FADDIS, et al. vs GRANDCARE INC, et al.

23CV006808: FADDIS, et al. vs GRANDCARE INC, et al. 04/22/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel RFPD in Department 53

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE: Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure: To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail 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 it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below.

If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court. Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED. 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/courtreporters/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: Plaintiffs’ motion to compel defendant Grandcare, Inc.’s further responses to Requests for Production, Set Four, Nos. 160 and 163, along with the production of responsive documents, is ruled upon as follows.

Factual Background

This 2023 action arises from an assault and battery committed against plaintiff Patrick Faddis by another resident of the care facility operated by defendant Grandcare. The complaint asserts causes of action for dependent adult abuse/neglect, negligence,

23CV006808: FADDIS, et al. vs GRANDCARE INC, et al. 04/22/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel RFPD in Department 53

violation of the patient’s bill of rights, fraud and unfair business practices against defendant Grandcare as well as assault and battery against the other resident, defendant Pratt. Trial is now set for 3/17/2026.

Plaintiffs now move to compel defendant Grandcare’s further responses to Request for Production Nos. 160 and 163 on the grounds the initial responses are incomplete and not code-complaint, along with the production of responsive documents and monetary sanctions of over $1,700.

Defendant Grandcare opposes, arguing neither of the two requests at issue are limited to either plaintiff Faddis or defendant Pratt but instead “seek thousands of completely unrelated emails that will entail weeks of work for no putative benefit as all, given the vast amounts of information already provided to Plaintiffs.” (Opp., p.4:21-25.) The opposition adds the “relevant information and documents” have already been produced in response to the other 24 requests included in plaintiffs’ fourth set and thus, there is no basis for an order to compel further production.” (Id., at p.5:7-8.) Defendant has also produced a PMQ on the same subjects back in November 2024 and plaintiffs questioned that witness for several hours. (Id., at p.5:9-20.) In the end, the opposition claims plaintiffs have failed to show “good cause” for further responses and monetary sanctions are not warranted.

In reply, plaintiffs insist there are approximately 7,000 emails responsive to these two requests and the opposition’s claims of undue burden and previously producing the information sought both fail. (Reply, p.1:25-p.2:1.) The reply also contends that the Price Declaration in opposition, setting forth the details of the burden imposed by these requests, “is completely unfounded and fails to evaluate available e-discovery tools which would reduce this burden. (Id., at p.2:1-6.)

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV006808: FADDIS, et al. vs GRANDCARE INC, et al. 04/22/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel RFPD in Department 53

(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.)

“On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply: [¶] (1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete. [¶] (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate. [¶] (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc. §2031.310(a).) The party asserting objections to discovery bear the burden of justifying and supporting the objections. (See, e.g., Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 549-550.)

For requests for production, the burden is on the moving party to show both relevance to the subject matter and specific facts justifying discovery. (Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117; Code Civ. Proc. §2031.310 [requiring a showing of “good cause” for production of documents].) Once good cause is established by the moving party, the burden then shifts to the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure. (Hartbrodt v. Burke (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 168, 172-174.)

Discussion

Request for Production No. 160. This request seeks “all communications, including emails, fax messages, messages through any messaging portal, etc., between the Mercy Hospital of Folsom’s discharge planner/case manager and any employee handling admissions at Grandcare, Inc. dba Mountain Manor Senior Residence in 2023,” adding that “[p]atient names other than Mr. Faddis’ may be redacted and replaced with initials or facility room numbers.”

In response, defendant Grandcare asserted a variety of objections including “vague, ambiguous, overbroad as to time and scope, compound, burdensome and harassing;”

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV006808: FADDIS, et al. vs GRANDCARE INC, et al. 04/22/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel RFPD in Department 53

“not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence;” violates the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) and California Civil Code §56.10(a) (“CMIA”) and the redaction of names would not be “sufficient to properly guard against the unauthorized disclosure of Protected Health Information;” “respond[ing] to this Request would require several people with the training and skills to search through hundreds if not a thousand or more Resident records individually one by one to possibly find a responsive document;” “[t]he typical communication between the Mercy Hospital of Folsom’s discharge planner/case manager and Mountain Manner Senior Residence is on the phone,” so “[t]here are no documents for those communications;” “this Request appears to call for the collection, review and production of Electronically Stored Information (ESI) that is not proportional to the needs of the case;” and “the following categories of ESI that are not reasonably accessible: email messages and files, text messages and metadata, fax messages, messages through any messaging portal, electronic documents (to Encompass any word documents and PDFs), deleted files, temporary files, system history files, internet or web-browser generated information stored in textual graphical or audio format, computer activity logs, creation of reports or aggregation of data by Defendant, metadata, backup and/or storage files, and potential software no longer utilized by responding party.”

The Court finds that defendant’s objections are well-taken and thus, no further response to this request for production will be ordered. As pointed out by the opposition, this request does not seek any information or documents relating directly to either plaintiff Faddis or the resident who is alleged to have assaulted him, defendant Pratt. Further, as propounded, Request No. 160 includes no expressed substantive limitation reflecting any particular issue in this case. Rather, it broadly seeks all communications between Mercy Hospital’s discharge planner/case manager and anyone at defendant’s facility for an entire year regardless of substance, content or relationship (in any way) to any issue in this case.

While plaintiff argues this request seeks documents that “will show how the facility actually determined which residents to admit, which goes to their pattern and practice regarding admissions and shows whether they took steps to protect resident safety ” (Mov. MPA, p.8:9-11), this request as propounded is not tied to or focused on any such subject matter. Thus, defendant Grandcare’s objections based on overbreadth and on grounds that this request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence shall be sustained, as this request amounts to an impermissible fishing expedition devoid of a reasonable limitation to information and/or documentation which is reasonably likely to lead to admissible evidence bearing on facts of consequence in this litigation.

Although this request on its face is sufficient warrant the sustaining of these objections, the Court notes that this conclusion is reinforced by the fact that defendant Grandcare has, aside from producing a variety of documents in response to plaintiffs’ prior requests and a PMQ on “Admission Policies, Processes and Practices,” agreed to produce

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV006808: FADDIS, et al. vs GRANDCARE INC, et al. 04/22/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel RFPD in Department 53

and/or already produced those documents in its possession, custody or control which are responsive to the 20-plus other requests included in plaintiffs’ fourth set, seeking a variety of other documents relating not only to multiple aspects of hospital referrals to defendant Grandcare in 2023 but also the latter’s policies, practices, criteria and processes for admitting residents to its care facility in 2023.

Additionally, the Court finds the opposition has adequately demonstrated this request will impose an undue burden on defendant Grandcare. In particular, the Declaration of Darrell Price, identified as the Administrator of the subject care facility attests, based at least in part on the amount of time it took to search for and produce documents responsive to earlier requests from plaintiffs, that responding to the two requests at issue in this motion (i.e., Nos. 160 and 163) would require its staff to spend “hundreds of hours” to comb through all potentially documents including emails and other communications relating to admissions, redact personal information and prepare them for production, costing thousands of dollars and impacting the facility’s operation. (Price Decl., ¶¶7-12, 14-15.)

The Price Declaration further provides a description of some of the documents previously produced and explains that such documents effectively constitute all documents and communications bearing on the admission of both plaintiff Faddis and defendant Pratt to the care facility. (Id., ¶13.)

Coupled with the fact that the documents responsive to this request, as propounded, are not limited to either plaintiff Faddis or defendant Pratt and are not otherwise phrased so as to be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence relating to some fact of consequence in this litigation, the Price Declaration is in this Court’s view sufficient to show the quantum of work needed to respond to the discovery is so disproportionately great in comparison to the benefit likely to be derived from the requested document that it would defeat the ends of justice to require a response. (See, e.g., Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Superior Court (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 19; West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417.)

Accordingly, this Court declines to compel defendant Grandcare to provide a further response to Request No. 160 as currently phrased.

Request for Production No. 163. This request similarly asks for “[a]ll communications, including emails, fax messages through any messaging portal, etc., in 2023 between any employees at Grandcare, Inc. dba Mountain Manor Senior Residence regarding decisions about whether to admit a resident” and likewise adds that “[p]atient names other than Mr. Faddis’ may be redacted and replaced with initials or facility room numbers.” Defendant Grandcare’s response to Request No. 163 appears identical to Request No. 160.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV006808: FADDIS, et al. vs GRANDCARE INC, et al. 04/22/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel RFPD in Department 53

Request No. 163 is only slightly less broad than Request No. 160 insofar as Request No. 163 includes the phrase, “regarding decisions about whether to admit a resident.” However, as phrased, Request No. 163 is vague and ambiguous and thus, the Court sustains defendant Grandcare’s objections in such regard. Furthermore, the Court’s ruling sustaining defendant Grandcare’s objections to Request No. 160 (i.e., overbroad, unduly burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence) are equally applicable as well. Thus, to this request as presently propounded, defendant Grandcare need not provide a further response to Request No. 163 either.

Production of Documents. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel defendant Grandcare’s production of documents responsive to Request Nos. 160 and 163 shall also be denied since defendant Grandcare did not previously agree to produce documents responsive to these two requests and has thereby not failed to comply with any such agreement. Therefore, this Court cannot pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §2031.320 compel Grandcare’s compliance with an agreement to produce responsive documents.

Disposition

For the reasons explained above, plaintiffs’ present motion to compel is DENIED in its entirety. This ruling, however, is without prejudice to plaintiffs’ right to propound more carefully crafted, narrowly tailored requests.

Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions is denied since this motion is denied and the opposition was not without substantial justification.

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