PHAN vs BAY VIEW REHABILITATION HOSPITAL LLC

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# 216422403069 in Department 18

Tentative Ruling - 08/31/2026 Patrick McKinney

Plaintiff Michael Phan's Motion to Compel Further Responses to document requests 40 through 43 is granted in part.

I.

Background

In April 2026, Phan served Defendant Bay View Rehabilitation Hospital LLC, a second set of document requests. (Sanchez Contreras Decl. Supp. Mot. Compel Further Resps. ¶ 2, July 15, 2026; see also id. Ex. A (attaching requests).) The following month, Bay View responded to the requests. (Id. ¶ 3; see also id. Ex. B (attaching responses).) Phan emailed Bay View to discuss what he deemed were deficient responses to document requests 40 through 43. (Id. ¶ 4; see also id. Ex. C (attaching email).) Bay View did not respond. (Id. ¶ 5.)

In July 2026, Phan moved to compel further responses to document requests 40 through 43, and for a $3,690.00 sanction against Bay View. (Notice Mot. & Mot. Compel Further Resps, July 14, 2026.) Bay View opposed the Motion and requested a $5.620.00 sanction against Phan. (Opp’n to Mot. Compel Further Resps., Aug. 19, 2026.)

II.

Legal Standard

A demanding party may move to compel further response to an inspection demand if they deem that “[a] statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete,” “[a] representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive,” or “[a]n objection in the response is without merit or too general.” (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2031.310(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. (§ 2031.310(h).)

III.

Discussion

The Court partly grants Phan’s Motion as it concerns compelling further responses to document requests 42 and 43; partly denies Phan’s Motion as it concerns compelling further responses to document requests 40 and 41 and sanctioning Bay View; and denies Bay View’s request for sanctions.

For the reasons stated below, Bay Side must serve further verified responses to document requests 42 and 43, without further objection. 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# 216422403069 in Department 18 A. Document Requests 40 and 41 The Court finds Bay View’s statement of inability to comply with document requests 40 and 41 is adequate.

These requests asked Bay View:

For the relevant time period, produce documents sufficient to show how “Travel Time” was calculated on wage statements for class members during the relevant time period.

Please identify documents sufficient to calculate “Travel Time” earned by class members during the relevant time period.

(Resp. Separate Stmt. 2:6–8, 3:19–20, Aug. 19, 2026 (cleaned up).) To both, Bay View responded:

Subject to and without waiving its general and specific objections, Defendant responds as follows: After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Defendant does not have possession, custody, or control of documents showing how “Travel Time” pay was calculated.

(Id. 2:10–12, 2:22–24.)

Bay View’s statement of inability to comply is adequate. Section 2031.230 provides that a party stating an inability to comply must “affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made,” “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,” and “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.” (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2031.230.) With exception, Bay View’s statement complies with this section.1

Phan argued that “[i]f Defendant truly lacks responsive documents, Defendant should identify the payroll systems, databases, software, or personnel responsible for calculating Travel Time compensation and explain the methodology utilized to generate such payments.” (Id. 2:26–28.) The Court is unpersuaded that this information is required under section 2031.230. The Court does not comment on the proper means to obtain this information.

B. Document Requests 42 and 43 The Court finds that Bay View’s objections to document requests 42 and 43 are without merit and too general, and that its statement of compliance is incomplete.

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# 216422403069 in Department 18

These requests asked Bay View:

For the relevant time period, produce documents sufficient to show how “WRP Bonus” was calculated on wage statements for class members during the relevant time period.

Please identify documents sufficient to calculate “WRP Bonus” earned by class members during the relevant time period.

(Resp. Separate Stmt. 4:27–5:1, 6:17–18 (cleaned up).) To both, Bay View responded:

Defendant objects to this Request on the ground that it seeks documents already in Plaintiff’s possession, custody, and control.

Subject to and without waiving its general and specific objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant has already produced the agreed-upon 20% sample of class members’ time and pay records, the applicable collective bargaining agreements from July 1, 2021 to the present, and the wage statements for the agreed- upon 20% sample group. BAYVIEW_PHAN 000984-985, 005983-10688.

After a reasonable search and diligent inquiry, Defendant will also produce the collective bargaining agreement that applied to non-exempt employees from March 20, 2021 to June 30, 2021. See BAYVIEW_PHAN 010787-10818.

(Id. 5:3–11, 6:2–28 (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 the documents are in Phan’s possession. By itself, this is not a valid objection. Bay View did not argue the merits of this objection in its opposition. (See Resp. Separate Stmt. 6:4–15, 7:17–28.) The Court deems this as a concession that the objection lacked merit.

The Court also rejects Bay View’s argument that Phan lacks standing to pursue class claims arising from the WRP Bonus as he was not a union member. The Court will resolve this specific issue when addressing whether Phan’s claims are typical of the proposed class and whether Phan can adequately represent the proposed class.

Turning to the adequacy of its response, Bay View’s statement of compliance is incomplete. Bay View agreed to produce the collective bargaining agreement. Bay View argued that this is sufficient to permit Phan to calculate how class members earned the WRP Bonus. (See id. 6:12– 15, 7:25–28.) This suggests other documents may exist but were not produced. Bay View must

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# 216422403069 in Department 18 fully comply with the document requests.

B. 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 requests for sanctions.

Bay View must serve further verified responses to document requests 42 and 43, without further objection, no later than 20 days after Phan serves notice of entry of this order. 1 Bay View did not identify the name and contact information for the party who may be

in possession of responsive documents. Phan did not move to compel a further response to the document request on this ground, however. Accordingly, the Court does not further address this issue.

***

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

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# 216422403069 in Department 18 6. Select Click to Contest this Ruling 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select Proceed.