PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES BY DEFENDANT SANTA CRUZIDENCE OPCO, LLC TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: JUNE 25, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M.
TENTATIVE RULINGS ARE NOT POSTED IN UNLAWFUL DETAINER CASES
Notice to prevailing parties: Local Rule 2.10.01 requires you to submit a proposed formal order incorporating, verbatim, the language of any tentative ruling – or attaching and incorporating the tentative by reference - or an order consistent with the announced ruling of the Court, in accordance with California Rule of Court 3.1312. Such proposed order is required even if the prevailing party submitted a proposed order prior to the hearing with two exceptions: (1) in unopposed matters where the moving party has provided a detailed proposed order or JCC form of order, or (2) where the tentative is simply to “grant”. Failure to comply with Local Rule 2.10.01 may result in the imposition of sanctions following an order to show cause hearing, if a proposed order is not timely filed.
No. 26CV01554
OSTENDORF v. COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ
TRIAL DE NOVO
The parties are ordered to appear. The Court will not be taking evidence on June 25, 2026. The Court will instead set a briefing schedule and a new hearing date.
No. 25CV00512
NATHE et al. v. SANTA CRUZIDENCE OPCO, LLC et al.
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES BY DEFENDANT SANTA CRUZIDENCE OPCO, LLC TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO
The motion is granted. Defendant Santa Cruzidence Opco, LLC dba Santa Cruz Post Acute shall serve verified code compliant responses to special interrogatories, set two, nos. 96- 100, no later than July 24, 2026.
The action relates to care decedent Elena C. Ferrer received at an acute rehabilitation facility prior to her death in December 2023. Plaintiffs’ complaint states causes of action for elder neglect, violation of Health & Safety Code section 1430, negligence, fraud, and wrongful death. Plaintiffs’ motion seeks further responses to special interrogatories nos. 96-100. Generally, these interrogatories seek the names and contact information of the responsible parties to other patients on the same floor, unit, and/or department as decedent for a short time period (11 days in November 2023) prior to her death (no. 96), and responsible parties who registered
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: JUNE 25, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M.
complaints in two years surrounding decedent’s stay (nos. 97-99) or who had similar injuries (no. 100). Plaintiffs seek this information since they believe family members or representatives of other patients who were in the facility at the time of decedent’s care have information directly relevant to their claims.
Defendant filed an opposition only as to special interrogatory no. 96, arguing that the request is not reasonably calculated to lead to relevant evidence and disclosure of information would violate the privacy rights of third parties.
The right to privacy is not absolute and even private information can be disclosed in some circumstances. The court must carefully balance the right of privacy against the need of discovery. (Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 855-856.) How compelling the discovery need must be will depend on the importance of the privacy interest involved. (Davies v. Superior Court (1984) 1412, 1432.) Personal information can be ordered disclosed only if the information is directly relevant and essential to a fair resolution of the action. (Alch v. Superior Court (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1431-1432.)
Here, the names and contact information of potential witnesses does not contemplate nor require the disclosure of medical information merely because a family member was a patient at an acute care facility. The requests do not seek medical information; instead, they seek the identity of witnesses. (See Eisenhower Medical Center v. Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 430, 434-435 [identifying information implicates medical privacy concerns only when disclosure reveals information concerning a patient’s medical condition or treatment].) To the extent that the patients or their responsible parties witnessed decedent’s treatment or any alleged staffing issues, the evidence is directly relevant. The privacy invasion is slight, particularly as to the responsible parties, and outweighed by the need for discovery. Based on the foregoing, the motion is granted.
No. 25CV01078
LYNTTON et al. v. MORALES et al.
(UNOPPOSED) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS FOR MEDICAL RECORDS
The unopposed motion is granted. The subpoena to Tesla Insurance Services, Inc. is quashed and the Court imposes $1,000.00 in monetary sanctions against defendant Angel Abraham Morales.