As the party claiming immunity from discovery, Defendant carries the burden of showing that the evidence it seeks to suppress is within the terms of the statute it relies upon. (Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital v. Superior Court (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 711, 727.) Defendant only submits the declaration of Texanna Darrow, R.N., BSN, its director of nursing, who states that she is “involved in quality assurance measures” and states that the documents sought by Plaintiffs are part of “quality assurance activities [which are] performed in order to improve the quality of patient care.” (Opp., Darrow Decl., ¶¶ 1, 6.) This cursory statement is insufficient to show that Evidence Code section 1157 applies. “Information developed or obtained by hospital administrators or others which does not derive from an investigation into the quality of care or the evaluation thereof by a medical staff committee, and which does not disclose the investigative and evaluative activities of such a committee, is not rendered immune from discovery under section 1157 merely because it is later placed in the possession of a medical staff committee or made known to committee members; and this may be so even if the information in question may be relevant in a general way to the investigative and evaluative functions of the committee.” Nurse Darrow’s declarations of “quality assurance” and Defendant’s claim that quality improvement activities could not be performed “if hospitals had to fear their use in subsequent litigation” does not establish that the materials were part of an investigation by an organized committee “having the responsibility of evaluation and improvement of the quality of care rendered in the hospital.” A medical staff committee is a specific organized body and does not encompass general “quality assurance measures.”. As stated by the Court of Appeal in Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital, Evidence Code section 1157 “does not shield from discovery administrative activities which, while related to, are independent of the investigative and evaluative activities of medical staff committees.” (Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital, supra, 174 Cal.App.3d at p. 726.) “The medical staff immunity described in section 1157 ... does not embrace the files of the hospital administration (as distinguished from staff).” (Ibid. [citing Matchett v. Superior Court (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 623, 628.)

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to RFP Nos. 102, 104-107, and 109-111 is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs seek further responses to RFP Nos. 128-129, 132-133, 135, and 137-139. Defendant claims it served further responses on October 17, 2024, agreeing to provide documents responsive to RFP Nos. 128, 132, and 133. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED as to these RFPs.

Request No. 129 asks for the Plan of Correction that was submitted to the Department of Public Health issuing a Statement of Deficiencies regarding Huang’s death. Defendant argues that this is an improper request because Plaintiffs originally sought this information as RFP No. 36 and waived their ability to seek a further response because they did not file this motion within 45 days of receiving Defendant’s objections to RFP No. 36. This argument is unpersuasive because Plaintiffs did in fact file a motion to compel further with respect to RFP No. 36, but withdrew it upon Defendant’s representation that the file was publicly available. Plaintiffs later discovered that Defendant’s Plan of Correction was not in the public record and thus served RFP No. 129. Because Plaintiffs previously filed a motion to compel a further response to RFP No. 36, the Court does not find that Plaintiffs have waived their right to enforce their inspection demand for the Plan of Correction as reiterated in RFP No. 129.

Defendant also argues that the Plan of Correction should not be produced because it is confidential and cannot be used as an admission against Defendant. (Health and Safety Code, § 1280, subd. (f).) However, subdivision (e) of section 1280 states that the plan shall be open to public inspection, undercutting Defendant’s claim of confidentiality. And, in any event, any concerns of confidentiality should be a nonissue since a protective order is in place in this action. Furthermore, “any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter…, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.) Plaintiffs state the plan will “show whether it was feasible for Defendants’ management to have taken steps to prevent [Huang]’s death and yet, had chosen not to.” Therefore, even if the plan itself is not admissible as an admission, it is admissible for feasibility. (Alcaraz v. Vece (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1149, 1169.) Plaintiffs’ motion to compel a further response to RFP No. 129 is GRANTED.

Next, RFP Nos. 135, 137, and 138 demand complaints filed by patients as well as weekly reports and mock surveys. Defendant objects on the grounds that these documents are protected by Evidence Code section 1157. Plaintiffs argue that these routine documents are not part of any protected investigation by a medical staff or peer review committee, but as per Defendant’s PMK, were performed on a routine basis by Defendant’s parent company, Signature Healthcare Services, LLC, which is an administrative entity. Defendant’s only evidence that these documents are protected by Evidence Code section 1157 is the declaration of Texanna Darrow, which, as discussed above, is insufficient. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel a further response to RFP Nos. 135, 137, and 138 is GRANTED.

Last, Plaintiffs’ RFP No. 139 demands video footage of the Mariah West Unit from the date of Huang’s death with Huang’s roommate’s face and body unblurred. Defendant objected to this request on the grounds that it violated the roommate’s privacy rights and the video was protected by the healthcare provider-patient privilege. The Court overrules these objections and GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to compel a further response to RFP No. 139, as consistent with its prior rulings on the discoverability of information about Huang’s roommate. (See McGovern v. BHC Fremont Hospital, Inc. (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 181, 205.)

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set Three) is DENIED as to RFP Nos. 98, 100, and 115 and GRANTED as to RFP Nos. 104-107, and 109-111.

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set Four) is DENIED as to RFP Nos. 128, 132, and 133 and GRANTED as to RFP Nos. 129, 135, and 137-139.

Further responses, without objections, and responsive evidence must be produced by November 21, 2024.

William A. Crowfoot

Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.