LINDBLOOM vs PEACH TREE HEALTHCARE, et al.

25CV006421: LINDBLOOM vs PEACH TREE HEALTHCARE, et al. 07/29/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents and Request for Monetary Sanctions in Department 8D

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 Department 8D Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-7719 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 8D Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16113421868 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 1342 1868. 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 on the Court Reporter Services webpage available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://saccourt.ca.gov/general-information/court-reporter-services-transcripts. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://saccourt.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/227/639084034465370000.

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.

25CV006421: LINDBLOOM vs PEACH TREE HEALTHCARE, et al. 07/29/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents and Request for Monetary Sanctions in Department 8D

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.

*** EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET IN SACRAMENTO, CA 95814. ALL HEARINGS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 25 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ***

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Amira Lindbloom’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to compel Defendant Peach Tree Healthcare’s (“Defendant”) further responses to requests for production of documents, set one, is ruled upon as follows.

On April 20, 2026, after oral arguments, the Court issued a minute order directing the parties to meet and confer in person or via phone regarding “(1) whether issues relating to custodians and search terms for ESI discovery need to be resolved to ensure a codecompliant search; and (2) potential, specific privacy issues.” (Submitted Matter Ruling, dated April 24, 2026.) The parties were directed to provide “specific arguments and authority for the parties’ positions on the specific custodian, ESI and privacy issues encompassed in the motion.” (Ibid.)

April 2026 Order

As an initial matter and for explicit clarification, the Court adopts its prior ruling, as follows:

I. Overview

This is a FEHA action. Plaintiff alleges that she was retaliated against and wrongfully terminated for advocating for diversity, equity, and inclusion, and for protecting various employees and patients who had been discriminated against and harassed by Defendants.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV006421: LINDBLOOM vs PEACH TREE HEALTHCARE, et al. 07/29/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents and Request for Monetary Sanctions in Department 8D

Plaintiff propounded requests for production, set one, on April 17, 2025. (Declaration of Lena Foellmer (“Foellmer Decl.”), ¶ 2, Ex. 1.) On June 2, 2025, Defendant served its responses. (Id., ¶ 3, Ex. 2.) On July 15, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel served a meet and confer letter. (Id., ¶ 4, Ex. 3.) From July 15, 2025 until October 20, 2025, the motion to compel deadline was extended several times to facilitate the meet and confer process. (Id., ¶ 5, Ex. 4.) Between October 28, 2025 and November 20, 2025, the parties engaged in additional telephonic and written meet and confer efforts. (Id., ¶¶ 6-13, Ex. 5-12.) Plaintiff requested supplemental responses, but Defendant declined to provide them. (Id., ¶¶ 11-12.) Plaintiff filed the instant motion on November 24, 2025.

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses request nos. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 27, 28, 30, 31, 35, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 43, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 51- 58, 60-69, 71-73, 78-86, 89-108, 110- 111, 113-118, 120-126, 128-133, 134-138, 140- 143, 145-147, 149, 150, and 153-156.

II.

Legal Standard

In a motion to compel further responses to 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. (See Hartbrodt v. Burke (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 168, 172-174.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.210, subdivision (a) provides:

The party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed shall respond separately to each item or category of item by any of the following:

(1) A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling by the date set for the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 2031.030 and any related activities.

(2) A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of a particular item or category of item.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV006421: LINDBLOOM vs PEACH TREE HEALTHCARE, et al. 07/29/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents and Request for Monetary Sanctions in Department 8D

(3) An objection to the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling.

“A statement that the party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed will comply with the particular demand shall state that the production, inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, and related activity demanded, will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.220, subd. (a).)

“A representation of inability to comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.230.)

“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, subd. (a).)

III.

Discussion

A. Requests Nos. 10-14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 27, 28, 30, 31, 35, 37, 38, 39, 41-45, 47, 48, 49, 85, 86

In her separate statement, Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s statement of compliance in of its responses to her requests is insufficient. Plaintiff argues that “Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s Request is not compliant with CCP § 2031.220 as Defendant cannot unilaterally limit the scope of Plaintiff’s request. Defendant has not confirmed that Defendant will produce all responsive documents in Defendant’s possession, custody, or control to comply with CCP § 2031.220.” (See Separate Statement at 7:4-7;

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV006421: LINDBLOOM vs PEACH TREE HEALTHCARE, et al. 07/29/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents and Request for Monetary Sanctions in Department 8D

8:4-7; 9:3-6, etc.) Plaintiff does not challenge any of Defendant’s objections.

For each of these requests, Defendant responds:

Without waiving the objections and subject to a Stipulated Protective Order, Responding Party agrees to produce the documents in the demand category that it understands to be responsive and that are in Responding Party’s possession, custody or control.

(Separate Statement at 7:18-20; 8:17-19; 9:15-17, etc.) Defendant argues it has substantially complied with the statute’s requirement and therefore further responses are not required.

Defendant argues that in Pollock v. Superior Court (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 1348, 1360- 1361, the Court of Appeal held that a statement of compliance need not mirror the exact statutory language so long as the response substantially complies. As an initial matter, there does not appear to be a page 1360 or 1361 in that case; it appears that the last page of the case is 1359. Moreover, the Court was unable to locate any language supporting the proposition asserted by Defendant in the cited case. Rather, the main conclusions in Pollock relate to whether there is any requirement that a response to a request for production include a description of which documents apply to which requests (with the Court finding that there is no such requirement). (Id. at 1357-59.)

Likewise, Plaintiff’s reliance on St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 783 is unpersuasive. In St. Mary, the appellate court addressed whether discovery responses to requests for admission “substantially complied” with section 2033.220 for purposes of a motion to deem matters admitted under section 2033.280; section 2033.280 expressly provides that matters shall not be admitted if a proposed response, prior to the hearing, is in “substantial compliance” with section 2033.220. The St. Mary Court did not find that substantial compliance would mean that further responses would not be required if responses were not code compliant. Indeed, the Court acknowledged that a motion to compel further responses would be the appropriate motion for noncode-compliant responses. (Ibid.)

The Court agrees that Defendant’s response does not comply with Section 2031.220. Section 2031.220 requires that a responding party’s statement of compliance “shall state that the production, inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, and related activity demanded, will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production.” (Code Civ.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV006421: LINDBLOOM vs PEACH TREE HEALTHCARE, et al. 07/29/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents and Request for Monetary Sanctions in Department 8D

Proc., § 2031.220, subd. (a).) Thus, further responses are required.

The Court does not rule on any of Defendant’s objections as Plaintiff has not put those objections at issue.

Thus, Defendant shall provide further verified responses to these requests.

B. Requests Nos. 51[1]-58, 60-69, 71-73, 78, 79, 81-84, 89-108, 110, 111, 113-118, 120-126, 128-133, 134-138, 140-143, 145-147, 149, 150, and 153-156.

Defendant provides the same response to each of the requests listed above.

Responding Party incorporates the prior objections and further objects on the basis that the requests as stated are vague and ambiguous in particular as they are based on Plaintiff’s false assumptions. Responding Party denies the Complaint allegations are true and, on that basis, cannot provide any documents pertaining to FALSE allegations and facts because they do not exist. Furthermore, the request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is also overbroad so as to impinge on documents that are protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine but also impinge on third parties’ privacy rights under the California Constitution. Lastly, the requests are broad in scope and excessive and unreasonable in numerosity, designed to harass, oppress Responding Party, which is an improper purpose and also unduly burdensome.

(Separate Statement at 32:10-19; 33:16-25; etc.)

Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s objections to these requests are without merit. Plaintiff also argues that Defendants responses are incomplete, inadequate, and are not code compliant.

With respect to requests nos. 51-58, 60-69, 71-73, Defendant argues that it properly objected to the requests on the grounds that they were based on false allegations and raised appropriate objections to the “AI-generated vague, overbroad phrasing”. (See Response to Separate Statement at 48:21-49:3; etc.) Defendant also argues that it clearly stated that there were no documents.

With respect to requests nos. 78, 79, 81-84, 89-108, 110, 111, 113-118, 120-126, 128- 133, 134-138, 140-143, 145-147, 149, 150, and 153-156, Defendant argues that it’s response of code-compliant and made in good faith. Defendant contends that the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV006421: LINDBLOOM vs PEACH TREE HEALTHCARE, et al. 07/29/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents and Request for Monetary Sanctions in Department 8D

requests were so vague as to render them unintelligible. Defendant also argues that third party privacy rights were implicated by the requests and a stipulated protective order was required prior to production. Finally, Defendant appears to contend that the requests would warrant electronically stored information (“ESI”) searches that were unreasonable and disproportionate.

Defendant’s vagueness objection is overruled. Defendant provides no legal authority that would support its position that a request is vague merely because a defendant contends that that facts alleged in a plaintiff’s complaint are false. The Discovery Code requires Defendant to make reasonable efforts to respond to discovery, which requires Defendant to search for conduct a diligent search for relevant documents even if Defendant contends that they will not exist because the alleged events did not occur.

Defendant’s objection that the requests are not likely to lead to admissible evidence is overruled as Defendant offers no legal authority or argument to support this objection.

Although Defendant interposed objections based on privilege, such as attorney-client and work-product, it failed to indicate whether any documents were withheld on this basis. To the extent that Defendant withheld any documents on the basis of privileges, it must provide further responses that provides sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including if necessary, a privilege log. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240.)

Though the Court does not overrule Defendant’s privacy objections, it notes that a stipulated protective order has been filed with the Court, which may alleviate third-party privacy concerns.

Defendant’s improper purpose, burdensome, and oppression objections are overruled. Defendant failed to substantiate any objection based on undue burden. Indeed, undue burden objections must be accompanied by a specific factual showing setting forth the amount of work necessary to respond to the subject discovery. (West Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417-418.) There is no declaration from Defendant setting forth any facts to support any claim of burden in this case.

Finally, with respect to ESI, Defendant failed to assert any a specific objection to the requests on the basis that conducting ESI searches would be unduly burdensome. (See Code Civ. Proc., §2031.210, subd. (d) [“If a party objects to the discovery of electronically stored information on the grounds that it is from a source that is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or expense and that the responding

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV006421: LINDBLOOM vs PEACH TREE HEALTHCARE, et al. 07/29/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents and Request for Monetary Sanctions in Department 8D

party will not search the source in the absence of an agreement with the demanding party or court order, the responding party shall identify in its response the types or categories of sources of electronically stored information that it asserts are not reasonably accessible.”] [emphasis added].) Thus, such an objection is waived. Even if Defendant had properly asserted an objection, it has failed to meet its burden of “demonstrating that the information is from a source that is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or expense.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (d).)

To the extent Defendant contends its statement that “Responding Party denies the Complaint allegations are true and, on that basis, cannot provide any documents pertaining to FALSE allegations and facts because they do not exist” is intended to be a response to the requests, this response is not code compliant. Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230 requires that:

A representation of inability to comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.

Defendant’s response does not state it has conducted a diligent search and make a reasonable inquiry. Nor does it stated whether they item has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party.

Therefore, the Court concludes that further responses to the requests are warranted.

C. Request No. 133 [sic]

With respect to this request, Defendant’s response is nearly identical to the responses discussed above. However, this request includes a statement of inability that states:

Without waiving the objection and subject thereto, Responding Party replies that after conducting a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry for the documents requested Responding Party is unable to comply with the request because based on its knowledge

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV006421: LINDBLOOM vs PEACH TREE HEALTHCARE, et al. 07/29/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents and Request for Monetary Sanctions in Department 8D

and understanding no such document exists.

(Separate Statement at 242:1-14.) The Court incorporates its rulings regarding Defendant’s objections to this request as set forth in the preceding section.

However, the Court concludes that Defendant’s statement of inability to comply is codecompliant. Nevertheless, because the response is subject to objections that have now been overruled, a further response is required.

D. Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.280

Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s production does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.280 because Defendant did not identify what documents are responses to which requests. Defendant argues that it provided identification of which documents were responsive in its production. (See Declaration of Simone McCormick, ¶ 12, Ex. 2.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.280, subdivision (a) states:

Any documents or category of documents produced in response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall be identified with the specific request number to which the documents respond.

Defendant’s production does not identify the specific request numbers to which the documents are responses and therefore it does not comply with Section 2031.280. Thus, Defendant shall provide a production that that complies with section 2031.280. (See Pollock, supra, 93 Cal.App.5th at p. 1359 [concluding that there is no requirement that documents be Bates labeled, but holding that any defect in production was reasonably cured where the producing party provided a 46-page table that listed by Bates number which documents applied to which requests].)

E. Motion to compel compliance

To the extent Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant to produce documents, (1) Plaintiff did not file a motion to compel compliance pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.320, subdivision (a), and (2) the motion is mostly premature as Defendant has not yet provided a statement that responsive documents exist and will be produced. Such motion is only proper where a party has agreed to produce documents but has failed to do so in compliance with its statement. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.320, subd. (a).)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV006421: LINDBLOOM vs PEACH TREE HEALTHCARE, et al. 07/29/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents and Request for Monetary Sanctions in Department 8D

Subsequent Meet & Confer Efforts

As a threshold issue, Defendant is admonished for taking the position that because the Court permitted it to meet and confer with respect certain ESI issues, which were raised in connection with a limited number of requests, the Court’s entire ruling was vacated. By taking this position, Defendant unnecessarily complicated the meet and confer efforts that should have been direct towards narrowing the ESI issues raised by the parties at oral arguments. Defendant is directed to immediately comply with the Court’s original order and provide further verified responses to requests nos. 10-14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 27, 28, 30, 31, 35, 37, 38, 39, 41-45, 47, 48, 49, 85, 86, and 133 [sic] by no later than August 5, 2026.

The only requests at issue for further meet and confer efforts were nos. 78, 79, 81-84, 89-108, 110, 111, 113-118, 120-126, 128-132, 134-138, 140-143, 145-147, 149, 150, and 153-156.

Additionally, both parties are admonished for their thoroughly deficient and disjointed “joint” statement. As stated above, the parties were ordered to provide “specific arguments and authority for the parties’ positions on the specific custodian, ESI and privacy issues encompassed in the motion.” The parties’ statement does not provide cogent arguments that would guide the Court in resolving their numerous purported disputes. Instead, each party devotes an inordinate amount of time reciting what each party purportedly did or did not do during the meet and confer process. Not only are these recitations unhelpful, they also obfuscate what issues remain to be resolved.

Based on the Court review, only three issues remain outstanding. First, the time range of the search. Second, the custodians to be searched. Finally, protection of private information.

With respect to the time range for the search, the Court will limit the search timeframe to January 2022 to December of 2024 as proposed by Defendant. Plaintiff provides no persuasive argument or authority that would support extending the search timeframe to the present at this time.

With respect to custodians, Plaintiff fails to identify which custodians should be included or excluded or to present argument in support thereof. As a result, at this time, the Court will exclude the following custodians as requested by Defendant:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV006421: LINDBLOOM vs PEACH TREE HEALTHCARE, et al. 07/29/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents and Request for Monetary Sanctions in Department 8D

1. Gina Rossetti, MD 2. Meredith Evans, FTP 3. Rupal Ghurman, M.D.

4. Kaumakaokalani Shimatsu, M.D.

5. Senely Navarrete 6. Jenniffer Zamora

With respect to any remaining privacy issues, the Court provides the following orders. All patient information including any medical information, patient name, Medical Record Numbers, etc. shall be redacted to preserve the patient’s privacy. Additionally, any confidential employee data captured in the production shall be redacted. To the extent Defendant withholds any documents on the basis of privacy, it shall provide a privilege log. As neither party raised any other specific privacy issues to be resolved, the Court need not proceed further.

With respect to any dispute regarding certain search terms, the Court concludes this issue was insufficiently briefed. However, it is Defendant’s burden to substantiate its objection that conducting ESI searches to find responsive documents would be unduly burdensome. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210, subd. (d).) Here, Defendant raises general concerns that the search terms discussed by the parties will cause too many results. However, this generalized concern is insufficient to meet Defendant’s burden of “demonstrating that the information is from a source that is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or expense.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (d).)

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to 78, 79, 81-84, 89-108, 110, 111, 113- 118, 120-126, 128-132, 134-138, 140-143, 145-147, 149, 150, and 153-156 is GRANTED, as set forth above. Defendant is directed to provide further verified responses by no later than August 19, 2026.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)

[1] Request No. 51 asserts the same response that is at issue in the other requests.

Thus, the Court analyzes it accordingly notwithstanding that Plaintiff appears to have copied and pasted the wrong argument in its separate statement.