Mayra Barrera vs. Page Hudson

After meet and confer efforts took place, Dr. Saladin provided an amended response on August 10, 2023, as follows: “Responding Party objects on the grounds that this request is vague, and ambiguous, as to the term ‘legal relationship.’ Responding Party further objects to this request to the extent it seeks information which is protected from disclosure by Responding Party’s right to privacy as guaranteed to Responding Party by the California Constitution at Article 1, section 1. The constitutional right to privacy may be abridged, but only when there is a ‘compelling’ and

34-2021-00311890-CU-PO-GDS: Mayra Barrera vs. Page Hudson 12/26/2023 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents in Department 54

opposing state interest. Discovery and investigation are continuing, and Responding Party reserves the right to amend and/or supplement this response as further information is discovered.”

The parties then engaged in further meet and confer efforts wherein Dr. Saladin indicated he was agreeable to producing responsive documents if the parties executed a protective order because the responsive documents were sensitive in nature and invoked privacy rights. Dr. Saladin drafted a proposed protective order, which Plaintiff reviewed, but refused to sign. Plaintiff determined she did not agree that a protective order was needed for the documents to be produced. The parties continued meet and confer efforts, but were unable to resolve their dispute.

Plaintiff now seeks a verified further response on the grounds Dr. Saladin’s vague and ambiguous objections cannot be used to justify a complete failure to respond, no attorney-work product is sought, and the request seeks relevant information regarding the legal relationship between Dr. Saladin and defendant CC Amulet Management, which outweighs any alleged privacy rights. Plaintiff argues Dr. Saladin acknowledged in discovery responses that he contracted with CC Amulet Management for business management support and that documents regarding this relationship “pertain[] to the incident in question and should not be shielded behind claims of sensitivity or confidentiality.” (Motion at 6:28-7:1.) Plaintiff then contends the documents “are essential to establishing the factual foundation of the incident.” (Motion at 7:3- 4.)

Dr. Saladin opposes on the ground Plaintiff has failed to identify any good cause for the discovery sought, which consists of the proprietary business agreement between himself and defendant CC Amulet, LLC related to the operation and management of the dental clinic. Dr. Saladin notes this includes private financial and fee information and clauses concerning the use of intellectual property. Dr. Saladin contends it is unclear why Plaintiff is seeking such documents and that the business agreement is not relevant to Plaintiff’s claims for personal injuries. Moreover, Dr. Saladin notes neither he nor CC Amulet, LLC dispute ownership or involvement with the premises, and both have appeared to defend the case under the same insurance policy.

When requests for production of documents are involved, the motion for order compelling further responses “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(b)(1) (emphasis added); Kirkland v. Sup. Ct. (Guess”, Inc.) (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.) To establish “good cause,” the burden is on the moving party to show both relevance to the subject matter and specific facts justifying discovery (e.g., why such information is necessary for trial preparation or to prevent surprise at trial.) (Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Sup. Ct. (National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Penn.) (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00311890-CU-PO-GDS: Mayra Barrera vs. Page Hudson 12/26/2023 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents in Department 54

The Court agrees that Plaintiff has failed to meet her burden do demonstrate good cause justifying the discovery sought. The relevance of the business agreement between Dr. Saladin and CC Amulet, LLC to Plaintiff’s claims arising from her slip-and-fall on spilled coffee is not supported by any refence to specific facts that would establish why the documents are necessary to prepare for trial. Plaintiff only points to vague claims that the documents “pertain to the incident in question” and are needed to establish “the factual foundation of the incident,” which is insufficient and entirely unclear and conclusory.

On reply, Plaintiff attempts to rectify this failure by arguing the agreement “could contain information about the respective duties and responsibilities of the Defendants” and that “the details of their business relationship are relevant to coverage and Plaintiff’s ability to recover.” (Reply at 2:9-12). The Court notes that points raised for the first time in a reply brief are not considered by the court. (See St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 783; Campos v. Anderson (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 784, 794, fn. 3.)

However, even if the Court were to consider Plaintiff’s new arguments regarding relevance, they still fall short of setting forth specific facts demonstrating why the information is needed to prepare for trial. Plaintiff still relies only on vague statements that the agreement may somehow be relevant to Plaintiff’s claims, without elucidating specifically how that it so. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is DENIED.

The parties’ dueling requests for monetary sanctions against Dr. Saladin and his counsel is DENIED.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, or further notice is required.

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-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00311890-CU-PO-GDS: Mayra Barrera vs. Page Hudson 12/26/2023 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents in Department 54

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 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 be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.