DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25CV116097·alameda·Civil·Class Action — Wage & Hour
Hearing about 2 months agoThe court is inclined to grant Plaintiff’s requested relief, but requires further discussion with parties.

PHAN vs BAY VIEW REHABILITATION HOSPITAL LLC

Motion to Compel Compliance with Order re: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Hearing date
Jul 8, 2026
Department
18
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffMichael Phan
DefendantBay View Rehabilitation Hospital LLC

Ruling

25CV116097: PHAN vs BAY VIEW REHABILITATION HOSPITAL LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 07/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Compliance with Order re: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses dated December 22, 2025 CRS# 925886448690 in Department 18

Tentative Ruling - 07/07/2026 Patrick McKinney

PARTIES TO APPEAR

It appears that Defendant is in technical compliance with the December 22, 2025 order, but the nature of its production prevents Plaintiff from meaningfully analyzing the information produced. The court would be inclined to grant Plaintiff’s motion, but cannot discern whether doing so is necessary in light of Defendant’s representation that Plaintiff has served additional discovery requests seeking the information sought by way of this motion.

The parties should be prepared to discuss:

1) The due date for responses to Plaintiff’s 4th sets of interrogatories and requests for production of documents appears to be imminent. Does Defendant intend to serve timely responses”; 2) Whether timely, complete responses to these requests would moot the motion; 3) If a timely production is made, whether a further continuance of the class certification deadline is necessary.

On December 22, 2025, the court issued an order compelling Defendant Bay View Rehabilitation Hospital LLC (“Defendant”) to produce a 20% representative sample of the putative class with respect to three Requests for Production of Documents propounded by Plaintiff Michael Phan (“Defendant”). Request 15 sought all wage statements provided to putative class members and Requests 21 and 22 sought documents sufficient to show how many and which class members signed meal period waivers during the relevant period.

Plaintiff filed this motion to compel compliance with the December 22 order on June 10, 2026. The parties agree that Defendant made productions in at least partial compliance with the December 22 order on March 11 and March 17. However, Plaintiff contends that deficiencies remain in Defendant’s production. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that the recent productions cannot be reconciled with the 20% sample of putative class members previously identified and produced by Defendant on November 25, 2025 because the meal break waiver forms include handwritten employee names, but no ID numbers, while the wage statements include sample ID numbers, but not employee names.

Defendant asserts in opposition that its productions fully comply with the December 22 order, which did not specify that Defendant was required to assist Plaintiff in matching employees. Defendant also notes that, after filing this motion to compel, Plaintiff propounded further sets of 25CV116097: PHAN vs BAY VIEW REHABILITATION HOSPITAL LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 07/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Compliance with Order re: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses dated December 22, 2025 CRS# 925886448690 in Department 18 interrogatories and requests for production seeking the information sought here.

In the interest of moving this case forward, the court is inclined to grant Plaintiff’s requested relief. However, further clarity on the questions posed above is necessary.

CONTESTING TENTATIVE ORDERS

Notify the Court and all other parties no later than 4:00 pm the day before the scheduled hearing and identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps.

1. Log into eCourt Public Portal - https://eportal.alameda.courts.ca.gov 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select Search 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select Click to Contest this Ruling 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select Proceed.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share