RAKE, M.D. vs REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

22CV019075: RAKE, M.D. vs REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 05/29/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Plaintiff Palladino to Respond to Discovery Pursuant to Summary Discovery Motion Procedures; filed by Regents of the University of California (Defendant) CRS# A-19075-011 in Department 18

Tentative Ruling - 05/28/2026 Patrick McKinney

The Regents move to compel Named Plaintiff Michael Palladino, N.D. to respond to their Request for Admission (“RFA”) No. 11 or, alternatively, to answer the question he refused to answer at deposition of whether he held a religious objection to the Regent’s COVID-19 vaccination policy. The Regents’ RFA No. 11 states: “Admit that while YOU were employed by DEFENDANT, YOU had a religious objection to COVID-19 vaccination, which for clarity is the same as what YOU describe as an ‘injection of a COVID-19 biologic’ as stated in YOUR response to DEFENDANT’S RFA No. 9.”

At deposition, Dr. Palladino testified his “beliefs allow bodily autonomy,” and he does not prescribe to any specific religion. (Exh. A 138:4-11.) Dr. Palladino, however, refused to answer a question on the advice of counsel regarding whether he had a religious objection, and counsel interjected, “He isn’t relying on any religious exemption . . . .” (Id. at 139:21-22; see also 140:7- 14.) Following the deposition, the parties had apparently agreed that Dr. Palladino would answer the question in written discovery, but Plaintiffs have since rescinded that offer.

RFA No. 11 is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence regarding the claims and defenses in this action. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.) Plaintiffs, including Dr. Palladino, have placed whether class members have a religious or medical exemption in issue by seeking to represent a subclass of employees who applied for a religious or medical exemption, and by seeking information concerning other employees’ religious exemptions.

Plaintiffs argue that Dr. Palladino maintains a privacy interest preventing disclosure of the information requested by RFA No. 11, but the court is not persuaded under these circumstances. (See Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 556.) Dr. Palladino’s privacy concerns are sufficiently addressed by the Stipulated Protective, and Dr. Palladino may designate his verified response as confidential. Likewise, Plaintiffs’ argument that the “infirmity of UC’s mandatory injection program under privacy grounds is not saved by the offer of a procedure to apply for a religious exemption.” (Stmt. 8:12-13), addresses the merits of Dr. Palladino’s claims and The Regents mitigation defense, not the right to discovery. The court also disagrees that responding to RFA No. 11 requires Dr. Palladino to somehow “submit to an inquisition into his private religious beliefs.” (Id. at 9 & fn.2.)