WILLIAMS vs THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, INC., A CORPORATION IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.

23CV003379: WILLIAMS vs THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, INC., A CORPORATION IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al. 03/18/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Defendant to Serve Further Responses to Request for Documents, Set Three in Department 28

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard at 1:30 p.m. in Department 28, located at 720 9th Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Richard C. Miadich presiding.

Any party who wishes to contest the tentative ruling below must:

(1) request a hearing by calling the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the noticed hearing date, and leave a voicemail message (a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; (b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and (c) confirming that they have notified the opposing party of their intention to appear; and

(2) advise the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

If a hearing is not requested by 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the noticed hearing date, the tentative ruling will become the final order of the Court.

If a hearing is requested, the Court prefers in-person attendance by the parties. However, parties may appear by Zoom unless the Court specifically orders in-person attendance. Parties choosing to appear by Zoom are reminded, however, that a Zoom appearance is still a formal appearance before the Court. Parties appearing via Zoom should do so from a quiet location, free from undue distractions, and wear attire suitable for an in-person court appearance.

The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link:

https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept28

SIP Address:

16039062174@sip.zoomgov.com

(833) 568-8864

23CV003379: WILLIAMS vs THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, INC., A CORPORATION IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al. 03/18/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Defendant to Serve Further Responses to Request for Documents, Set Three in Department 28

ID: 16039062174

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf

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.

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 be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Shaneice Williams’ (“Plaintiff”) motion to compel Defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (“Defendant”) to serve further responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Documents, Set Three is ruled upon as follows.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Plaintiff is directed to contact opposing counsel and advise of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. If Plaintiff is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to the hearing, Plaintiff is ordered to appear at the hearing by Zoom or in person.

This is an employment action. Plaintiff alleges that she took CFRA leave in April of 2020. When she returned to work in October of 2020, she requested to change from the day shift to the night shift to reduce the risk of contracting COVID-19. Plaintiff alleges that her supervisor denied the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV003379: WILLIAMS vs THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, INC., A CORPORATION IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al. 03/18/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Defendant to Serve Further Responses to Request for Documents, Set Three in Department 28

request because she had taken CFRA leave. Plaintiff subsequently contracted COVID-19 multiple times and began showing symptoms of “long hauler COVID-19.” (Complaint, ¶ 13.) Plaintiff filed a DFEH complaint in June of 2021. In August of 2021, Plaintiff requested leave to work from home to mitigate against the risk of contracting COVID-19 again, but this request was denied. Plaintiff alleges that she then began experiencing a hostile work environment and was ultimately terminated on January 30, 2023. Plaintiff’s Complaint includes several FEHA causes of action as well as wage-and-hour causes of action.

At the time Plaintiff served the subject requests, she was represented by counsel. On November 14, 2025, Plaintiff’s former attorney withdrew and Plaintiff became self-represented. On November 24, 2025, Defendant served its responses to the subject discovery. On December 1, 2025, Plaintiff sent a meet and confer letter. The letter began, “This is a meet/confer letter regarding the responses that you served on my previous attorneys. Those responses included responses to Plaintiff’s Set Two of Admissions; and set 2, 3, and 4 of documents requests [sic]. [¶] I am writing because your responses are deficient as a matter of law and do not comply with existing law.” (Williams Decl., Exh.

B, p. 1.) Plaintiff’s letter did not identify any specific requests. Instead, Plaintiff argued (1) that the general objections asserted in the preamble for each set of responses were improper; (2) that Defendant’s assertion of attorney-client privilege in responses to each set of discovery and failure to provide a privilege log were improper; (3) that Defendant failed to justify any of the other objections it asserted; and (4) that Defendant failed to identify a public policy justifying nondisclosure of the information Plaintiff sought.

On December 15, 2025, Defendant’s counsel sent a response letter noting that Plaintiff’s letter had not identified any specific request or information that Defendant had failed to provide. Counsel further stated that Defendant stood by its objections and responses in general, and counsel suggested scheduling a phone call to further meet and confer. (Williams Decl., Exh. C, p. 2.)

On December 31, 2025, Plaintiff sent a response letter in which she contended that Defendant’s counsel had failed to address the discovery issues raised in Plaintiff’s initial letter and had failed to produce a privilege log. Plaintiff also asserted that Defendant’s counsel had misrepresented Plaintiff’s initial letter and thus stated that any further attempts to meet and confer would be futile. Plaintiff concluded her letter by stating that motions would be filed if no privilege log was produced by January 5. (Williams Decl., Exh. D, p. 1.)

Plaintiff filed the present motion on January 2, 2026. Plaintiff’s motion includes a declaration from Shiloh Parker, an attorney who states that he was retained for the limited purpose of assessing whether this case ripe for settlement and then to draft this motion. (Parker Decl., ¶¶ 3-

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV003379: WILLIAMS vs THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, INC., A CORPORATION IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al. 03/18/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Defendant to Serve Further Responses to Request for Documents, Set Three in Department 28

4.)

A motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents “shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under [Code of Civil Procedure] Section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(b)(2).) “A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt, either in person, by telephone, or by videoconference, to informally resolve each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2016.040(a).) Previously, section 2016.040(a) required a “good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Former Code Civ.

Proc. § 2016.040(a), added by Stats. 2004, ch. 182, § 23 and amended by Stats. 2025, ch. 64, § 1.) The language requiring a good faith attempt “either in person, by telephone, or by videoconference” was added to the statute via the passage of Assembly Bill 711, which became effective January 1, 2026.

Discovery in California is first and foremost self-executing. (Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1434.) “The Discovery Act requires that, prior to the initiation of a motion to compel, the moving party declare that he or she has made a serious attempt to obtain ‘an informal resolution of each issue.’” (Id. at p. 1435.) The goal of this requirement is to encourage the parties to informally resolve disputes, which “will lessen the burden on the court and reduce the unnecessary expenditure of resources by litigants through promotion of informal, extrajudicial resolution of discovery disputes.” (Ibid.)

The factors to consider when assessing the sufficiency of a party’s meet and confer efforts have been stated as such:

A determination of whether an attempt at informal resolution is adequate also involves the exercise of discretion. The level of effort at informal resolution which satisfies the “reasonable and good faith attempt” standard depends upon the circumstances. In a larger, more complex discovery context, a greater effort at informal resolution may be warranted. In a simpler, or more narrowly focused case, a more modest effort may suffice. The history of the litigation, the nature of the interaction between counsel, the nature of the issues, the type and scope of discovery requested, the prospects for success and other similar factors can be relevant.

Judges have broad powers and responsibilities to determine what measures and procedures are appropriate in varying circumstances. [Citations.] Judges also have broad discretion in controlling the course of discovery and in making the various decisions necessitated by discovery proceedings.

(Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV003379: WILLIAMS vs THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, INC., A CORPORATION IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al. 03/18/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Defendant to Serve Further Responses to Request for Documents, Set Three in Department 28

The Obregon court stated further:

A single letter, followed by a response which refuses concessions, might in some instances be an adequate attempt at informal resolution, especially when a legitimate discovery objective is demonstrated. The time available before the motion filing deadline, and the extent to which the responding party was complicit in the lapse of available time, can also be relevant. An evaluation of whether, from the perspective of a reasonable person in the position of the discovering party, additional effort appeared likely to bear fruit, should also be considered.

Although some effort is required in all instances (see, e.g., Townsend, supra, 61 Cal. App. 4th at p. 1438 [no exception based on speculation that prospects for informal resolution may be bleak]), the level of effort that is reasonable is different in different circumstances, and may vary with the prospects for success. These are considerations entrusted to the trial court's discretion and judgment, with due regard for all relevant circumstances.

(Obregon, supra, 67 Cal.App.4th a pp. 432-433.)

With these considerations in mind, the Court finds that Plaintiff did not satisfy the meet and confer requirement before filing this motion. As an initial matter, Plaintiff’s motion was filed on January 2, 2026, after the effective date of the current version of Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040(a), which now requires “a reasonable and good faith attempt, either in person, by telephone, or by videoconference, to informally resolve each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2016.040(a), emphasis added.) Here, the meet and confer efforts consisted of an exchange of three letters. There is no evidence of any attempt by Plaintiff to discuss the responses in person, by telephone, or by videoconference. This alone warrants a finding that Plaintiff’s meet and confer efforts were insufficient.

Further, even without this change to section 2016.040, the Court would find Plaintiff’s efforts wanting. As noted by Defendant during the meet and confer process and in its opposition, Plaintiff’s initial letter failed to identify any specific requests to which Plaintiff found Defendant’s response inadequate. Section 2016.040, both before and after January 1, 2026, requires the parties to attempt to resolve “each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2016.040(a).) Importantly, a motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents requires the moving party to “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ.

Proc. § 2031.310(b)(1).) It follows that the meet and confer efforts must address the issue of good cause, which in turn requires a discussion of specific discovery requests and responses. Plaintiff’s meet and confer letters did not do this.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV003379: WILLIAMS vs THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, INC., A CORPORATION IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al. 03/18/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Defendant to Serve Further Responses to Request for Documents, Set Three in Department 28

Moreover, Plaintiff’s second letter abruptly ended any further meet and confer efforts, despite Defendant’s counsel inviting further efforts in his responsive letter. While Plaintiff concluded that further efforts would be futile, the Court finds this conclusion unreasonable. Plaintiff had not identified any specific requests, so Defendant’s counsel’s response that Defendant stood by its responses in general was appropriate, and the invitation to schedule a phone call should have been seen as a willingness to compromise if Plaintiff provided more specifics. Finally, Plaintiff’s second and final letter demanded a privilege log by January 5, but Plaintiff filed her motion on January 2. That Plaintiff did not wait until the deadline she imposed elapsed before filing this motion suggests that her meet and confer efforts were not made in good faith.[1]

Where the meet and confer efforts by the moving party are determined to be insufficient, various remedies may be appropriate to dispose of the motion. Categorical denial of the motion “should be reserved for cases of clear intent to burden or harass, cases of clear flaunting of statutory responsibilities, cases of established track records of lack of good faith, and the like.” (Obregon, supra, 67 Cal.App.4th at p. 434.) In other scenarios, “the trial court should consider whether it would be more appropriate to specify additional efforts which will be required before the court will turn to the merits of the discovery dispute.” (Id. at pp. 434-435.) On this issue, the Obregon court stated:

Relevant factors will include the history of the case and the past conduct of counsel as it reflects upon the bona fides of their efforts, the nature and extent of the actual efforts expended, the nature of the discovery requested and its importance to the case, the size and complexity of the case, the effect of expense upon litigation of the case and whether unfeasible levels of expense might force resolution on a basis other than the merits, the margin by which the moving party deviated from a reasonable and good faith effort at informal resolution under the circumstances, the predictability that an effort of the type made would be found wanting, whether supplemental responses have been served, and such other factors as are relevant under all the circumstances presented.

Inasmuch as judges are duty bound to manage court calendars with a view to minimizing both delay and unnecessary expense, the prospects that further informal efforts would be fruitful should also be considered. When appropriate, the party whose efforts were found wanting may be assessed with monetary sanctions.

(Obregon, supra, 67 Cal.App.4th at p. 435, fns. and citations omitted.)

Given this guidance, the Court finds that categorical denial of Plaintiff’s motion is not appropriate. Instead, the Court orders the parties to engage in additional efforts before it will turn to the merits of the motion.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV003379: WILLIAMS vs THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, INC., A CORPORATION IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al. 03/18/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Defendant to Serve Further Responses to Request for Documents, Set Three in Department 28

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is CONTINUED to April 29, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 28. In advance of the continued hearing, the parties are directed to further meet and confer, either in person, by telephone, or by videoconference (e.g., Zoom), on the individual responses that are the subject of Plaintiff’s motion. During these further meet and confer efforts, Plaintiff should be prepared to address, at a minimum, good cause justifying the discovery sought by each request. Defendant should be cognizant of the statutory requirements for responses to requests for production of documents in Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.210-2031.240, including the requirement to “[i]dentify with particularity any document falling within any category of item in the demand to which an objection is being made.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.240(b)(1).)

After the parties have further met and conferred, they shall file a single joint statement summarizing their further meet and confer efforts and identifying which responses have been resolved and which responses remain at issue, if any. The joint statement shall not exceed 10 total pages. The joint statement shall be filed by no later than April 16, 2026.

[1] Plaintiff’s moving papers refer to the statutory deadline for her to file her motion. To the extent Plaintiff contends

that the impending deadline justified her premature filing, this is rejected. Plaintiff could have sought an extension from defense counsel on her motion deadline. Further, it is unclear from the record when the statutory deadline was, as Plaintiff’s moving papers do not state whether Defendant’s responses were verified or the manner in which they were served. Assuming the responses were verified when served on November 24, 2025, then the statutory deadline for a motion to compel would be January 8, 2026 if the responses were personally served, January 12, 2026 if the responses were served via email, and January 13, 2026 if the responses were served via mail. Thus, Plaintiff had time to wait for the deadline she imposed to elapse before filing her motion.