MOIRA JACOBS, et al. vs FREMONT HILLS SENIOR HOUSING, LLC, et al.

25CV137004: MOIRA JACOBS, et al. vs FREMONT HILLS SENIOR HOUSING, LLC, et al. 08/20/2026 Hearing on Motion for Protective Order Regarding Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, by Defendant Fremont Hills Senior Housing, LLC dba Fremont Hills; filed by Fremont Hills Senior Housing, LLC (Defendant) CRS# A-137004-004 in Department 22

Tentative Ruling - 08/19/2026 Han N. Tran

The Motion for Protective Order filed by Fremont Hills Senior Housing, LLC on 07/27/2026 is Denied.

In light of the court's granting in part of Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, which is set forth below, Defendant's motion for protective order is DENIED, as it relates to the same discovery requests at issue in the motion to compel.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Denise Stone, by and through her successor in interest Moira Jacobs, and Moira Jacobs in her individual capacity (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendants Fremont Hills Senior Housing, LLC dba Fremont Hills, ATSC II LLC, Integral Senior Living Management, LLC, Discovery Senior Living Holdings LLC, and Mandeep Kaur (“Defendants”) on August 13, 2025 and filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on September 17, 2025. The FAC brings causes of action pertaining to Ms. Stone’s alleged mistreatment while a resident at Defendant’s senior care facilities.

Plaintiff propounded Special Interrogatories, Set Two on Defendant Fremont Hills Senior Housing, LLC, dba Fremont Hills (“Defendant” or “Fremont Hills”) on February 2, 2026. (Petersen Decl., ¶ 3.) The set consists of two Special Interrogatories – Nos. 33 and 34. The next day, Defendant informed Plaintiff that it would not be producing responsive information to these interrogatories. (Id. at ¶ 4.) Defendant’s responses to these requests were served on March 5, 2026 and consisted of only objections. (Id. at ¶ 6.) Plaintiff now moves to compel further responses to these Special Interrogatories.

LEGAL STANDARD

Where the party propounding written discovery deems the responses unsatisfactory, the party may move to compel further responses. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300).

“Unless limited by order of the court any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved 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.)

The responding party bears the burden of justifying any objection or failure to fully respond to an 25CV137004: MOIRA JACOBS, et al. vs FREMONT HILLS SENIOR HOUSING, LLC, et al. 08/20/2026 Hearing on Motion for Protective Order Regarding Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, by Defendant Fremont Hills Senior Housing, LLC dba Fremont Hills; filed by Fremont Hills Senior Housing, LLC (Defendant) CRS# A-137004-004 in Department 22 interrogatory. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.) It is the responding party’s obligation to provide answers “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220(a).)

DISCUSSION

Special Interrogatory No. 33 requests that Defendant “FULLY IDENTIFY the RESPONSIBLE PERSONS for each person who was a resident at the FACILITY during the RELEVANT TIME PERIOD.”

Elsewhere in the Special Interrogatories, “Responsible Persons” is defined as having the same meaning as in Cal. Code Regs., tit. 22, § 87101(r)(6), which states: “means “Representative,” as defined in Section 87101(r)(3), for purposes of these regulations and applicable statutes.” In turn, “Representative” is defined as “an individual who has authority to act on behalf of the resident; including but not limited to, a conservator, guardian, person authorized as the agent in the resident's valid advance health care directive, the resident's spouse, registered domestic partner, family member, a person designated by the resident, or other surrogate decisionmaker designated consistent with statutory and case law.

Without other legal obligation to the contrary, acting as a resident representative does not mean that the individual assumes personal responsibility or liability for payment of any charges incurred by the resident.”

Special Interrogatory No. 34 is functionally identical. It substitutes “REPRESENTATIVE(S)” for “RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S)”, but as noted above, these terms as defined in the Code of Regulations are interchangeable.

Defendant’s response includes objections for overbreadth, burden, third party privacy as well as a description of purportedly responsive documents it has already produced.

Based on the definition of “Responsible Person”, this request apparently requests that Defendant identify each resident’s conservator, guardian, spouse, domestic partner, or other individual empowered to make decisions on a resident’s behalf. Presumably, Plaintiff seeks the identities of these individuals in order to collect information as to those individuals’ own experiences with conditions at Defendant’s facilities. In opposition, Defendant stands on its irrelevancy, overbreadth, burden, and privacy objections.

The motion is GRANTED IN PART.

Defendant’s relevancy objection is OVERRULED. Plaintiff’s FAC sets forth allegations regarding purported understaffing at Defendant’s facility and alleged failures in providing a

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV137004: MOIRA JACOBS, et al. vs FREMONT HILLS SENIOR HOUSING, LLC, et al. 08/20/2026 Hearing on Motion for Protective Order Regarding Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, by Defendant Fremont Hills Senior Housing, LLC dba Fremont Hills; filed by Fremont Hills Senior Housing, LLC (Defendant) CRS# A-137004-004 in Department 22 satisfactory level of care to its residents. Other “Responsible Persons” plainly might have relevant information to share as to those allegations. Defendant’s overbreadth objection is OVERRULED as well.

Defendant’s opposition seems to conflate overbreadth with burden, which is discussed at greater length below. The subject matter of the SROG No. 33 is not overbroad, as it only seeks the identities of potential lay witnesses who likely spent time at Defendant’s facilities during the applicable time period. Defendant’s contention that its staffing levels is a matter of expert opinion is unpersuasive. Lay witnesses may have potentially admissible, relevant testimony to provide as to their own experiences with purported understaffing.

Defendant’s burden objection is OVERRULED IN PART to the extent that Defendant represents that it is a 140-bed facility. The burden of identifying and preparing for production a list of “Responsible Persons” for perhaps 200 current and former residents, is not so severe on its face as to warrant denial of the motion in its entirety. However, the Kumar Declaration persuasively describes a substantial burden in providing a full and complete response given the way that Defendant’s records are maintained.

Defendant’s privacy objection is OVERRULED. The requests do not seek any protected, confidential, or proprietary information and Defendant does not persuasively argue otherwise, instead only asserting in conclusory fashion that responding to this interrogatory would result in a “serious invasion” of the witnesses’ “reasonable expectation of privacy.” It is not clear how mere identification as requested by Plaintiff constitutes such an invasion.

The court therefore rules as follows: The motion is GRANTED IN PART. To ease its burden of production, Defendant is ORDERED to provide code-compliant response to SROGS 33 and 34 (the responses should be identical given the definitions of terms described above) which identify a random sample of 40 current or most recent “Responsible Persons” and the patient for whom they are responsible, along with basic contact information such as a primary phone number and/or email address within 30 days of entry of this order.

Clerk is directed to serve copies of this order, with proof of service, to counsel and to selfrepresented parties of record.

HOW DO I CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING? THROUGH eCOURT Notify the Court and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps: 1. Log into eCourt Public Portal

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV137004: MOIRA JACOBS, et al. vs FREMONT HILLS SENIOR HOUSING, LLC, et al. 08/20/2026 Hearing on Motion for Protective Order Regarding Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, by Defendant Fremont Hills Senior Housing, LLC dba Fremont Hills; filed by Fremont Hills Senior Housing, LLC (Defendant) CRS# A-137004-004 in Department 22 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” BY EMAIL Send an email to the DEPARTMENT CLERK (dept22@alameda.courts.ca.gov) and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing. This will permit the department clerk to send invitations to counsel to appear remotely. Notice via BOTH eCourt AND email is required. The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no party contests the tentative ruling.