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 Defendant ALHL, LLC to Produce Various CNAS and LN for Deposition 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 Defendant ALHL, LLC to Produce Various CNAs and LN [sic] for Deposition,” along with the production of responsive documents, 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 deposition notice(s) 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 each of the 25 individuals, described as either a CNA or LN, identified in the subject deposition notices attached as Exhibit A to the moving declaration on the grounds that “despite plaintiffs’ best efforts to secure the deposition [sic] at issue, defendants [sic] failed to produce the

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 Defendant ALHL, LLC to Produce Various CNAS and LN for Deposition in Department 16D

percipient witness for deposition and refusing to provide potential deposition dates to plaintiffs so that the depositions could be scheduled in the future.” (Not. of Mot., p.3:6- 10.)

Defendants oppose, arguing only that the present 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.2:1-5.)

In the reply, plaintiffs contend they adequately met and conferred prior to bringing this motion, as required by Code of Civil Procedure §2025.450(b)(2). (Reply, p.2:16-25.) According to the reply, §2025.450(b)(2) does not by its own terms mandate meet-andconfer 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 10/23/2025 and via telephone in January 2026. (Id., at p.3:1-26.)

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

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 Defendant ALHL, LLC to Produce Various CNAS and LN for Deposition in Department 16D

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 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.

The opposition contends only that 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.2:4-9.) However, as 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.

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 Defendant ALHL, LLC to Produce Various CNAS and LN for Deposition in Department 16D

(Underline added for emphasis).

While the current version of §2016.040 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.

Moreover, the opposition appears to overlook Paragraph 9 of the moving declaration by attorney Reyda, which explicitly attests to the following:

9. I still tried to meet and confer with defendants about these depositions and I even telephonically met and conferred with counsel for defendants about these outstanding percipient depositions in January 2026. During that call, I made it clear they would be proceeding with motions to compel and again asked defendants to identify who they did not represent and to provide dates for the individuals they did represent.

10. Despite these efforts, defendants never offered a single confirmed deposition date for any of the depositions at issue in the motion. (Underline added for emphasis).

Based on this evidence to which no objection was asserted, this Court finds that plaintiffs fulfilled not only any alleged obligation under Code of Civil Procedure §2025.450(b)(2) and/or §2016.040(a) but also the overarching statutory requirement to make a reasonable, good faith attempt at informal resolution prior to the filing of this motion to compel.

Because defendants’ opposition advances no other discernible and/or potentially valid basis for denial of this motion, this Court will grant the present motion to compel.

Disposition

For the reasons explained above, the present “Motion to Compel the Defendant ALHL, LLC to Produce Various CNAs and LN [sic] for Deposition,” along with the production of responsive documents, is GRANTED.

Defendants shall produce for deposition each individual, described as either a CNA or

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 Defendant ALHL, LLC to Produce Various CNAS and LN for Deposition in Department 16D

LN, identified in the subject deposition notices attached as Exhibit A to the moving declaration by attorney Reyda, along with the production of responsive documents at each such deposition, at a mutually agreeable time no later than 7/16/2026 (unless plaintiffs agree to a later date memorialized in writing).

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.)