Christopher Younger vs. Adventist Health and Rideout

34-2023-00332374-CU-MM-GDS: Christopher Younger vs. Adventist Health and Rideout 07/01/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses Special Interrogatories in Department 54

Tentative Ruling

The motion of Plaintiff Christopher Younger, a minor, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, Eric Younger (“Plaintiff”) to compel further responses from Defendant Cerner Corporation (“Cerner”) to his Special Interrogatories, set one (“SIs”) is ruled upon as follows.

Background

This action concerns injuries Plaintiff sustained when he was 14 years old from untreated sepsis, septic thrombo-emboli, and endocarditis. (FAC ¶ 6.)

Plaintiff alleges that the causes of his injuries are two-fold: medical attention from various healthcare providers that fell below the relevant standard of care, and failures of Cerner’s electronic health record (“EHR”) software, which was being used by Defendant Adventist Health and Rideout dba Rideout Memorial Hospital (“Rideout”), where Plaintiff presented for treatment on August 25, 2021. (FAC ¶ 7.)

Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this action on January 3, 2023, alleging a single cause of action for medical negligence. On August 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), adding Cerner as a defendant and causes of action for strict products liability, negligent products liability, and negligence.

On October 30, 2024, Cerner demurred to the causes of action alleged against it in the FAC (2nd – 4th causes of action), and the Court overruled the demurrer in its entirety on February 20, 2025. Cerner answered the FAC on March 3, 2025.

Plaintiff served Cerner with the SIs on October 30, 2024. (Decl. of Mathew W. Clark ISO Mot. to Compel (“Clark Decl.”) ¶ 3, Ex. A.) Plaintiff characterizes the SIs as “investigating . . . details regarding Cerner’s EHR software in place when Plaintiff was treated at Rideout, including its features, capabilities and functions and including the sepsis algorithm that Cerner contends triggered a ‘possible sepsis’ alert to ‘the cloud,’ as well as its pediatric sepsis algorithm, which was supposed to be implemented by Cerner but never was.” (Not. of Mot. & Mot. to Compel 2:10-14.) The SIs “also ask about Cerner’s contentions and the basis for them.” (Id. at 2:14-15.)

Cerner served unverified responses to the SIs on December 17, 2024. (Clark Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. B.) Cerner provided a verification for its responses on February 14, 2025. (Clark Decl., Ex. B.)

34-2023-00332374-CU-MM-GDS: Christopher Younger vs. Adventist Health and Rideout 07/01/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses Special Interrogatories in Department 54

On March 14, 2025, Cerner provided supplemental unverified responses to the SIs. (Clark Decl. ¶ 10, Ex. G.) Cerner served a verification for its supplemental responses on March 23, 2025. (Clark Decl. ¶ 14, Ex. I.)

After meeting and conferring regarding Cerner’s initial and supplemental responses to the SIs, the instant motion followed. The motion concerns SIs Nos. 5, 6, 8-10, 12, 14, 17, 19, 20, 22, 27, 33, 39, 40, 42, 45-50, 52-57, 61-66, 71, 72, and 74.[1]

The Court notes that Plaintiff has grouped the subject SIs according to his primary criticisms against Cerner’s responses thereto, i.e., that (1) the responses are evasive/non-responsive, (2) Cerner’s use of Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230 is improper, and (3) Cerner’s objections are improper. The Court follows this same grouping in its analysis of the SIs.

Discussion

A response to an interrogatory may consist of answers, objections, and/or the election to allow the inspection and copying of records. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.210, subd. (a).)

Responses must be “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220(a).) When an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it must be answered to the extent possible. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220(b).) Further, if the responding party does not have sufficient personal knowledge to fully respond to an interrogatory, the party may so state, but only after making a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by asking other people and organizations, unless the information is equally available to the propounding party. (Code Civ.

Proc., § 2030.220(c); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 406.) Responses should include all information that is then available to the responding party. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 782.)

When “an answer to an interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or making of a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from the documents of the [responding party],” it is a sufficient answer to that interrogatory for the responding party to refer to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230 “and to specify the writings from which the answer may be derived or ascertained” “if the burden or expense of preparing [the compilation, etc.] would be substantially the same for the propounding and responding parties. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230.) The responding party must describe the documents “in sufficient detail to permit the propounding party to locate and to identify, as readily as the responding party can, the documents from which the answer may be ascertained.” (Ibid.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00332374-CU-MM-GDS: Christopher Younger vs. Adventist Health and Rideout 07/01/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses Special Interrogatories in Department 54

The propounding party may move to compel further responses to interrogatories if they deem that “(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[,] [¶] [and/or] (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300(a).)

Applying the foregoing standards to Cerner’s responses to the subject SIs, the Court rules on Plaintiff’s Motion as follows.

A. Nos. 17, 33, 39, 40, 42, 45-50, 52-57, 74 (Evasive/Nonresponsive)

As an initial matter, the Court overrules each of the objections Cerner interposed in response to this group of SIs.

Cerner’s objections that the SIs are premature and/or a premature contention interrogatory are overruled. A plaintiff may propound interrogatories to a party without leave of court 10 or more days after the earlier of the service of the summons on, or appearance by, that party. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.020, subd. (b).) To the extent a responding party like Cerner claims that its ability to respond is limited because it was only recently added to the litigation, the Court reminds Cerner that Civil Discovery Act only requires responding parties to answer an interrogatory “as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (a).)

Cerner’s objections that the SIs seek information within the knowledge of another party are overruled. The Civil Discovery Act sets forth what a responding party is required to do if they do not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond to an interrogatory. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (c).)

Cerner’s objections that the SIs are overbroad and/or that certain terms used in the SIs are undefined and therefore vague and ambiguous are overruled.

Lastly, Cerner makes several objections that set forth its position on liability. For example, in response to SI No. 17, Cerner objects: “localized preferences implemented in the [EHS] systems at [Rideout], including relating to delivery of sepsis and/or possible sepsis alerts, were configured based on existing localized preferences previously set by Adventist Health. At the direction of Adventist Health, Cerner’s ITWorks service extended the Adventist Health EHR system to [Rideout], including already-existing localized preferences regarding the St. John Sepsis Agent (and other functionalities),

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00332374-CU-MM-GDS: Christopher Younger vs. Adventist Health and Rideout 07/01/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses Special Interrogatories in Department 54

which previously had been set by Adventist Health. Moreover, the Cerner ITWorks employees who worked on the implementation at Rideout Memorial Hospital were previously employed by Adventist Health and have since returned to Adventist Health.” (See Resp. to Sep. Statement (“SS”) 3:27-4:7.) These are not proper objections because they are not truly objections. Should Cerner opine such information is responsive to a SI, it should state the information in its response to the SI, not as an objection.

No. 17

Granted.

SI No. 17 asks: “Describe all localized preferences for ADVENTIST RIDEOUT that YOU set up in the CERNER EHR software operating at Rideout Memorial Hospital relating to delivery of sepsis and/or possible sepsis alerts.” (SS 3:18-20.)

After interposing several objections, Cerner responded: “Notwithstanding the foregoing objections and the General Objections, hospitals make their own configuration decisions and customizations regarding their electronic health records systems, including determining their localized preferences and customizations for the Millennium software and St. John Sepsis Agent, and Cerner therefore refers Plaintiff to [Rideout] for the answer to this interrogatory.” (SS 3:22-4:12.)

The Court finds this response to be evasive and nonresponsive for the reasons Plaintiff sets forth in Cerner’s Response to Plaintiff’s Separate Statement (“SS”). (See SS 17:5- 12.)[2]

No. 33

Granted.

SI No. 33 asks: “As of August 25, 2021, if an alert was triggered by CERNER’s sepsis alert rule, was the alert designed to automatically display in the [RIDEOUT] provider’s viewing module?” (SS 4:14-15.)

Cerner responded:[3] “Notwithstanding the foregoing objections and the General Objections, hospitals make their own configuration decisions and customizations regarding their electronic health records systems, including how an alert is displayed, and Cerner therefore refers Plaintiff to [Rideout] for the answer to this interrogatory. In addition, internal Adventist Health documents indicate that [Rideout] suppressed sepsis alerts for pediatric patients. [Citation.]” (SS 4:23-4:2.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00332374-CU-MM-GDS: Christopher Younger vs. Adventist Health and Rideout 07/01/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses Special Interrogatories in Department 54

The Court incorporates by reference its ruling on SI No. 17. (See SS 17:26-18:6.)

To the extent Cerner provided further responsive information in its response to Plaintiff’s Separate Statement (see SS 21:25-22:3), that information is not contained in a verified response to the SI and was, therefore, not considered in determining whether Cerner’s response to this SI is sufficient.

No. 39

Granted.

SI No. 39 asks: “Describe in detail all sepsis alert delivery modifications made by YOU from January 2017 through the present for [RIDEOUT].” (SS 5:8-9.)

Cerner responded: “Notwithstanding the foregoing objections and the General Objections, hospitals make their own configuration decisions and customizations regarding their electronic health records systems, including sepsis alert delivery modifications, and Cerner therefore refers Plaintiff to [Rideout] for the answer to this interrogatory. Cerner reserves the right to supplement this response.” (SS 5:16-19.)

The Court incorporates by reference its ruling on SI No. 17. (See SS 17:5-9, 17:12-16.)

No. 40

Granted.

SI No. 40 asks: “How does CERNER track software build customizations requested and/or made by its customers?” (SS 5:21-22.)

Cerner responded: “Notwithstanding the foregoing objections and the General Objections, hospitals make their own configuration decisions and customizations regarding their electronic health records systems, and Cerner therefore refers Plaintiff to [Rideout] for records of such configuration decisions and customizations. Cerner does not generally track customizations made by client hospitals. Where Cerner’s ITWorks provides support, customizations and configurations are not maintained in any particular format or repository.” (SS 6:3-7.)

In its supplemental response, Cerner further responded: “Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, see CERN009021, CERN007300, CERN009109.” (SS 6:9-10.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00332374-CU-MM-GDS: Christopher Younger vs. Adventist Health and Rideout 07/01/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses Special Interrogatories in Department 54

The Court finds Cerner’s responses to be insufficient for the reasons Plaintiff sets forth in the SS. (See SS 18:23-19:2.) Cerner’s initial answer and supplemental response create confusion because they are inconsistent. Further, the supplemental response simply refers to documents without following the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230.

No. 42

Granted.

SI No. 42 asks: “Do YOU contend that an alert triggered by YOUR sepsis algorithm was delivered to Christopher Younger’s healthcare providers at [Rideout] on August 25, 2021-August 26, 2021?” (SS 6:12-14.)

Cerner responded: “Cerner generated two alerts of possible sepsis for Christopher Younger at 10:58 p.m. PDT on August 25, 2021, and at 3:08 a.m. PDT on August 26, 2021, which were delivered and available to [Rideout] through the cloud. Hospitals make their own configuration decisions and customizations regarding their localized preferences and customizations for the display and delivery of sepsis alerts to healthcare providers, and Cerner therefore refers Plaintiff to [Rideout] for the answer to this interrogatory.” (SS 6:22-28.)

In its supplemental response: Cerner further responded: “Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Rideout has admitted that it configured the St. John Sepsis Agent to disable sepsis alerts for all patients less than 18 years old, see Rideout’s Response to Plaintiff’s Second Set of Special Interrogatories (Jan. 29, 2025), Nos. 67, 69.” (SS 7:2-4.)

The Court finds that Cerner’s response, as supplemented, is sufficient. However, the supplemental response was made subject to its objections, which the Court has overruled.

Cerner states in the SS that it is not withholding any responsive information on the basis of its objections (see SS 24:3-4, 24:17-26); however, the Court finds that information Cerner provided in meet and confer correspondence or the SS does not obviate its obligation to provide Code-compliant responses to the SIs.

Plaintiff is entitled to a further response, without any objections, so that it is clear Cerner did not withhold any responsive information on the basis of any of its overruled objections.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00332374-CU-MM-GDS: Christopher Younger vs. Adventist Health and Rideout 07/01/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses Special Interrogatories in Department 54

No. 45

Granted.

SI No. 45 asks: “If YOU contend that an alert triggered by YOUR sepsis algorithm was delivered to Christopher Younger’s healthcare providers at [Rideout] on August 25, 2021-August 26, 2021, state all facts that support YOUR contention.” (SS 7:6-8.)

Cerner responded: “Notwithstanding the foregoing objections and the General Objections, Cerner generated two alerts of possible sepsis for Christopher Younger at 10:58 p.m. PDT on August 25, 2021, and at 3:08 a.m. PDT on August 26, 2021, which were delivered and available to [Rideout] through the cloud. Hospitals make their own configuration decisions and customizations regarding their localized preferences and customizations for the display and delivery of sepsis alerts to healthcare providers, and Cerner therefore refers Plaintiff to [Rideout] as to what the hospital did with those alerts.” (SS 7:16-21.)

In its supplemental response: Cerner further responded: “Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Rideout has admitted that it configured the St. John Sepsis Agent to disable sepsis alerts for all patients less than 18 years old, see Rideout’s Response to Plaintiff’s Second Set of Special Interrogatories (Jan. 29, 2025), Nos. 67, 69.” (SS 7:23-25.)

The Court incorporates by reference its ruling on SI No.

42.

No. 46

Denied.

SI No. 46 asks: “If YOU contend that an alert triggered by YOUR sepsis algorithm was delivered to Christopher Younger’s healthcare providers at [Rideout] on August 25, 2021-August 26, 2021, IDENTIFY the CERNER program or module and location where YOU contend the alert(s) was/were delivered.” (SS 7:27-8:2.)

Cerner responded: “Notwithstanding the foregoing objections and the General Objections, Cerner generated two alerts of possible sepsis for Christopher Younger at 10:58 p.m. PDT on August 25, 2021, and at 3:08 a.m. PDT on August 26, 2021, which were delivered and available to [Rideout] through the cloud. Hospitals make their own configuration decisions and customizations regarding their localized preferences and customizations for the display and delivery of sepsis alerts to healthcare providers, and Cerner therefore refers Plaintiff to [Rideout] for the answer to this interrogatory.” (SS

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00332374-CU-MM-GDS: Christopher Younger vs. Adventist Health and Rideout 07/01/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses Special Interrogatories in Department 54

8:10-15.)

Cerner’s response is sufficient. Unlike SI Nos. 42 and 45, Cerner’s response to this interrogatory was not made subject to its objections.

No. 47:

Granted.

SI No. 47 asks: “Do YOU contend that a SIRS or Sepsis alert for Christopher Younger triggered by CERNER’s sepsis algorithm was opened by any provider at [RIDEOUT] on August 25, 2021-August 26, 2021?” (SS 8:17-19.)

Cerner responded: “Notwithstanding the foregoing objections and the General Objections, Cerner generated two alerts of possible sepsis for Christopher Younger at 10:58 p.m. PDT on August 25, 2021, and at 3:08 a.m. PDT on August 26, 2021, which were delivered and available to [Rideout] through the cloud. Hospitals make their own configuration decisions and customizations regarding their localized preferences and customizations for the display and delivery of sepsis alerts to healthcare providers, and Cerner therefore refers Plaintiff to [Rideout] for the answer to this interrogatory.” (SS 8:26-9:5.)

In its supplemental response, Cerner further responded: “Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Rideout has admitted that it configured the St. John Sepsis Agent to disable sepsis alerts for all patients less than 18 years old, see Rideout’s Response to Plaintiff’s Second Set of Special Interrogatories (Jan. 29, 2025), Nos. 67, 69.” (SS 9:6-8.)

The Court finds Cerner’s responses to be evasive and nonresponsive for the reasons Plaintiff sets forth in the SS. (See SS 18:7-15.) The interrogatory asks if Cerner contends any alerts were opened by any provider, not whether the alerts were generated or where they were delivered.

Further, Cerner’s supplemental response was made subject to its objections, which the Court has overruled.

No. 48:

Granted.

SI No. 48 asks: “If YOU contend that a SIRS or Sepsis alert for Christopher Younger

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00332374-CU-MM-GDS: Christopher Younger vs. Adventist Health and Rideout 07/01/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses Special Interrogatories in Department 54

triggered by CERNER’s sepsis algorithm was opened by any provider at [RIDEOUT] on August 25, 2021-August 26, 2021, IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS evidencing that one or more alerts were opened.” (SS 9:10-11.)

Cerner responded: “Notwithstanding the foregoing objections and the General Objections, Cerner generated two alerts of possible sepsis for Christopher Younger at 10:58 p.m. PDT on August 25, 2021, and at 3:08 a.m. PDT on August 26, 2021, which were delivered and available to [Rideout] through the cloud. Hospitals make their own configuration decisions and customizations regarding their localized preferences and customizations for the display and delivery of sepsis alerts to healthcare providers, and Cerner therefore refers Plaintiff to [Rideout] for the answer to this interrogatory.” (SS 9:20-25.)

The Court finds Cerner’s response to be evasive and nonresponsive for the reasons Plaintiff sets forth in the SS. (See SS 18:7-15.)

No. 49:

Granted.

SI No. 49 asks: “Did the CERNER EHR software live at [RIDEOUT] in 2021 include a Pediatric Sepsis Agent? (For purposes of these interrogatories, Pediatric Sepsis Agent means a cloud-based product comprised of an algorithm that specifically targets sepsis symptoms in patients under 18 years of age and providers [d]iscern alerts that notify the care team of the patients with sepsis symptoms.)” (SS 10:2-4.)

Cerner responded: “Notwithstanding the foregoing objections and the General Objections, Cerner’s pediatric sepsis agent was available in 2021. Cerner refers Plaintiff to [Rideout] as to whether the hospital used Cerner’s or another pediatric sepsis agent at that time. Additionally, the St. John Sepsis Agent generated sepsis alerts for patients at [Rideout], including pediatric patients. Hospitals make their own configuration decisions and customizations regarding their electronic health records systems, including, for example, whether to use a pediatric sepsis agent or use the St.

John Sepsis Agent for pediatric patients, and Cerner therefore refers Plaintiff to [Rideout] for the answer to this interrogatory. Internal Adventist Health documents indicate that [Rideout] suppressed sepsis alerts for pediatric patients. See Ex. I to Rideout Memorial Hospital’s Amended Responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories.” (SS 10:9-17.)

In its supplemental response, Cerner further responded: “Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Rideout has admitted that it did not implement Cerner’s

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00332374-CU-MM-GDS: Christopher Younger vs. Adventist Health and Rideout 07/01/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses Special Interrogatories in Department 54

Pediatric Sepsis Agent, see Rideout’s Response to Plaintiff’s Second Set of Special Interrogatories (Jan. 29, 2025), Nos. 62, even though it was available starting in 2018. See CERN015235, CERN015238. The St. John Sepsis Agent implemented at Rideout could be utilized for pediatric populations, but Rideout has admitted that it configured the St. John Sepsis Agent to disable sepsis alerts for all patients less than 18 years old, see Rideout’s Response to Plaintiff’s Second Set of Special Interrogatories (Jan. 29, 2025), Nos. 67, 69.” (SS 10:19-24.)

The Court finds Cerner’s response to be evasive and nonresponsive for the reasons Plaintiff sets forth in the SS. (See SS 18:16-22.)

Further, Cerner’s supplemental response was made subject to its objections, which the Court has overruled.

No. 50

Granted.

SI No. 50 asks: “If the CERNER EHR software live at ADVENTIST RIDEOUT has included a Pediatric Sepsis Agent at any time from January 2017 through the present, state the date it was first implemented.” (SS 10:26-28.)

Cerner responded: “Notwithstanding the foregoing objections and the General Objections, Cerner’s pediatric sepsis agent was available in 2021. Cerner refers Plaintiff to [Rideout] as to whether the hospital used Cerner’s or another pediatric sepsis agent at that time. Additionally, the St. John Sepsis Agent generated sepsis alerts for patients at [Rideout], including pediatric patients. Hospitals make their own configuration decisions and customizations regarding their electronic health records systems, including, for example, whether to use a pediatric sepsis agent or use the St.

John Sepsis Agent for pediatric patients, and Cerner therefore refers Plaintiff to [Rideout] for the answer to this interrogatory. Internal Adventist Health documents indicate that [Rideout] suppressed sepsis alerts for pediatric patients. See Ex. I to Rideout Memorial Hospital’s Amended Responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories.” (SS 11:8-17.)

In its supplemental response, Cerner further responded: “Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Rideout has admitted that it did not implement Cerner’s Pediatric Sepsis Agent, see Rideout’s Response to Plaintiff’s Second Set of Special Interrogatories (Jan. 29, 2025), Nos. 62, even though it was available starting in 2018. See CERN015235, CERN015238. When Cerner’s EHR software was implemented at Rideout in August 2019, Rideout implemented Cerner’s St. John Sepsis

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00332374-CU-MM-GDS: Christopher Younger vs. Adventist Health and Rideout 07/01/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses Special Interrogatories in Department 54

Agent, which could be utilized for pediatric populations, but Rideout has admitted that it configured the St. John Sepsis Agent to disable sepsis alerts for all patients less than 18 years old, see Rideout’s Response to Plaintiff’s Second Set of Special Interrogatories (Jan. 29, 2025), Nos. 67, 69.” (SS 11:18-24.)

The Court incorporates by reference its ruling on SI No.

49.

No. 52

Granted.

SI No. 52 follows up on Cerner’s response to SI No. 50, and is granted for the same reasons that the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion as to SI Nos. 49 and 50.

No. 53

Denied.

SI No. 53 asks: “Between 2019 and 2022, did YOU charge any separate fee specifically for including a Pediatric Sepsis Agent in the CERNER EHR software?” (SS 12:20-21.)

Cerner responded: “Notwithstanding the foregoing objections and the General Objections, aside from initial charges to implement the pediatric sepsis agent, Cerner did not charge a separate licensing or software fee for hospitals to use the pediatric sepsis agent on an ongoing basis.” (SS 13:1-3.)

The Court finds Cerner’s response to be sufficient.

No. 54

Granted.

SI No. 54 asks: “If YOU contend a Pediatric Sepsis Agent alert was triggered for Christopher Younger on August 24, 2021-August 26, 2021, state the time(s) YOU contend the alert(s) was/were triggered.” (SS 13:4-5.)

Cerner responded: “Notwithstanding the foregoing objections and the General Objections, Cerner’s pediatric sepsis agent was available in 2021. Hospitals make their own configuration decisions and customizations regarding their electronic health records systems, including, for example, whether to use Cerner’s or another pediatric sepsis agent or use the St. John Sepsis Agent for pediatric patients. In addition, Cerner

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00332374-CU-MM-GDS: Christopher Younger vs. Adventist Health and Rideout 07/01/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses Special Interrogatories in Department 54

generated two alerts of possible sepsis for Christopher Younger at 10:58 p.m. PDT on August 25, 2021, and at 3:08 a.m. PDT on August 26, 2021, which were delivered and available to [Rideout] through the cloud. Internal Adventist Health documents indicate that [Rideout] suppressed sepsis alerts for pediatric patients. See Ex. I to Rideout Memorial Hospital’s Amended Responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories.” (SS 13:13-20.)

The Court finds Cerner’s response to be evasive and nonresponsive for the reasons Plaintiff sets forth in the SS. (See SS 18:16-22.)

Nos. 55 – 57

Granted.

These contention interrogatories ask Cerner to provide certain information if it contends a Pediatric Sepsis Agent alert was triggered for Christopher Younger on August 24, 2021-August 2, 2021.

The Court incorporates by reference its ruling on SI No.

54.

No. 74

Granted.

SI No. 74 asks: “Identify any updates to the SJSA since August 2021 that incorporate a patient’s age or apply different criteria based upon a patient’s age.” (SS 16:2-3.)

Cerner responded: “Notwithstanding the foregoing objections and the General Objections, version 15 is the version of the St. John Sepsis Agent available to hospitals, but hospitals can alter and customize the reference ranges and thresholds for vital signs based on a patient’s age within the St. John Sepsis Agent algorithm.” (SS 16:8-10.)

The Court finds this response to be evasive and nonresponsive for the reasons Plaintiff sets forth in the SS. (See SS 17:17-25.) The response does not answer the question asked.

B. Nos. 5, 6, 8-10, 12, 14, 19, 20, 22, 27, 61, 62, 70 (Use of Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230)

Initially, and except where stated below in connection with a specific SI, the Court overrules the objections Cerner interposed in connection with these interrogatories.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00332374-CU-MM-GDS: Christopher Younger vs. Adventist Health and Rideout 07/01/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses Special Interrogatories in Department 54

Cerner’s premature/premature contention interrogatory, overbroad, vague/ambiguous, and seeks information within the knowledge of another party objections are overruled for the same reasons the Court provided under subheading A.

The Court also overrules Cerner’s objection that an interrogatory is more properly posed as a request for production. This is not a proper ground to object to an interrogatory.

No. 5

Granted.

SI No. 5 asks: “IDENTIFY the Emergency Department software program(s) in place in the [Rideout] Emergency Department on the date identified in response to Special Interrogatory 3.” (SS 25:4-5.)

Cerner responded: “Notwithstanding the foregoing objections and the General Objections, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 2030.230, the answer to this interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from Cerner documents, and the burden or expense of preparing or making it would be substantially the same for Plaintiff as for Cerner. Plaintiff can locate and identify, as readily as Cerner, the documents from which the answer may be ascertained, and Cerner will give Plaintiff a reasonable opportunity to examine, audit, or inspect these documents and to make copies, compilations, abstracts, or summaries of them.

In addition, Millennium was the electronic health records software in use at Rideout Memorial Hospital in August 2019. Cerner refers Plaintiff to Adventist Health and [Rideout] as to what other software programs may have been in use at the Emergency Department.” (SS 25:13-21.)

In its supplemental response, Cerner further responded: “Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, see EHR installation records for Rideout produced at CERN007175?CERN007176.” (SS 25:23-24.)

Plaintiff has shown his entitlement to a further response to this interrogatory for the reasons stated in the SS at page 36:4-12.

Cerner provided additional responsive information in the SS (see SS 40:13-15); however, this information is not provided in a verified discovery response.

Further, Cerner’s supplemental response is made subject to its objections, which the Court has overruled.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00332374-CU-MM-GDS: Christopher Younger vs. Adventist Health and Rideout 07/01/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses Special Interrogatories in Department 54

No. 6:

Granted.

SI No. 6 asks: “IDENTIFY each EHR software upgrade or update implemented with respect to the Rideout Emergency Department between January 2019 and August 2021.” (SS 25:26-27.)

Cerner responded: “Notwithstanding the foregoing objections and the General Objections, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 2030.230, the answer to this interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from Cerner documents, and the burden or expense of preparing or making it would be substantially the same for Plaintiff as for Cerner. Plaintiff can locate and identify, as readily as Cerner, the documents from which the answer may be ascertained, and Cerner will give Plaintiff a reasonable opportunity to examine, audit, or inspect these documents and to make copies, compilations, abstracts, or summaries of them. In addition, a hospital decides what services to implement and when, including software updates, and Cerner therefore refers Plaintiff to [Rideout] for the answer to this interrogatory.” (SS 26:8-16.)

In its supplemental response, Cerner further responded: “Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, see EHR installation records for Rideout produced at CERN007175?CERN007176.” (SS 26:17-18.)

The Court incorporates by reference its ruling on SI No.

5.

No. 9

Granted.

SI No. 9 asks: “IDENTIFY each update or upgrade, if any, to the SJSA embedded in the EHR software operating at [RIDEOUT] between January 2019 and August 2021.” (SS 26:20-21.)

Cerner responded: “Notwithstanding the foregoing objections and the General Objections, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 2030.230, the answer to this interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from Cerner documents, and the burden or expense of preparing or making it would be substantially the same for Plaintiff as for Cerner. Plaintiff can locate and identify, as readily as Cerner, the documents from which the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00332374-CU-MM-GDS: Christopher Younger vs. Adventist Health and Rideout 07/01/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses Special Interrogatories in Department 54

answer may be ascertained, and Cerner will give Plaintiff a reasonable opportunity to examine, audit, or inspect these documents and to make copies, compilations, abstracts, or summaries of them. Moreover, a hospital decides what services to implement and when, and Cerner therefore refers Plaintiff to [Rideout] for the answer to this interrogatory.” (SS 26:25-27:5.)

In its supplemental response, Cerner further responded: “Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, see generally CERN015241.” (SS 27:7.)

The Court finds that Cerner’s response, as supplemented, is sufficient. However, the supplemental response was made subject to its objections, which the Court has overruled.

Plaintiff is entitled to a further response, without any objections, so that it is clear Cerner did not withhold any responsive information on the basis of any of its overruled objections.

No. 10

Granted.

SI No. 10 asks: “IDENTIFY all equipment YOU provided to [Rideout] from 2017 to present for use in the Emergency Department at any time.” (SS 27:9-10.)

Cerner responded: “Notwithstanding the foregoing objections and the General Objections, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 2030.230, with respect to the services Cerner provided, the answer to this interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from Cerner documents, and the burden or expense of preparing or making it would be substantially the same for Plaintiff as for Cerner, including in particular contracts between Cerner and Adventist Health relating to services offered by Cerner to Adventist Health. Plaintiff can locate and identify, as readily as Cerner, the documents from which the answer may be ascertained, and Cerner will give Plaintiff a reasonable opportunity to examine, audit, or inspect these documents and to make copies, compilations, abstracts, or summaries of them.” (SS 27:19-26.)

In its supplemental response, Cerner further responded: “Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, see contracts produced at CERN003513?CERN007174.” (SS 28:1-2.)

The Court incorporates by reference its ruling on SI No.

9.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00332374-CU-MM-GDS: Christopher Younger vs. Adventist Health and Rideout 07/01/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses Special Interrogatories in Department 54

Nos. 12, 14

Granted.

These interrogatories seek information and the identification of documents concerning whether Cerner’s EHR software in place at Rideout’s Emergency Department had a rule driven alert regarding MEWS on August 25, 2021.

The Court finds that Cerner’s responses, as supplemented, were sufficient. However, the supplemental responses were made subject to its objections, which the Court has overruled.

Plaintiff is entitled to further responses, without any objections, so that it is clear Cerner did not withhold any responsive information on the basis of any of its overruled objections.

Nos. 19, 20

Granted.

These interrogatories ask Cerner to identify all settings relating to its cloud-based sepsis alerts that were customizable by Rideout as of August 2021, and the customizations that Rideout actually made.

The Court finds Cerner’s responses to be insufficient for the reasons Plaintiff sets forth in the SS. (See SS 37:3-6, 37:9-10.) In Cerner’s supplemental responses, it provides examples of items Rideout had the ability to customize, but does not identify all sepsis alert settings that Cerner contends were customizable.

Further, Cerner’s supplemental responses were made subject to its objections, which the Court has overruled.

No. 22

Granted.

SI No. 22 asks: “IDENTIFY the CERNER EHR program or module where Sepsis or Possible Sepsis alerts were designed to be displayed to an Emergency Department provider at [RIDEOUT] as of August 25, 2021.” (SS 31:1-3.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00332374-CU-MM-GDS: Christopher Younger vs. Adventist Health and Rideout 07/01/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses Special Interrogatories in Department 54

Cerner responded: “Notwithstanding the foregoing objections and the General Objections, hospitals make their own configuration decisions and customizations regarding their electronic health records systems, including determining their localized preferences and customizations for the display of sepsis alerts, and Cerner therefore refers Plaintiff to [Rideout] for the answer to this interrogatory.” (SS 9-12.)

In its supplemental response, Cerner further responded: “Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, see CERN007304, CERN007420, CERN008006, CERN009021.” (See SS 14-15.)

The Court finds Cerner’s responses to be insufficient for the reasons Plaintiff sets forth in the SS. (SS 35:16-17.) Cerner’s initial response is evasive and nonresponsive, and the supplemental response only references documents without referencing Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230.

Further, Cerner’s supplemental response was made subject to its objections, which the Court has overruled.

No. 27

Granted.

SI No. 27 asks: “IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS reflecting the criteria utilized by YOUR module titled LH_SEPSIS_CLOUD_PILOT, version number 001.082.” (SS 32:16-18.)

Cerner responded: “Notwithstanding the foregoing objections and the General Objections, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 2030.230, the answer to this interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from documents already produced by Adventist Health, and the burden or expense of preparing or making it would be substantially the same for Plaintiff as for Cerner, including in particular documents reflecting the reference ranges and thresholds underlying the criteria for sepsis alerts.

Plaintiff can locate and identify, as readily as Cerner, these documents from which the answer may be ascertained. Moreover, hospitals can control and alter the reference ranges and thresholds underlying the criteria for sepsis alerts generated by the St. John Sepsis Agent. See Ex. I to Rideout Memorial Hospital’s Amended Responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories. Cerner therefore refers Plaintiff to [Rideout] for the answer to this interrogatory.” (SS 32:24-33:6.)

In its supplemental response, Cerner further responds: “Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, see CERN010856.” (SS 33:8.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00332374-CU-MM-GDS: Christopher Younger vs. Adventist Health and Rideout 07/01/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses Special Interrogatories in Department 54

The Court notes that in response to this interrogatory, Cerner interposes a unique objection that the Court did not discuss under subheading B, above. Cerner objected to this interrogatory on the basis that it “seeks documents showing the source code for proprietary Cerner software.” (SS 32:22-23.) The Court overrules this objection as the interrogatory does not ask for the contents of any responsive documents – only their identification.

The Court finds that Cerner’s response, as supplemented, was sufficient. However, the supplemental response was made subject to Cerner’s objections, which the Court has overruled.

Plaintiff is entitled to a further response, without any objections, so that it is clear Cerner did not withhold any responsive information on the basis of any of its overruled objections.

No. 61

Granted.

SI No. 61 asks: “IDENTIFY all individuals who built or maintained the Automated Event rules for the CERNER EHR software rolled out at [RIDEOUT].” (SS 33:10-11.)

Cerner responded: “Notwithstanding the foregoing objections and the General Objections, Adventist Health personnel built and maintained the sepsis alert rules for use at Adventist Health hospitals, and Cerner personnel assisted with the extension of those rules to [Rideout] after Adventist Health partnered with [Rideout]. Cerner therefore refers Plaintiff to [Rideout] for the answer to this interrogatory. Cerner reserves the right to supplement this response.” (SS 33:20-25.)

In its supplemental response, Cerner further responded: “Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, see the list of ITWx employees listed in Cerner’s production of documents, including at CERN008897.” (SS 33:27-28.)

As to this interrogatory only, the Court sustains Cerner’s objection that the interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent it is not limited to information relating to sepsis alerts. (See SS 33:14-18.) The Court sustains Cerner’s overbroad objection on that basis.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00332374-CU-MM-GDS: Christopher Younger vs. Adventist Health and Rideout 07/01/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses Special Interrogatories in Department 54

To the extent the interrogatory is limited to information concerning sepsis alerts, the Court rules as follows.

Cerner’s original response is evasive and nonresponsive as it only identifies categories of people, not individuals. The response states that “Cerner personnel assisted with the extension of those rules to [Rideout],” which evinces that Cerner should have additional information responsive to this interrogatory.

Cerner’s supplemental response is also insufficient because it refers to a document without referencing Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230. The supplemental response was also made subject to Cerner’s objections, which the Court has overruled (with the exception of the overbroad objection, discussed above).

No. 62

Granted.

SI No. 62 asks: “IDENTIFY all individuals who built or maintained the sepsis alerting rule live in the EHR at [RIDEOUT] from January 2017 through the present.” (SS 34:2-3.)

Cerner responded: “Notwithstanding the foregoing objections and the General Objections, Adventist Health personnel built and maintained the sepsis alert rules for use at Adventist Health hospitals, and Cerner personnel assisted with the extension of those rules to [Rideout] after Adventist Health partnered with [Rideout]. Hospitals make their own configuration decisions and customizations regarding their electronic health records systems, including determining their localized preferences and customizations for sepsis alerts. Cerner therefore refers Plaintiff to [Rideout] for the answer to this interrogatory. Cerner reserves the right to supplement this response.” (SS 34:9-16.)

In its supplemental response, Cerner further responded: “Subject to and without waiving the foregoing, see the list of ITWx employees listed in Cerner’s production of documents, including at CERN008897.” (SS 34:17-18.)

With the exception of the Court’s ruling on Cerner’s overbroad objection, the Court incorporates by reference its ruling on SI No.

61. The Court overrules Cerner’s overboard objection interposed in response to this interrogatory.

No. 70

Granted.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00332374-CU-MM-GDS: Christopher Younger vs. Adventist Health and Rideout 07/01/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses Special Interrogatories in Department 54

SI No. 70 asks: “Identify all patient identifications for Christopher Younger in your CERNER and/or ORACLE database.” (Index of Exs. ISO Pl.’s Mot., Ex. A at p. 45.)[4]

Cerner responded: “Notwithstanding the foregoing objections and the General Objections, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 2030.230, the answer to this interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from Cerner documents, and the burden or expense of preparing or making it would be substantially the same for Plaintiff as for Cerner, including in particular documents already produced to Plaintiff, including CERN000001 and CERN000002. Plaintiff can locate and identify, as readily as Cerner, the documents from which the answer may be ascertained, and Cerner will give Plaintiff a reasonable opportunity to examine, audit, or inspect these documents and to make copies, compilations, abstracts, or summaries of them.” (SS 34:25-35:5.)

The Court finds that Cerner’s response is insufficient for the reasons Plaintiff sets forth in the SS. (See SS 38:6-11.) In responding to an interrogatory using Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230, the responding party must specify the writings from which the answer may be derived or ascertained. Here, Cerner references that statute and identifies the documents from which Plaintiff can ascertain the answer as “including particular documents already produced to Plaintiff, including CERN000001 and CERN000002.” (Emphasis added.) Cerner’s response suggests that additional documents are responsive to this interrogatory, but Cerner does not identify them.

C. Nos. 63-66, 71, 72 (Objections Only)

Nos. 63-66

Granted.

These interrogatories seek information concerning whether Cerner ever performed an audit of the software build at Rideout.

Cerner objected to each of these interrogatories on the grounds that they are premature, overbroad, and “call for the disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, work product doctrine, risk management privilege, or other immunity or protection.” (See, e.g., SS 44:18-24.) Notwithstanding its objections, Cerner responds to each of these interrogatories by stating it reserves the right to supplement its responses.

The Court overrules Cerner’s premature and overbroad objections for the same reasons the Court provided under subheading A.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00332374-CU-MM-GDS: Christopher Younger vs. Adventist Health and Rideout 07/01/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses Special Interrogatories in Department 54

The Court also overrules Cerner’s privilege/immunity/protection objections as Cerner has provided no factual basis in the responses or the SS to support their application. “In response to a motion to compel answers [citation], the burden is on the party claiming a privilege to establish whatever preliminary facts are essential to the claim.” (Weil & Brown, supra, at ¶ 8:192 [citing Evid. Code, §§ 402, 405; Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc. Of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 596].) “Usually this is done by filing declarations in opposition to the motion to compel [citation].” (Weil & Brown, supra, at ¶ 8:1074; accord id., at ¶¶ 8:1179, 8:1179.1.)

Plaintiff is entitled to a further response, without objections, to these interrogatories. Such responses shall include all information that is then available to Cerner. (Deyo v. Kilbourne, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at p. 782.)

Nos. 71, 72

Granted.

These interrogatories seek information concerning whether in 2021, Cerner’s St. John Sepsis Agent had the same positive predictive value in patients under the age of 18 as those over the age of 18.

Cerner objected to both of these interrogatories on the grounds that they are premature/premature contention interrogatories, vague/ambiguous, and seek expert opinion. (See, e.g., SS 46:4-10.) Notwithstanding its objections, Cerner responded to each of these interrogatories by stating it “will exchange expert opinion evidence consistent” with the Code of Civil Procedure and rules and orders of the Court.

The Court overrules Cerner’s premature/premature contention interrogatories and vague/ambiguous objections for the same reasons the Court provided under subheading A.

The Court also overrules Cerner’s objection that the interrogatories seek expert opinion because Cerner has not shown how the interrogatories call for expert discovery.

Plaintiff is entitled to a further response, without objections, to these interrogatories. If Cerner does not presently have responsive information to these interrogatories, as stated in the SS (see SS 48:26-49:2), Cerner shall so state in its verified further responses.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00332374-CU-MM-GDS: Christopher Younger vs. Adventist Health and Rideout 07/01/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses Special Interrogatories in Department 54

D. Sanctions

Plaintiff requests $4,122.00 in monetary sanctions against Cerner and its counsel, Williams & Connolly, LLP and Downey Brand LLP, which represents five hours preparing the moving papers and an anticipated one hour drafting the reply at the rate of $687/hour for an attorney in their fifteenth year of practice. (See Clark Decl. ¶ 22.) The Court notes that Plaintiff did file a reply brief.

An award of monetary sanctions against a party who unsuccessfully opposes a motion to compel further responses is mandatory unless the Court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (d), 2031.310, subd. (h), and 2033.290, sudb. (d).) As the party who unsuccessfully opposed a motion to compel further responses, the burden is on Cerner to show such circumstances. (Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc. v. Superior Court (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 127, 139.)

As the Court has ordered Cerner to provide further responses to the vast majority of the discovery requests at issue, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED. However, the Court reduces the hourly rate to $600/hour.

Therefore, the Court awards monetary sanctions in the amount of $3,600.00 against Cerner and its counsel, jointly and severally.

E.

Conclusion

For the stated reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is granted in part and denied in part.

Cerner must provide further Code-compliant responses to SI Nos. 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 14, 17, 19, 20, 22, 27, 33, 39, 40, 42, 45, 47-50, 52, 54-57, 61-66, 70-72, and 74 consistent with this ruling no later than August 1, 2025, unless the parties mutually agree in writing to a later date.

Sanctions are imposed against Cerner and its counsel, jointly and severally, in the amount of $3,600.00. Sanctions shall be paid no later than August 1, 2025. If the sanction is not paid by such date, Plaintiff may lodge for the Court's signature a formal order awarding sanctions, which may be enforced as a separate judgment. (See Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.)

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.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00332374-CU-MM-GDS: Christopher Younger vs. Adventist Health and Rideout 07/01/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses Special Interrogatories in Department 54

[1] The Notice of Motion also references SIs Nos. 23 and 31, but they were not otherwise addressed in the moving papers, and Plaintiff concedes in the Reply that they are not at issue. (See Reply at p. 1, fn. 1.) [2] The Court notes that as to this grouping of SIs, and others, Cerner opposes the motion on the basis that Plaintiff has responded similarly to its written discovery, thereby demonstrating the appropriateness of Cerner’s responses and objections. (See, e.g., SS 23:17-24:3, 24:13-19.)

Plaintiff’s responses to Cerner’s written discovery are not before the Court and are immaterial to the Court’s decision on this motion. [3] Since the Court has ruled on Cerner’s objections as a group, above, it does not quote the portions of Cerner’s responses that are objections. [4] This SI is misstated in the SS. Therefore, the Court cites directly to the SIs, which are attached as Exhibit A to Plaintiff’s Motion.

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 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. 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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00332374-CU-MM-GDS: Christopher Younger vs. Adventist Health and Rideout 07/01/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses Special Interrogatories in Department 54

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 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.