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 to Request for Production of Documents, Set One 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 Request for Production of Documents, set one (“RFPs”) 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 RFPs on October 30, 2024. (Decl. of Mathew W. Clark ISO Mot. to Compel (“Clark Decl.”) ¶ 3, Ex. A.) Plaintiff characterizes the RFPs as seeking documents “regarding: (1) Cerner’s EHR software, its features and settings implemented by Cerner at Rideout and in effect on August 25, 2021; (2) Cerner’s sepsis alert algorithms; (3) Cerner’s contentions regarding its EHR software and the settings at Rideout; (4) communications between Cerner and Rideout regarding Plaintiff; and (5) Cerner’s sales, marketing and training materials regarding its EHR software and sepsis algorithms.” (Mem. of P.&A. ISO Mot.[1] 1:14-19.)

Cerner served unverified responses to the RFPs 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 to Request for Production of Documents, Set One in Department 54

On March 14, 2025, Cerner provided supplemental unverified responses to the RFPs (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 RFPs, the instant motion followed. The motion concerns RFPs Nos. 2-9, 12, 13, 15- 20, 24, 25, 28, and 33-36.

Discussion

A party responding to a request for production must respond separately to each request by any of the following:

(1) A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand . . . by the date set for the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 2031.030 and any related activities.

(2) A representation that the party lacks the ability to comply with the demand . . . .

(3) An objection to the particular demand . . . .

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210, subd. (a).)

“A statement that the [responding] party . . . will comply with the particular demand shall state that the production . . . will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.220.)

“A representation of inability to comply with the particular demand . . . shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also 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. The statement shall 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.)

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 to Request for Production of Documents, Set One in Department 54

A valid response to an inspection demand is to object to it. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210, subd. (a)(3). “If only part of a [demand] is objectionable, the response shall contain a statement of compliance, or a representation of inability to comply with respect to the remainder of that item or category.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (a).) And “[i]f an objection is based on a claim of privilege or a claim that the information sought is protected work product, the response shall provide sufficient factual information for other parties to evaluate the merits of that claim, including, if necessary, a privilege log.” (Id. at subd. (c)(1).)

The requesting party is entitled to obtain an order compelling further responses to a RFP if the responding party’s statement of compliance to a demand is incomplete, the responding party’s representation of inability to comply is inadequate or evasive, or the responding party has made an objection that is without merit or is too general. Such a motion must set forth “specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) The burden of showing good cause “is met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.” (Glenfed Dev. Corp. v. Super. Ct. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.) If “good cause” is shown by the moving party, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objections made to the demands. (Kirkland v. Super. Ct. (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98 [citing Coy v. Super. Ct. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221].)

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

The Court discusses the RFPs as grouped by the moving party.

A. General Objections & Supplemental General Objections

Cerner interposed a series of general objections and supplemental general objections to the RFPs in their entirety.

These objections are overruled.

If a responding party objects to a request for production of documents, its response must “[i]dentify with particularity any document . . . to which an objection is being made,” and “[s]et forth clearly the extent of, and the specific ground for, the objection.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (b).) General objections made to an entire set of RFPs do not meet these statutory standards.

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 to Request for Production of Documents, Set One in Department 54

The Court also notes that Cerner argues in opposition to the motion that the motion should be denied as to several of the RFPs because Plaintiff has responded similarly to its written discovery. (See, e.g., SS 14:8-11 [“Plaintiff ignores, however, that his discovery responses asserted virtually identical objections. (Citation.) Plaintiff is not entitled to one set of rules for his discovery responses and another for Cerner’s.”].) Plaintiff’s responses to Cerner’s written discovery are not before the Court and are immaterial to the Court’s decision on this motion.

B. Nos. 2-4, 9, 22-23 (Cerner’s EHR software and its features and settings implemented by Cerner at Rideout and in effect on date of incident)

These RFPs seek documents regarding the EHR software and the St. John Sepsis Agent that were installed when Cerner’s EHR first went live at Rideout and on August 25, 2021; alert rules created by Cerner; and preferences that Cerner implemented for Rideout relating to delivery of alerts.

Cerner responded to each of these RFPs by interposing a combination of the following objections: (1) the request is overbroad and seeks documents that are not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, (2) certain terms used in the request are undefined and are therefore “vague and ambiguous,” (3) the request seeks documents more properly obtained from another party, (4) the request assumes certain facts, and/or (5) “Localized preferences implemented in the electronic health records system at [Rideout] . . . were configured based on existing localized preferences previously set by Adventist Health.

At the direction of Adventist Health, Cerner’s IT Works service extended the Adventist Health HER system to [Rideout], including already-existing localized preferences regarding the St. John Sepsis Agent (and other functionalities), which previously had been set by Adventist Health.”

Each of Cerner’s objections are overruled.

With the exception of RFP No. 4, after interposing objections, Cerner responded to these RFPs notwithstanding its objections, by saying it would “produce nonprivileged documents, if any,” responsive to the request “based on a search of locations likely to contain responsive documents after the entry of a mutually agreeable protective order[2] protecting the confidentiality of confidential, proprietary, and other non-public information.” (See, e.g., Cerner’s Response to Pl.’s Sep. Statement (“SS”) 4:4-7.) For some of its responses, including RFP No. 4, Cerner unilaterally limited the documents it would produce to those “between January 1, 2017 and August 31, 2021. (See, e.g., SS 5:6-8, 5:6-8.)

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 to Request for Production of Documents, Set One in Department 54

Plaintiff argues that Cerner’s responses “fail[] to provide an agreement to comply or statement of inability to comply, instead providing ambiguous language[,]” specifically, “based on a reasonable search of locations likely to contain responsive documents after the entry of a mutually agreeable protective order.” (SS 8:15-19 [emphasis omitted].)[3] Plaintiff contends: “The qualification on searches” creates “ambiguity and does not satisfy the requirement of a diligent search and reasonable inquiry.

Cerner either must agree to comply and produce responsive documents or provide a Code compliant statement of inability to comply affirming a diligent search and reasonable inquiry and the reason Cerner is unable to comply. The current responses do neither.” (SS 8:25- 9:3.) Plaintiff further argues that Cerner’s unilateral limitation to producing documents between January 1, 2017 to August 31, 2021 is inappropriate.

The Court agrees.

Plaintiff has shown good cause for the documents requested without the time limitations unilaterally imposed by Cerner. Further, the language Cerner included, qualifying its searches, does not comply with the Code of Civil Procedure and creates ambiguity. Such language is to be used when a party responds to a request for production by stating its inability to comply – not when it is producing responsive documents. Further, the qualifying language Cerner utilized is not the language the Code requires.

For the stated reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is granted as to RFP Nos. 2-4, 9, 22-23. Plaintiff is entitled to a further response to these RFPs, without objections and without the limitations Cerner stated with its responses.

To the extent Cerner withholds any responsive documents on the basis that they are privileged, Cerner shall provide a privilege log, which is “sufficiently specific to allow a determination of whether each withheld document is or is not [in] fact privileged.” (Wellpoint Health Networks v. Super. Ct. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 110, 130; see also Catalina Island Yacht Club v. Super. Ct. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1130.) “The precise information required for an adequate privilege log will vary from case to case based on the privileges asserted and the underlying circumstances.

In general, however, a privilege log typically should provide the identity and capacity of all individuals who authored, sent, or received each allegedly privileged document, the document's date, a brief description of the document and its contents or subject matter sufficient to determine whether the privilege applies, and the precise privilege or protection asserted.” (Catalina Island Yacht Club, supra, at p. 1130.)

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 to Request for Production of Documents, Set One in Department 54

C. Nos. RFP 7, 8, 15, 16, 18–20, 24, 25 (Cerner’s sepsis algorithms)

These RFPs seek documents regarding Cerner’s St. John Sepsis Agent, which was part of the software installed at Rideout, and Cerner’s Pediatric Sepsis Agent, which “specifically targets” symptoms in patients under 18.

Cerner responded to each of these RFPs by interposing a combination of the following objections: (1) the request is overbroad and seeks documents that are not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, (2) the request seeks documents showing the underlying source code for proprietary Cerner software, (3) certain terms used in the request are undefined and are therefore “vague and ambiguous,” (4) the request seeks documents more properly obtained from another party, (5) “localized preferences implemented in the electronic health records systems at [Rideout] . . . are determined by the hospital,” (6) the request is unduly burdensome, and/or (7) the request “seeks communications protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, common interest privilege or protection, joint defense privilege, risk management privilege, or any other privilege, protection, or immunity.”

Cerner’s overbroad/irrelevant, vague/ambiguous, “more properly obtained from another party,” and “localized preferences” objections are overruled for the same reasons the Court provided under subheading B.

Cerner’s unduly burdensome objection is also overruled. Undue burden objections must be accompanied by a specific factual showing setting forth the amount of work necessary to respond to the subject discovery. (West Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417-418.) Cerner’s opposition is devoid of any factual showing whatsoever.

Should Cerner ultimately withhold responsive documents from production on the basis of an asserted privilege, including trade secret (source code), it shall provide a privilege log. (See Altavion, Inc. v. Konica Minolta Systems Laboratory, Inc. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 26, 59 [stating “it is well established that source code can constitute a protectable trade secret”].)

With the exception of RFP No. 18, after interposing objections, Cerner responded to these RFPs notwithstanding its objections, by saying it would “produce nonprivileged documents, if any,” responsive to the request “based on a search of locations likely to contain responsive documents after the entry of a mutually agreeable protective order protecting the confidentiality of confidential, proprietary, and other non-public information.” (See, e.g., SS 15:26-16:4.) For some of its responses, Cerner unilaterally limited the documents it would produce to those “between January 1, 2017 and August

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 to Request for Production of Documents, Set One in Department 54

31, 2021. (See, e.g., SS 16:1-2.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff has shown good cause for the documents requested without the time limitations imposed by Cerner.[4] Further, as stated under subheading B, the language Cerner included, qualifying its searches, does not comply with the Code of Civil Procedure and creates ambiguity.

For the stated reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is granted as to RFP Nos. RFP 7, 8, 15, 16, 19–20, 24, 25. Plaintiff is entitled to a further response to these RFPs, without objections other than privilege and without the limitations Cerner stated with its responses.

Plaintiff’s motion is denied as to RFP No. 18, because Cerner’s supplemental response did not include the limitation qualifying its search. The supplemental response also did not include any unilaterally imposed date limitation.

D. Nos. 5, 6, 12, 13, 17 (Contention interrogatories)

These RFPs seek documents reflecting and supporting Cerner’s contentions regarding alert settings it contends were customizable/were actually customized, delivery of sepsis alerts to Plaintiff’s healthcare providers, and communications with the hospital regarding customizations that Cerner contends prevented an alert from being delivered.

Cerner interposed a combination of the following objections to each of these RFPs: (1) Cerner is a defendant in this action, has filed a demurrer, and has not made any contentions; (2) the request seeks documents more properly obtained from another party; (3) certain terms used in the request are undefined and are therefore “vague and ambiguous”; (4) “Cerner . . . delivers sepsis alerts to hospitals by way of the cloud”; and (5) the request seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, common interest privilege or protection, joint defense privilege, risk management privilege, or any other privilege, protection, or immunity.

Cerner’s objection that it had not yet made any contentions at the time it served its responses to the RFPs is overruled. “A plaintiff may make a demand for inspection . . . without leave of court at any time that is 10 days after the service of the summons on, or appearance by, the party to whom the demand is directed, whichever is first.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.020, subd. (b).) To the extent Cerner could not have responded to the RFPs to which it interposed this objection, Cerner could have stated its inability to comply. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210, subd. (a)(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 to Request for Production of Documents, Set One in Department 54

Cerner’s remaining objections, other than those based on a privilege or a related protection, are also overruled.

Should Cerner ultimately withhold responsive documents from production on the basis of an asserted privilege, it shall provide a privilege log.

After interposing objections, Cerner responded to these RFPs, notwithstanding its objections, by saying it would “produce nonprivileged documents, if any,” responsive to the request “based on a search of locations likely to contain responsive documents after the entry of a mutually agreeable protective order protecting the confidentiality of confidential, proprietary, and other non-public information.” (See, e.g., SS 31:23-32:2.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff has shown good cause for the documents requested without the language Cerner included, qualifying its searches.

For the stated reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is granted as to RFP Nos. 5, 6, 12, 13, 17. Plaintiff is entitled to a further response to these RFPs, without objections other than privilege and without the limitation Cerner stated with its responses.

E. Request No. 28

RFP No. 28 asks Cerner to produce: “All COMMUNICATIONS, including E-MAILS, between YOU and [RIDEOUT] regarding Christopher Younger, sent or received at any time.” (SS 42:12-13.)

Cerner responded as follows:

Cerner objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad and seeks documents that are not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Cerner further objects to this request to the extent it seeks communications protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, common interest privilege or protection, joint defense privilege, risk management privilege, or any other privilege, protection, or immunity. Notwithstanding the foregoing objections and the General Objections, Cerner will produce nonprivileged communications, if any, between Cerner and Adventist Health or [Rideout] regarding Plaintiff’s care at Rideout based on a reasonable search of locations likely to contain responsive documents after the entry of a mutually

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 to Request for Production of Documents, Set One in Department 54

agreeable protective order protecting the confidentiality of confidential, proprietary, and other non-public information. (SS 42:15-23.)

Plaintiff contends that a further response to this RFP is necessary because of the qualification on searches that Cerner included in its response and because Cerner unilaterally limited the scope of communications it would produce to those “regarding Plaintiff’s care at Rideout.”

The Court agrees.

The Court overrules Cerner’s objections other than the objection based on a privilege or related protection. Plaintiff has shown good cause for the requested documents without the limitations Cerner included in its response.

For the stated reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is granted as to RFP No.

28. Plaintiff is entitled to a further response to this RFP, without objections other than privilege and without the limitations Cerner stated with its response.

Should Cerner ultimately withhold responsive documents on the basis of an asserted privilege, it shall provide a privilege log.

F. Nos. 33-36 (Cerner’s sales, marketing, and training materials)

These RFPs ask for training manuals, sales/marketing materials, and related materials provided to Rideout by Cerner concerning the use of Cerner’s EHR software, sepsis, St. John’s Sepsis Agent, and the Pediatric Sepsis Agent.

Cerner made a combination of the following objections to each of these RFPs: (1) the request is overbroad, (2) certain undefined terms used in the requests are vague and ambiguous, and (3) the request seeks documents protected by the attorney-client and other privileges/protections.

Notwithstanding the objections, Cerner responded to these RFPs by stating it would produce nonprivileged responsive documents, if any, for the time period “from January 1, 2017 to August 31, 2021,” concerning “Millennium and the St. John Sepsis Agent” “based on a reasonable search of locations likely to contain responsive documents after the entry of a mutually agreeable protective order protecting the confidentiality of confidential, proprietary, and other non-public information.” (See, e.g., SS 47:19-24.)

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 to Request for Production of Documents, Set One in Department 54

The Court overrules Cerner’s objections other than the objection based on a privilege or related protection.

Further, the Court finds that Plaintiff has shown good cause for the requested documents without limitations (how search to be conducted, date limitations, type of EHR software) Cerner stated in its response. (See SS 49:17-50:16.) The Court is persuaded by Plaintiff’s arguments concerning why it is entitled to documents that are responsive to the entirety of the RFPs as worded by Plaintiff versus as limited by Cerner.

For the stated reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is granted as to RFP Nos. 33-36. Plaintiff is entitled to a further response to these RFPs, without objections other than privilege and without the limitations Cerner stated within its responses.

Should Cerner ultimately withhold responsive documents on the basis of an asserted privilege, it shall provide a privilege log.

G. Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.280, subdivision (a)

In addition to its criticism of Cerner’s response to the subject RFPs, as grouped above, Plaintiff also argues that Cerner’s document production, to date, fails to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.280, subdivision (a), which requires “any documents or category of documents produced in response” to a request for production to be “identified with the specific request number to which the documents respond.”

Cerner does not dispute that its responses fail to meet this requirement and states that it “will undertake this effort.” (See Cerner’s Opp’n 14:9-16.)

Cerner must re-serve its document production in a format that allows for Plaintiff to identify the specific request(s) to which the documents respond in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.280, subdivision (a), no later than July 25, 2025, unless the parties mutually agree in writing to a later date.

H. 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. ¶ 29.) The Court notes that Plaintiff did file a reply brief.

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 to Request for Production of Documents, Set One in Department 54

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, subd. (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.

I.

Conclusion

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

Cerner must provide further verified Code-compliant responses to RFP Nos. 2-9, 12, 13, 15-17, 19, 20, 24, 25, 28, and 33-36 consistent with this ruling no later than August 1, 2025, unless the parties mutually agree in writing to a later date.

Cerner must also comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.280, subdivision (a), as set forth above, by the same 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.)

[1] Plaintiff filed its motion and supporting documents as a single filing. However, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities has its own pagination. Therefore, the Court cites to it in this ruling as though it were a separate document. [2] The Court entered a stipulated protective order on February 18, 2025 “to facilitate the exchange of information and documents which may be subject to

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 to Request for Production of Documents, Set One in Department 54

confidentiality limitations on disclosure due to federal laws, state laws, and privacy rights.” (Prot. Order 2:1-9.) [3] The Court finds that Cerner’s use of the phrase, “if any,” in its responses is acceptable. Cerner responded to the RFPs before knowing whether a diligent search and reasonable inquiry would result in any responsive documents to produce. [4] Cerner states in the SS that Cerner confirmed in meet and confer correspondence that “it had ‘conducted a reasonable search for documents post-dating the incident’ in response to certain requests and ‘is not withholding’ responsive documents” from 2021 to the present. (SS 27:25-28:9.) 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, and the Court has overruled Cerner’s overbroad objection.