Peter Rasmussen, by and through his successor-in-interest vs. ALHL, LLC, a limited liability

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

34-2022-00329739-CU-MC-GDS: Peter Rasmussen, by and through his successor-in- interest vs. ALHL, LLC, a limited liability 06/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel the Deposition of PMQ from Defendant ALHl, LLC in Department 16D

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING:

*** NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET IN SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 53 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 16D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION. PARTIES MAY CONTINUE TO APPEAR REMOTELY IN DEPARTMENT 16D UNLESS SPECIFICALLY ORDERED OTHERWISE. ***

Plaintiffs’ “Motion to Compel the Deposition of the Persons Most Qualified from Defendant ALHL, LLC Regarding Documents #5 (Pertaining to Accounting and Related Documents) and Request for Production of Documents at Deposition” is ruled upon as follows.

*** If oral argument is requested, the parties must at the time oral argument is requested notify the clerk and the opposing party of the specific discovery requests that will be addressed at the hearing. The parties are also reminded that pursuant to local rules, only limited oral argument is permitted on law and motion matters. ***

Factual Background

This elder abuse/wrongful death action was commenced in November 2022 against defendant ALHL, LLC, dba Lodi Nursing & Rehabilitation as operator of a skilled nursing facility, along with several other individual defendants. Trial is currently set for 9/28/2026.

Plaintiffs now move for an order compelling defendant ALHL to produce its Persons Most Qualified (“PMQ”) regarding “certain documents #5 (pertaining to accounting and related documents),” along with the production of responsive documents at deposition,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00329739-CU-MC-GDS: Peter Rasmussen, by and through his successor-in- interest vs. ALHL, LLC, a limited liability 06/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel the Deposition of PMQ from Defendant ALHl, LLC in Department 16D

on the grounds that “despite plaintiffs’ best efforts to secure the deposition and documents at issue, defendants [sic] failed to produce the witness for deposition, failed to produce the documents requested, and failed to provide potential deposition dates to plaintiffs so that the depositions could be scheduled in the future.” (Not. of Mot., p.3:3- 7.)

Defendants oppose, arguing that the present motion to compel is (1) “procedurally defective as Plaintiffs’ counsel failing [sic] to meet and confer in person, by videoconference, or telephone prior [sic] filing the instant motion pursuant to the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure, section 2016.040, subsection (a) and Code of Civil Procedure, section 2025.450, subsection (b)(2) to compel the production of the [PMQ] for deposition;” (2) untimely and “procedurally defective” insofar as “Plaintiffs’ counsel failed to file the underlying motion to compel further responses [sic] before the stipulated deadline of January 9, 2026;” (3) “moot” with respect to document request Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 17-19, 25-27 and 37-38; (4) document request Nos. 2, 6-16, 22-24 and 28-36 “improperly seek financial information, invade the right to privacy, and request the production of financial documents for nine years;” and (5) document request Nos. 20 and 21 “are vague, ambiguous, overly broad, improperly seek financial information, implicate HIPAA, the CMIA, and privacy rights, are irrelevant, and seek the production of documents for nine years.” (Opp., p.2:5-19.)

In the reply, plaintiffs first “withdraw” their motion to compel with respect to document request Nos. 20-21 and then contend they adequately met and conferred prior to bringing this motion, as required by Code of Civil Procedure §2025.450(b)(2). (Reply, p.2:1-p.3:18.) According to the reply, §2025.450(b)(2) does not by its own terms mandate meet-and-confer efforts in person, by telephone or by video conference but instead provides the following:

The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance. (Underline added for emphasis).

Plaintiffs insist they permissibly complied with the latter provision of §2025.450(b)(2), which does not require meet-and-confer efforts to be completed in person, by telephone or by video conference, but regardless, relying on the supplemental declaration filed with the reply, plaintiffs state that their counsel did meet and confer with defendants’ counsel via video conference before and after the video deposition of Mr. Kahn on

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00329739-CU-MC-GDS: Peter Rasmussen, by and through his successor-in- interest vs. ALHL, LLC, a limited liability 06/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel the Deposition of PMQ from Defendant ALHl, LLC in Department 16D

10/23/2025 and via telephone in January 2026. (Id., at p.2:17-p.3:16.)

Plaintiffs next assert that this motion to compel was timely under Code of Civil Procedure §2025.450 because (1) defendants never produced a PMQ pursuant to the subject deposition notice and (2) there was never any agreement to impose an “artificial deadline” applicable to this motion. (Reply, p.3:19-p.4:2.) Plaintiffs contend the email correspondence on which defendants rely relates only to other outstanding discovery matters that were subject to mandatory “jurisdictional deadlines under the Code of Civil Procedure.” (Id., at p.4:3-8.)

Finally, the reply contends this motion to compel PMQ testimony along with the production of documents pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §2025.480 is “not moot” with respect to document request Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 17-19, 25-27 and 37-38 as a result of defendants’ responses to a “different discovery vehicle” (i.e., plaintiffs’ Request for Production pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §2031.010 et seq.), especially when the referenced responses include multiple objections and are not compliant with §2031.220 et seq. Plaintiffs further assert that defendants’ current objections to the “financial documents” sought by document request Nos. 2, 6-16, 22-24 and 28-36 “must fail” because these documents “support plaintiffs’ prima facia case for punitive damages” and “go to the heart of both plaintiffs’ claims under the Elder Abuse Act and plaintiffs [sic] claims against the corporate overseer, Aspen.” (Reply, p.4:9-p.8:14.)

Legal Standards for Discovery

“[A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, 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.) “In the absence of contrary court order, a civil litigant’s right to discovery is broad...[and] statutes governing discovery ‘must be construed liberally in favor of disclosure unless the request is clearly improper by virtue of well-established causes for denial.’ [Citation.]” (Williams v.

Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541; see also Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 378 [“disclosure is a matter of right unless statutory or public policy considerations clearly prohibit it”].) Nevertheless, while civil discovery is broad, it is not limitless. (Board of Registered Nursing v. Superior Court (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 1011, 1039 [citing Calcor Space Facility v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 223].) It cannot be based on pure speculation. (Digital Music News LLC v.

Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216, 227.)

The party seeking to resist discovery based upon objections has the burden to justify its

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00329739-CU-MC-GDS: Peter Rasmussen, by and through his successor-in- interest vs. ALHL, LLC, a limited liability 06/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel the Deposition of PMQ from Defendant ALHl, LLC in Department 16D

objections. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255 [citing Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 220-221].) Indeed, in the discovery context, information is relevant “if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. [Citations omitted.] Admissibility is not the test and information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence.” (Lipton v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611-1612 [emphasis in original].) “Any doubts regarding relevance are generally resolved in favor of allowing the discovery.” (Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 98.)

Discussion

At the outset, the parties are reminded that they remain free to stipulate to the appointment of a discovery referee who can more quickly and efficiently address the parties’ discovery needs in this case. If they agree to having someone act as discovery referee, the parties may prepare and submit a stipulation and proposed order pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §638, using Judicial Council-approved forms ADR-109 and ADR-110. The parties are also advised that this Court may in the future appoint a referee on its own motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 639.

Timeliness of Motion. As noted above, the opposition asserts that this motion to compel was not timely filed prior to the expiration of the parties’ “stipulated deadline of January 9, 2026.” (Opp., p.2:10-13.) The Court has carefully reviewed the cited email exchange attached as Exhibit 3 to the Batshoun Declaration in opposition and while these communications could have been more clear and precise as to what the parties were and were not agreeing to over the course of several days, the Court finds that the 1/9/2026 “stipulated deadline” is reasonably construed as applying only to those outstanding discovery issues subject to mandatory jurisdictional deadlines established by the Code.

Given that the present record indicates that defendants have to date not produced a PMQ pursuant to the subject PMQ deposition notice, there is under Code of Civil Procedure §2025.450 no specific statutory deadline for the present motion and thus, it seems illogical that plaintiffs would agree that the present motion would be governed by an artificial deadline of 1/9/2026. Consequently, the Court rejects defendants’ claim that this motion is untimely.

Meet & Confer. The opposition also contends this motion to compel is “procedurally defective as Plaintiffs’ counsel failing [sic] to meet and confer in person, by videoconference, or telephone prior [sic] filing the instant motion pursuant to the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure, section 2016.040, subsection (a) and Code of Civil Procedure, section 2025.450, subsection (b)(2) ” (Opp., p.2:5-9.) However, as

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00329739-CU-MC-GDS: Peter Rasmussen, by and through his successor-in- interest vs. ALHL, LLC, a limited liability 06/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel the Deposition of PMQ from Defendant ALHl, LLC in Department 16D

pointed out by the reply, §2025.450(b)(2) itself provides in its entirety:

The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance. (Underline added for emphasis).

While the current version of §2016.040(a) does expressly require meet-and-confer efforts be conducted in person, by telephone or by video conference, §2025.450(b)(2) further specifies an alternative form of declaration is permissible and this alternative form reflects no specific limitation on the means of contacting the deponent about the nonappearance. Thus, based on the plain language of §2025.450(b)(2), this Court is unable to conclude that the present motion to compel can or should be denied on the grounds plaintiffs did not meet and confer either in person, by telephone or by video conference.

Mootness. According to the opposition, the present motion to compel is “moot” with respect to document request Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 17-19, 25-27 and 37-38 because (1) on 1/9/2026 defendants provided “verified supplemental responses” and produced documents responsive to plaintiffs’ Requests for Production, Sets Three and Four, Numbers 236-241 and 267 and (2) defendants “also provided Code-complaint [sic] and complete responses to request for production, numbers 3, 4, 5, 17, 18, 19, 25, 26, 37, and 38, stating that “after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, responsive documents have never existed.” (Opp., p.8:8-22.) However, as will now be shown, the opposition’s claim that this motion has been rendered “moot” does not withstand scrutiny.

While the opposition asserts that defendants served on 1/9/2026 “verified supplemental responses” to plaintiffs’ independent third and fourth sets of Requests for Production pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §2031.010 et seq. which asked for the same documents as the subject PMQ deposition notice, such responses and/or production are not relevant to the disposition of the present motion to compel unless plaintiffs otherwise agree to accept the responses and documents under §2031.010 et seq. as compliance with the separate and distinct statutory obligations under §2025.010 et seq., especially when it currently appears that defendants have not yet produced any PMQ in response to the subject PMQ deposition notice. Accordingly, this motion to compel cannot be considered “moot” nor is this Court persuaded that the present motion to compel should be denied with respect to document request Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 17-19, 25-27

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00329739-CU-MC-GDS: Peter Rasmussen, by and through his successor-in- interest vs. ALHL, LLC, a limited liability 06/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel the Deposition of PMQ from Defendant ALHl, LLC in Department 16D

and 37-38 on such grounds.

Document Request Nos. 20-21. Because plaintiffs have expressly “withdrawn” their motion to compel as it pertains to document request Nos. 20-21, this motion is denied with respect to these two requests.

Document Request Nos. 2, 6-16, 22-24 and 28-36. These requests seek documents relating to a variety of matters including general financial records such as including general ledgers, journal entries, balance sheet, income statements, cash flow statements, etc.; financial transactions such as loans, lines of credit and credit agreements; and ownership interests in the entity defendants. Notably, each of these requests seeks documents dating back to “January 1 of two calendar years before the calendar year of PLAINTIFF’S admission to YOUR FACILITY, to the present.” (Underline added for emphasis.)

The Court finds that the period of time encompassed by each of these document requests is unreasonably overbroad inasmuch as it seeks records up “to the present” even though the complaint explicitly alleges in Paragraph 25 that the decedent died in November 2020, more than 51⁄2 years ago, making all of these requests unduly burdensome, oppressive and harassing insofar as they seek many years’ worth of documents which plaintiffs have failed to show are all either relevant to the claims in the case or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Where, as here, the parties have not agreed that a narrower scope of document will be deemed to satisfy defendants’ responses to these requests, the Court rules upon the motion based upon the requests as currently phrased and propounded, which is overly broad. Accordingly, the Court currently declines to compel the unqualified production of documents responsive to request Nos. 2, 6-16, 22-24 and 28- 36 as presently framed.

Although the Court need not proceed further as to this group of requests, the Court adds that each of these document requests, as phrased, seeks disclosure of information which the Court perceives as implicating the privacy rights of not only defendants but also potentially other third parties. While such information may not necessarily be beyond the scope of discovery, where privacy rights are implicated, the party seeking discovery must show more than mere legal relevance or likely to lead to admissible evidence.

He/she must first establish that the information sought is not only “directly relevant” to the parties’ claims but also “essential” to a fair resolution of the lawsuit. (See, e.g., Alch v. Superior Court (Time Warner Entertainment Co.) (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1432-1433.) Additionally, in order to pass constitutional scrutiny, any discovery into matters deemed private must be “narrowly tailored” to obtain only the “essential” information and the party seeking the discovery must show there is no less intrusive means to obtain this information. (See, e.g., Tien v.

Superior Court (Tenet

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00329739-CU-MC-GDS: Peter Rasmussen, by and through his successor-in- interest vs. ALHL, LLC, a limited liability 06/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel the Deposition of PMQ from Defendant ALHl, LLC in Department 16D

Healthcare Corp.) (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 528, 539-540; In re Marriage of Harris (2004) 34 Cal.4th 210, 244.) Even where all these prerequisites are met, there is still no categorical right to conduct discovery into the private matters as the trial court is required to “carefully balance” the rights and interests involved before permitting the proposed invasion of privacy. (See, e.g., Alch, at 1423-1425.) Here, because plaintiffs have not made the heightened showing necessary to persuade this Court that they are entitled to the unqualified production of all documents responsive to request Nos. 2, 6- 16, 22-24 and 28-36, this motion to compel shall on this additional ground be denied as to these requests as currently framed.

However, as before, this ruling is without prejudice to plaintiffs’ ability to propound more carefully crafted, narrowly tailored document requests relating to the same general subject matters as document request Nos. 2, 6-16, 22-24 and 28-36.

Disposition

For the reasons explained above, the present motion to compel PMQ deposition “regarding Documents #5 (Pertaining to Accounting and Related Documents),” along with the production of responsive documents at deposition, is GRANTED except as to Document Request Nos. 2, 6-16, 20-24 and 28-36.

Where this motion is granted, defendants shall produce for testimony the appropriate PMQ(s) for the subject deposition notice and produce any and all responsive documents without additional objections at a mutually agreeable time no later than 7/16/2026 (unless plaintiffs agree to a later date memorialized in writing).

Although this motion is denied as to Document Request Nos. 2, 6-16, 22-24 and 28-36, plaintiffs remain free to propound more carefully crafted, narrowly tailored document requests bearing on the same general subject matters as these various requests.

Neither side requested monetary sanctions and thus, none are awarded here.

Moving parties to provide notice of this ruling and file proof of service of same within five (5) court days.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)