CONGI, et al. vs DIGNITY HEALTH

24CV015815: CONGI, et al. vs DIGNITY HEALTH 02/20/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Interrogatory Responses from Dignity Health in Department 23

about a plan moving forward and a time frame for the responses. (Ibid.) No such conversation occurred. (Ibid.) Defense counsel states that he understood Plaintiffs’ counsel response as a grant of more time but concedes that Plaintiffs’ counsel never chose or conveyed a new deadline.

On March 24, 2025, Plaintiffs electronically served their second set of special interrogatories on Dignity Health – comprised of special interrogatory numbers 48-80. (Greenberg Decl. Ex. 9.) Dignity Health timely responded to the second set on June 9, 2025. (Id. at Ex. 10; Foley Decl. ¶ 22 & Ex. D.)

In this motion, Plaintiffs seeks to compel further responses to the following interrogatories: 10-11, 36-38 (in the first set), 49-51, 54-59, 61, 63, 65-68, and 70-73 (in the second set). Plaintiffs also request sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $17,260. Dignity Health opposes.

Legal Standard

A party may move to compel a further response to an interrogatory if that party believes that the response provided is evasive or incomplete, or an objection to a particular interrogatory is without merit or too general. (CCP § 2030.300.) The responding party bears the burden to justify any objections raised. (Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.)

Discussion

Dignity Health Waived Objections to the Interrogatories at Issue in Set One

If a party fails to serve a timely response to interrogatories, “the party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives . . . any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290.) Extensions of time may be granted but any agreement for extension must “be confirmed in a writing that specifies the extended date for service of a response.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.270.)

Plaintiffs argue – with respect to interrogatory numbers 10, 11, and 36-38 – Dignity Health waived its objections because its responses were untimely. Dignity Health contends its responses were timely, citing Mr. Foley’s declaration at paragraphs 2, 4, 7, 10, and 12-14. The Court finds Dignity Health’s responses to the first set of special interrogatories were untimely. The Court agrees with Dignity Health that Plaintiffs’

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV015815: CONGI, et al. vs DIGNITY HEALTH 02/20/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Interrogatory Responses from Dignity Health in Department 23

counsel granted a three-week extension on December 20, 2024 – making the responses due on January 10, 2025. The Court is less persuaded that Plaintiffs’ counsel granted any further extensions. Paragraph seven of Mr. Foley’s declaration shows negotiations occurred as to a further extension that never concluded. Plaintiffs’ counsel indicated a willingness to grant an additional extension of less than three weeks but the Parties never had the contemplated phone call to complete the discussion. (Foley Decl. ¶ 7.)

Accordingly, it does not appear Dignity Health’s counsel was justified in believing he had gotten an extension of time – especially because Plaintiffs’ counsel never gave a new deadline. (Ibid.) Section 2030.270 requires a specific date when an extension of time is granted. Even if the Court were to agree with Dignity Health on the second extension, that extension would have expired on January 31, 2025, at the latest. There is no evidence Dignity Health received an extended response deadline beyond January 31, 2025. (See Foley Decl.

Ex. B [email from Plaintiffs’ counsel to Defense counsel dated 2/18/25 stating: “You asked for a three week extension that ended last month.”].) To the extent Dignity Health is contending it had an open-ended response deadline, such an extension is not supported by the record and would be ineffective based on the requirements of section 2030.270(b). Accordingly, Dignity Health’s responses to set one – served on March 24, 2025 – were untimely and Dignity Health waived all objections to interrogatory numbers 10, 11, and 36-38 – including objections based on privilege and work product. (Code Civ.

Proc., § 2030.290.)[1] Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to special interrogatory numbers 10, 11, and 36-38 is GRANTED. Defendant shall serve amended responses – subject to the protective order entered in this case on July 21, 2025 – to these interrogatories without objections by no later than March 13, 2026, unless the Parties agree to a later response deadline in writing.

The Court notes that in a Joint Case Management Statement filed on February 2, 2026, Plaintiff informed the Court that Dignity Health served amended responses to sets one and two on January 30, 2026. However, those amended responses were not submitted to the Court and the Court cannot determine whether they are code-compliant. To the extent the amended responses to the interrogatories at issue in set one contain objections, those responses must be amended again pursuant to this order in light of the Court’s waiver finding.

Interrogatories at Issue from Set Two

The Court has read and considered all arguments with respect to the interrogatories at issue from set two and rules as follows: the motion to compel is GRANTED as to request numbers 49-51, 54-59, 61, 63, 65-68, and 70-73. The Court notes that as to numbers 49-51, 54-55, 57-58, 63, 65-66, 68, 70-73, Dignity Health concedes Plaintiffs

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV015815: CONGI, et al. vs DIGNITY HEALTH 02/20/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Interrogatory Responses from Dignity Health in Department 23

are entitled to further responses in its separate statement by stating its counsel was “in the process of amending their response to this interrogatory.” (Responsive Separate Statement.) Regarding the interrogatories seeking contact information of Dignity Health employees, Dignity Health may state in its responses that current employees, officers, and the Board Chairman can be contacted through counsel. (Interrogatory numbers 49- 51, 54-55, 57-58, 68, 70-72.) If any responsive individuals are no longer employed by Dignity Health, Dignity Health must provide their last known contact information. As to interrogatory number 56, responsive information shall be provided subject to the protective order entered on July 21, 2025. As to interrogatory numbers 59, 61, 67, and 73 all objections are overruled because they lack merit.

As noted above, Dignity Health served amended responses to sets one and two on January 30, 2026. However, those amended responses were not submitted to the Court and the Court cannot determine whether they are code-compliant. To the extent issues exist as to the amended responses in set two, Plaintiffs must begin the meet and confer process as to those responses – the Parties should use the Court’s order on this motion to guide that process. If Dignity Health did not serve amended responses to all interrogatories covered by this order on January 30, 2026, Dignity Health must serve further amended responses no later than March 13, 2026, unless the Parties agree to a later response deadline in writing.

Sanctions

Plaintiffs seeks sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010(d) and 2023.030. Section 2023.030(a) provides:

The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. The court may also impose this sanction on one unsuccessfully asserting that another has engaged in the misuse of the discovery process, or on any attorney who advised that assertion, or on both. If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Emphasis added.)

Plaintiffs argue that by failing to provide substantive responses to the interrogatories at issue, Dignity Health engaged in misuse of the discovery process. Dignity Health argues its opposition was substantially justified and the imposition of sanctions would be unjust

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV015815: CONGI, et al. vs DIGNITY HEALTH 02/20/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Interrogatory Responses from Dignity Health in Department 23

in light of the personal hardships suffered by Defense counsel. There is no doubt that Mr. Foley suffered a profound and devastating personal hardship at the time the discovery at issue was pending. However, Mr. Foley was not the only attorney of record for Dignity Health in this case. Defendant provides no explanation for the apparent failure of the law firm to assist Mr. Foley with this discovery during this time.

Moreover, the record shows Plaintiffs engaged repeatedly in the meet and confer and informal discovery conference process to avoid this motion and get responsive information. Dignity Health had no substantial justification for its opposition, especially in light of the protective order entered on July 21, 2025 – before Plaintiffs filed this motion. While it seemed apparent to the Court that the protective order was sufficient, Dignity Health would not concede that point and the Court had to expressly state in its Informal Discovery Conference order filed on January 23, 2026, that the protective order in place already protects information covered by HIPAA. Under the circumstances presented, the Court finds sanctions are required under sections 2023.010 and 2023.030(a).

Plaintiffs seek sanctions in the amount of $17,260. This amount is comprised of $2,960 in fees for Mr. Greenberg related to 3.7 hours on the motion and anticipated hearing attendance and $14,300 in fees for Mr. Palmer related to 26 hours on the motion. (Supplemental Greenberg Decl. ¶ 14; Supplemental Palmer Decl. ¶ 6.) The Court finds the claimed time associated with this motion is overstated. The Court finds the reasonable amount of time required by this motion is half the time claimed by each attorney. The Court orders Dignity Health to pay Plaintiffs sanctions in the amount of $8,750 ($1,600 for Mr. Greenberg (1.7 hours on motion plus.3 for hearing attendance) and $7,150 for Mr. Palmer (13 hours on motion).

Disposition

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further special interrogatory responses from Dignity Health is GRANTED. Dignity Health is ordered to serve further interrogatory responses as outlined above. Dignity Health is ordered to pay Plaintiffs monetary sanctions in the amount of $8,750 by no later than March 20, 2026. If sanctions are not paid by the due date, Plaintiffs may submit a formal order for enforcement purposes. (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 610.)

To request oral argument on this matter, you must call Department 23 at 916-874- 5754 by 4:00 p.m., the court day before this hearing and notification of oral argument must be made to the opposing party/counsel. If no call is made, the tentative ruling becomes the order of the court. (Local Rule 1.06.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV015815: CONGI, et al. vs DIGNITY HEALTH 02/20/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Interrogatory Responses from Dignity Health in Department 23

Please check your tentative ruling prior to the next Court date at www.saccourt.ca.gov prior to the above referenced hearing date.

If oral argument is requested, the parties may and are encouraged to appear by Zoom with the links below:

To join by Zoom Link - https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept23 To join by phone dial (833) 568-8864 ID 16108301121 Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code section 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.

This minute order is effective immediately. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order or further notice is necessary.

[1] In opposition, Defendant does not seek relief from waiver pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section

2030.290(a).