PHAN vs BAY VIEW REHABILITATION HOSPITAL LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

25CV116097: PHAN vs BAY VIEW REHABILITATION HOSPITAL LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 09/02/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Michael Phan (Plaintiff) CRS# 949512605227 in Department 18

Tentative Ruling - 08/31/2026 Patrick McKinney

Plaintiff Michael Phan's Motion to Compel Further Responses to special interrogatories 26, and 36 through 41 is granted in part.

I.

Background

In April 2026, Phan served Defendant Bay View Rehabilitation Hospital LLC, a second set of special interrogatories. (Sanchez Contreras Decl. Supp. Mot. Compel Further Resps. ¶ 2, July 15, 2026; see also id. Ex. A (attaching interrogatories).) On May 27, 2026, Bay View responded to the interrogatories. (Id. ¶ 3; see also id. Ex. B (attaching responses).) Phan emailed Bay View to discuss what he deemed were deficient responses to special interrogatories 26 and 36 through 41. (Id. ¶ 4; see also id. Ex. C (attaching email).) Bay View did not respond. (Id. ¶ 5.)

On July 15, 2026, Phan moved to compel further responses to special interrogatories 26, and 36 through 41, and for a $3,690.00 sanction against Bay View. (Notice Mot. & Mot. Compel Further Resps.) Bay View opposed the Motion, partly arguing that the Motion was untimely. (Opp’n to Mot. Compel Further Resps., Aug. 19, 2026.) Bay View also requested a $5,620.20 sanction against Phan. (Id. 6:1–8.) On reply, Phan conceded that the Motion was filed a day too late, and requested relief under section 473(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure for his mistake. (Reply Supp. Mot. Compel Further Resps, Aug. 26, 2026.)

II.

Legal Standard

An asking party may move to compel further responses to an interrogatory if they deem that “[a]n answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete,” “[a]n exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate,” or “[a]n objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2030.300(a)(1)–(3).) The court must impose a monetary sanction unless it finds that the subject to be sanctioned acted with “substantial justification” or “other circumstances” make the sanction unjust. (§ 2030.300(d).)

III.

Discussion

The Court partly grants Phan’s Motion as it concerns compelling further responses to special interrogatories 26, and 36 through 41; partly denies Phan’s Motion as it concerns sanctioning Bay View; and denies Bay View’s request for sanctions. 25CV116097: PHAN vs BAY VIEW REHABILITATION HOSPITAL LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 09/02/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Michael Phan (Plaintiff) CRS# 949512605227 in Department 18 A. Timing of Motion A motion to compel further responses must be made “within 45 days of the service of the verified response” unless the parties have agreed to a later date in writing. (§ 2030.300(c).)

The asking party waives the right to compel a further response after the 45-day period elapses. (Id.) This 45-day limitation is “‘jurisdictional’ in the sense that it renders the court without authority to rule on motions to compel other than to deny them.” (Sexton v. Super. Ct. (1997) 58 Cal. App. 4th 1403, 1410.) Still, a court has authority to rule on a motion to compel where relief under section 473(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure is appropriate except where section 473(b) is “unavailable” because the Civil Discovery Act provides “analogous, if more limited relief.” (Zellerino v.

Brown (1991) 235 Cal. App. 3d 1097, 1107.)

Here, the Court finds that Phan filed his Motion one day too late. Bay View electronically served its responses on May 27, 2026. Thus, accounting for the two extra court days for electronic service (see § 1010.6(a)(3)(B)), the deadline was July 14, 2026. Phan filed his Motion the following day, July 15, 2026. Accordingly, Phan waived his right to compel a further response unless relief is merited under section 473(b).

1. Relief from 45-day Limitation “The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or [their] legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against [them] through [their] mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 473(b).) “‘[T]he provisions of section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure are to be liberally construed and sound policy favors the determination of actions on their merits.’” (Maynard v. Brandon (2005) 36 Cal. 4th 364, 371 (quoting Zamora v. Clayborn Contracting Grp., Inc. (2002) 28 Cal. 4th 249, 256).) “[B]ecause the law strongly favors trial and disposition on the merits, any doubts in applying section 473 must be resolved in favor of the party seeking relief from default.” (Id. at 372 (quoting Elston v. City of Turlock (1985) 38 Cal. 3d 227, 233).)

Here, the Court finds that Phan’s counsel made a reasonable mistake in miscalculating the 45- day-plus-2-court-day deadline by one day. The merits of the Motion have been fully briefed. There is no prejudice here. And equity law abhors forfeitures. (See Cal. Civ. Code § 1442 (“A condition involving a forfeiture must be strictly interpreted against the party for whose benefit it is created.”).) Accordingly, the Court relieves Phan from his waiver and proceeds to consider the merits of his Motion.

B. Compelling Further Responses The Court directs Bay Side to serve further verified responses to special interrogatories 26, and 36 through 41, without further objection.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV116097: PHAN vs BAY VIEW REHABILITATION HOSPITAL LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 09/02/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Michael Phan (Plaintiff) CRS# 949512605227 in Department 18 1. Special Interrogatory 26 The Court finds that Bay View’s objections to the special interrogatory 26 are without merit, and that its response is incomplete.

This special interrogatory asked Bay View: “Please identify all class members whose employment is governed by a Collective Bargaining Agreement.” (Resp. Separate Stmt. 4:11–12, Aug. 19, 2026 (cleaned up).) Bay View responded:

Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is unduly burdensome.

Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks disclosure of private information of nonparty employees of Defendant, which would violate their privacy rights under the California Constitution, U.S. Constitution, and common law privacy protections.

There is no legitimate reason to obtain the private information of approximately 630 absent class members before a class is certified.

Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it is premature and seeks class-wide discovery without establishing a prima facie case that the proposed class members suffered any violations.

Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it is unduly burdensome and not in the interests of justice and therefore should be sequenced pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2019.020 and 2019.030.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Defendant responds as follows: 263 of class members’ employment was governed by a collective bargaining agreement from March 20, 2021 to the present.

(Id. 2:8–20 (edited for readability).)

The Court first addresses the merits of Bay View’s objections before turning to the adequacy of its response. The Court overrules Bay View’s objection on grounds that responding would be unduly burdensome. Bay View did not carry its burden of showing that the amount of work required to respond outweighs the value of the information requested. (See W. Pico Furniture Co. of L.A. v. Super. Ct. (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 407, 417 (“Oppression must not be equated with burden. The objection based upon burden must be sustained by evidence showing the quantum of work required, while to support an objection of oppression there must be some showing either of an intent to create an unreasonable burden or that the ultimate effect of the burden is incommensurate with the result sought.”); see also id. 417–418 (placing burden of showing on party asserting oppression).)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV116097: PHAN vs BAY VIEW REHABILITATION HOSPITAL LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 09/02/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Michael Phan (Plaintiff) CRS# 949512605227 in Department 18

The Court overrules Bay View’s objection on grounds of premature or class-wide discovery. Bay View did not argue the merits of this objection in its opposition. (See Resp. Separate Stmt. 3:10– 4:9.) The Court deems this as a concession that the objection lacked merit.

The Court overrules Bay View’s objection on grounds of privacy. The names and contact information of potential witnesses are not private information. (See Williams v. Super. Ct. (2017) 3 Cal. 5th 531, 544 (ruling that the “default position is that [the identity of potential class members] is within the proper scope of discovery, an essential first step to prosecution of any representative action.”).)

The Court overrules Bay View’s objection—first raised in its opposition—that Phan’s declaration explaining the need for additional special interrogatories is defective. This objection was waived by not asserting it in response to the special interrogatory or by not moving for a protective order.

Turning to the adequacy of its response, Bay View’s response is inadequate as it stated that there are 263 class members responsive to the special interrogatory. Bay View did not provide the names and contact information, as requested. Bay View must do so.

2. Special Interrogatories 36 and 37 The Court finds that Bay View’s objections to the special interrogatories 36 and 37 are without merit.

These special interrogatories asked Bay View:

State all facts sufficient to show how “Sick” was calculated by you on wage statements for class members during the relevant time period.

State your policy during the relevant time period regarding when class members have earned "Sick," including all conditions that must be satisfied before payment is issued.

(Resp. Separate Stmt. 4:11–12, 6:6–8 (cleaned up).) To both, Bay View responded:

Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it exceeds the allowable amount prescribed by Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.030(b), and the accompanying declaration per Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.050 is substantively deficient in that it does not explain the reasons why any factor relied on is appliable to the instant lawsuit, as required by the statute.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV116097: PHAN vs BAY VIEW REHABILITATION HOSPITAL LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 09/02/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Michael Phan (Plaintiff) CRS# 949512605227 in Department 18 Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information already in Plaintiff’s possession, custody, and control.

Defendant further objects on grounds that it would necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary from documents and the burden or expense of preparing or making it would be substantially the same for Plaintiff.

Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it is premature and seeks class-wide discovery without establishing a prima facie case that the proposed class members suffered any violations.

Defendant further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it is unduly burdensome and not in the interests of justice and therefore should be sequenced pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2019.020 and 2019.030.

(Id. 4:14–26, 6:10–22 (edited for readability).)

The Court overrules Bay View’s objection on grounds that Phan’s declaration explaining the need for additional special interrogatories is defective. While conclusory, Phan’s declaration is sufficient. (See Choi Decl. Opp’n to Mot. Compel Further Resps., Ex. C, Aug. 19, 2026.)

The Court overrules Bay View’s objection on grounds that the information is equally available. By itself, this is not a valid objection: It merely excuses a party from making a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the requested information. (See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2030.220 (excusing a party from “mak[ing] a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations . . . where the information is equally available to the propounding party”) (emphasis added).)

The Court overrules Bay View’s objection on grounds that it requires it to compile and summarize documents. This is not a proper objection. Rather, section 20230.230 provides the responding party the option to identify documents and permit the asking party to “examine, audit, or inspect” those where responding to the interrogatory “would necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from the documents” and “the burden or expense of preparing or making it would be substantially the same for the party propounding the interrogatory as for the responding party.” (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2023.230.) Here, Bay View neither identified the documents nor permitted Phan to inspect the documents.

The Court overrules Bay View’s objection on grounds of premature or class-wide discovery. Bay View did not argue the merits of this objection in its opposition. (See Resp. Separate Stmt. 5:12– 6:4, 7:1–21.) The Court deems this as a concession that the objection lacked merit.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV116097: PHAN vs BAY VIEW REHABILITATION HOSPITAL LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 09/02/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Michael Phan (Plaintiff) CRS# 949512605227 in Department 18 The Court overrules Bay View’s objection on grounds that responding would be unduly burdensome. (See supra § III.B.1 (providing reasons for overruling objection).)

3. Special Interrogatories 38 through 41 The Court finds that Bay View’s objections to the special interrogatories 38 through 41 are without merit.

These interrogatories asked Bay View:

State all facts sufficient to show how "Travel Time" was calculated by you on wage statements for class members during the relevant time period.

State your policy during the relevant time period regarding when class members have earned "Travel Time," including all conditions that must be satisfied before payment is issued. State all facts sufficient to show how "WRP Bonus" was calculated by you on wage statements for class members during the relevant time period.

State your policy during the relevant time period regarding when class members have earned "WRP Bonus," including all conditions that must be satisfied before payment is issued.

(Resp. Separate Stmt. 7:23–24, 9:7–9, 10:19–20, 12:7–9 (cleaned up).) To each, Bay View objected on grounds that Phan’s declaration explaining the need for additional special interrogatories was defective, premature or class-wide discovery, undue burden, would require it to compile and summarize documents. (Id. 7:26–8:6, 9:10–19, 10:22–11:6, 12:11–23.)

For the reasons stated above (supra § III.B.1, 2), the Court overrules Bay View’s objections.

C. Sanctions The Court denies the requests for sanctions as unjust considering that Bay View did not respond to Phan’s initial effort to meet and confer but Phan made no further attempts to meet and confer before this Motion was filed.

IV. Orders The Motion is granted in part.

The Court denies the cross-requests for sanctions.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV116097: PHAN vs BAY VIEW REHABILITATION HOSPITAL LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 09/02/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Michael Phan (Plaintiff) CRS# 949512605227 in Department 18 Bay Side must serve further verified responses to special interrogatories 26, and 36 through 41, without further objection, no later than 20 days after Phan serves notice of entry of this order.

***

The Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Michael Phan on 07/15/2026 is Granted in Part.

Michael Phan (Plaintiff) must forthwith serve a copy of this order on all counsel of record and self-represented parties, and file proof of service.

CONTESTING TENTATIVE ORDERS

Notify the Court and all other parties no later than 4:00 p.m. on the day before the scheduled hearing and identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps:

1. Log into eCourt Public Portal - https://eportal.alameda.courts.ca.gov 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.