LINDBLOOM vs PEACH TREE HEALTHCARE, et al.

25CV006421: LINDBLOOM vs PEACH TREE HEALTHCARE, et al. 04/20/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Form Interrogatories - General 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 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 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 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

25CV006421: LINDBLOOM vs PEACH TREE HEALTHCARE, et al. 04/20/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Form Interrogatories - General in Department 8D

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.

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

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Amira Lindbloom’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to compel Defendant Peach Tree Healthcare’s (“Defendant”) further responses to form interrogatories, set two, is ruled upon as follows.

Defendants’ unopposed request for judicial notice is granted for the limited purposes permitted for judicial notice. (See, Evid. Code §451, subd. (a); §452, sub. (b)-(d); see also, Johnson & Johnson v. Superior Court (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 757, 768 [court may take judicial notice of the existence of court documents but not to the truth of the statements contained therein]; Kilroy v. State of California (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 140, 145-148; Sosinsky v. Grant (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1569-70.)

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.

Plaintiff propounded form interrogatories, set two, 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.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV006421: LINDBLOOM vs PEACH TREE HEALTHCARE, et al. 04/20/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Form Interrogatories - General in Department 8D

(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 to form interrogatories nos. 12.2 and 12.3. Defendant opposes.

II. Legal Standard

“[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 (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].)

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

The party to whom interrogatories have been propounded shall respond in writing under oath separately to each interrogatory by any of the following:

(1) An answer containing the information sought to be discovered. (2) An exercise of the party’s option to produce writings. (3) An objection to the particular interrogatory.

“On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the demanding party deems that any of the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV006421: LINDBLOOM vs PEACH TREE HEALTHCARE, et al. 04/20/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Form Interrogatories - General in Department 8D

following apply: [¶] (1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete. [¶] (2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate. [¶] (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)

“While the party propounding interrogatories may have the burden of filing a motion to compel if it finds the answers it receives unsatisfactory, the burden of justifying any objection and failure to respond remains at all times with the party resisting an interrogatory.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541.)

III.

Discussion

A. Form Interrogatory Nos. 12.2 and 12.3

Form interrogatory no. 12.2 seeks information regarding whether Defendant interviewed any individuals concerning the incident, the contact information of the interviewee and the interviewer, and the date of the interview.

Form interrogatory no. 12.3 seeks information regarding whether Defendant obtained any written or recorded statement from an individual regarding the incident, the contact information of the interviewee and the interviewer, the date of the interview, and the contact information of anyone who has the original statement.

Defendant responded to both interrogatories as follows:

Objection. The Responding Party objects to this request on the basis of the work product doctrine (CCP§2018) pursuant to a decision enunciated by the California Court of Appeal in Nacht & Lewis Architects, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 214.

(Separate Statement at 2:11-13; 4:12-14.)

Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s objection only response is insufficient because it lacks a substantive response concerning nonprivileged statements. (Separate Statement at 3:12-22; 5:8-18.) In opposition, Defendant argues that disclosure of witness interview information would reveal counsel mental impressions and litigation strategy, which is protected by the attorney work product doctrine. Defendant also contends its response is proper and complete as all responsive information is protected by the work protect

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV006421: LINDBLOOM vs PEACH TREE HEALTHCARE, et al. 04/20/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Form Interrogatories - General in Department 8D

doctrine.

The Court agrees that Defendant’s objection only response is a complete response for purposes of Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.210. Subdivision (a)(3) expressly contemplates that an objection is a sufficient and complete response to an interrogatory. Plaintiff offers no legal authority that mandates that Defendant must provide a substantive response in addition to an objection in order for Defendant’s response to be considered completed.

To the extent Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s work product objection lacks merit, the Court disagrees. As discussed above, “the burden of justifying any objection . . . remains at all times with the party resisting an interrogatory.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541.) Here, Defendant has met that burden.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2018.030, subdivision (a) provides, “A writing that reflects an attorney’s impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories is not discoverable under any circumstances.” Subdivision (b) states, “The work product of an attorney, other than a writing described in subdivision (a), is not discoverable unless the court determines that denial of discovery will unfairly prejudice the party seeking discovery in preparing that party’s claim or defense or will result in an injustice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2018.030, subd. (b).) “The sole exception to the literal wording of the statute which the cases have recognized is under the waiver doctrine which has been held applicable to the work product rule as well as the attorney-client privilege.” (BP Alaska Exploration, Inc. v. Superior Court (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1240, 1254.)

The California Supreme Court has addressed how to analyze the assertion of the work product doctrine in connection with form interrogatory no. 12.3. (See Coito v. Superior Court (2012) 54 Cal.4th 480, 500-503.) The Court explained that “disclosing a list of witnesses from whom an attorney has taken recorded statements may, in some instances, reveal the attorney’s impressions of the case.” (Id. at p. 501.) Coito provided the following example:

Take, for example, a bus accident involving 50 surviving passengers and an allegation that the driver fell asleep at the wheel. If an attorney for one of the passengers took recorded statements from only 10 individuals, disclosure of the list may well indicate the attorney's evaluation or conclusion as to which witnesses were in the best position to see the cause of the accident. (See Hickman, supra, 329 U.S. at p. 511 [“Proper preparation of a client’s case demands that [the attorney] sift what he considers to be the relevant from the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV006421: LINDBLOOM vs PEACH TREE HEALTHCARE, et al. 04/20/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Form Interrogatories - General in Department 8D

irrelevant facts.”].) Such information may be entitled to absolute privilege under section 2018.030, subdivision (a). If absolute privilege were inapplicable, such a list may still be entitled to qualified privilege under section 2018.030, subdivision (b) to the extent it reflects the attorney’s industry and effort in selecting which witnesses to ask for a recorded statement. Perhaps the attorney devoted significant effort to tracking down bus tickets and passenger logs in order to determine which passengers sat in which seats, and then decided to take recorded statements from the 10 passengers closest to the driver.

Even without obtaining the witness statements themselves, the bus company’s lawyer would gain valuable information by free riding on the attorney's identification of the most salient witnesses. Such undue advantage taking is precisely what the Legislature intended the work product privilege to prevent. (§ 2018.020, subd. (b).)

(Ibid.) On the other hand, Coito indicated that it will not “always or even often be the case that a witness list responsive to form interrogatory No. 12.3 reflects counsel’s premediated and carefully considered selectivity as in the scenario above.” (Ibid.) The Court provided the following example from Justice Kane:

“Take, for example, a typical automobile accident. The police report may disclose the existence of several witnesses. If the attorney for one party obtains witness statements from one or more of those individuals whom everyone in the case knows are percipient witnesses, that fact does not show anything definite about the attorney's evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the case, attorney strategy or tactics, or even the relative strength of any particular witness. Indeed, a particular witness statement might be in an attorney's file for a host of reasons, including that the person happened to be available when the attorney sent out an investigator.” Although the witness statements themselves reflect the attorney’s time and effort in taking the statements and are therefore qualified work product (see ante, at pp. 496–497), disclosing the list of such witnesses in Justice Kane’s scenario does not implicate the problem of one attorney free riding on the work of another, as no significant work or selectivity went into creating the list.

(Id. at pp. 501-502.) The Supreme Court ultimately reasoned that “[b]ecause it is not evident that form interrogatory No. 12.3 implicates the policies underlying the work product privilege in all or even most cases, we hold that information responsive to form interrogatory No. 12.3 is not automatically entitled as a matter of law to absolute or qualified work product privilege.” (Id. at p. 502.) Coito provided the following procedure

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV006421: LINDBLOOM vs PEACH TREE HEALTHCARE, et al. 04/20/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Form Interrogatories - General in Department 8D

to determine whether such information is subject to any privilege:

[T]he interrogatory usually must be answered. However, an objecting party may be entitled to protection if it can make a preliminary or foundational showing that answering the interrogatory would reveal the attorney’s tactics, impressions, or evaluation of the case, or would result in opposing counsel taking undue advantage of the attorney’s industry or efforts. Upon such a showing, the trial court should then determine, by making an in camera inspection if necessary, whether absolute or qualified work product protection applies to the material in dispute.

(Ibid.) The Court sees no reason to deviate from the prescribed procedure provided by the Supreme Court in this instance.

As indicated earlier, the interrogatories at issue seeks to determine whether Defendant interviewed individuals and obtained statements, and if so, the contact information of the witnesses and interviewers, their identities, and relevant dates. The requests do not seek the contents of any interviews, statements, or reports.

The issue here is whether the sought information sought by these interrogatories is itself, attorney work product. Defendant’s counsel avers:

After Plaintiff filed her complaint, defense counsel for Peach Tree Healthcare investigated Plaintiff’s employment, termination and issues related to her complaint. In short, all information obtained was conducted solely by counsel or at counsel’s direction, for legal advice and litigation defense, and for the purpose of developing legal strategy and evaluating the parties’ respective positions. No separate HR investigation, Board investigation, or other non-attorney investigation occurred. All investigations concerning the incident at issue were conducted exclusively by or at the direction of counsel for the purpose of rendering legal advice.

(Declaration of Simone McCormick, ¶ 5.) Counsel’s declaration is sufficient to make a preliminary evidentiary showing that the interrogatories would reveal information protected as work product.

The Court declines to order in camera review as it does not appear that Plaintiff is challenging Defendant’s objection, but is instead only moving to compel further responses as to existence or nonexistence of other nonprivileged interviews, which as

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV006421: LINDBLOOM vs PEACH TREE HEALTHCARE, et al. 04/20/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Form Interrogatories - General in Department 8D

stated above is not required for Defendant’s response to be complete.

IV.

Disposition

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is DENIED as to form interrogatory nos. 12.2 and 12.3.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED as the motion is denied. Defendant does not request sanctions.

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.)