Peter Rasmussen, by and through his successor-in-interest vs. ALHL, LLC

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

34-2022-00329739-CU-MC-GDS: Peter Rasmussen, by and through his successor-in- interest vs. ALHL, LLC, a limited liability 08/29/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Supplemental Interrogitories in Department 53

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.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants ALHL, LLC dba Lodi Nursing & Rehabilitation, Nasrin Tarin, Pang Linda Vang, Jennifer E. Villanueva, and Fabio Lando’s (collectively, “Defendants”) motion to compel further responses to supplemental interrogatories and request for sanctions is ruled upon as follows.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Moving counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel and advise them of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. If moving counsel is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to hearing, moving counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing.

The notice of motion includes the incorrect address for the hearing. The correct address for Department 53 of the Sacramento Superior Court is 813 6th Street, Sacramento, California 95814.

This action arises out of Peter Rasmussen’s (“Decedent”) stay at ALHL’s skilled nursing facility. Decedent, by and through his successor-in-interest, Ryan Rasmussen and Ryan Rasmussen, in his individual capacity (“Plaintiffs”) bring causes of action for elder abuse, negligent infliction of emotional distress, violations of the Patients’ bill of rights, and wrongful death.

In pertinent part, Defendants propounded a second set of discovery on Plaintiffs, including special and form interrogatories on October 23, 2023. (Declaration of Christina E. Batshoun (“Batshoun Decl.”) ¶2, Exh. 1.) Plaintiffs provided responses on December 19, 2023. (Batshoun Decl. ¶3, Exh. 2.) The Parties met and conferred throughout January and February of 2024 regarding these responses. (Batshoun Decl. ¶¶4-7. Exhs. 3-5.) Per an agreement between the Parties, Defendants propounded a supplemental interrogatory on February 29, 2024. (Batshoun Decl. ¶8, Exh. 7.)

Plaintiffs attempted to meet and confer regarding the supplemental discovery but did not receive a response from Defendants. (Batshoun Decl., Exhs. 8-10.) On or about April 3, 2024, Plaintiffs provided a response to the supplemental interrogatory. (Batshoun Decl., Exh. 10.) The response states that Plaintiffs require further substantive responses from Defendants in response to Plaintiffs’ request for production of documents, set one prior to responding to the interrogatory. (Batshoun Decl., Exh. 10 at p.2.)

It further responded that “subject to the foregoing, after reasonable inquiry Responding Party has no later-acquired information responsive to this request.” (Batshoun Decl., Exh. 10 at p.2.)

Defendants now move to compel Plaintiffs’ responses to their supplemental interrogatory.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00329739-CU-MC-GDS: Peter Rasmussen, by and through his successor-in- interest vs. ALHL, LLC, a limited liability 08/29/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Supplemental Interrogitories in Department 53

Plaintiffs oppose.

Defendants’ motion is DENIED for failure to meet and confer regarding Plaintiffs’ response to their supplemental interrogatory. Defendants’ counsel avers that the Parties met and conferred regarding inadequate responses to Defendants’ second set of discovery requests, including special and form interrogatories. (Batshoun Decl. ¶¶2-6, Exhs. 1-5.) The Parties agreed for Defendants to serve supplemental discovery, which Defendants served on February 29, 2024. (Batshoun Decl. ¶¶6-8.) Prior to responding to discovery, Plaintiffs sent two letters requesting Defendants meet and confer regarding the supplemental discovery. (Batshoun Decl., Exhs. 8-9.)

It does not appear that Defendants responded to these requests to meet and confer. (Batshoun Decl., Exhs. 9-10.) Plaintiffs ultimately responded to the supplemental interrogatory, noting that their repeated attempts to meet-and-confer went unanswered. (Batshoun Decl., Exh. 10 at 2:14- 15.) While Plaintiffs attempted to meet and confer regarding this discovery request, Defendants failed to meet and confer at all. (Batshoun Decl., ¶¶10-15.) Indeed, the Batshoun declaration is devoid of any contention that Defendants contacted Plaintiffs after they served responses to the supplemental interrogatory. (See generally Batshoun Decl.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (b) requires that a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories be accompanied by a meet-and-confer declaration pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040. To comply with Section 2016.040, the moving party must show a “reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion. This rule is designed ‘to encourage the parties to work out their differences informally so as to avoid the necessity for a formal order.’ [Citation.]

This, in turn, will lessen the burden on the court and reduce the unnecessary expenditure of resources by litigants through promotion of informal, extrajudicial resolution of discovery disputes. [Citations.]” (Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1435.) “[A] reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution entails something more than bickering with [opposing] counsel. Rather, the law requires that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate.” (Clement v.

Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1294.) The Court may deny a motion to compel based on a party’s failure to properly meet and confer. (See Townsend, supra, 61 Cal.App.4th at 1430.)

Here, the attached declaration does not demonstrate that any meet-and-confer attempts were made in relation to the supplemental interrogatory at issue in this motion. While the Batshoun declaration details meet-and-confer attempts regarding a second set of discovery requests, responses to these requests are not being compelled in the instant motion. Indeed, the deadline to compel those responses had passed by the time Defendants brought the instant motion to compel. (See Code Civ. Proc. §2030.300, subd. (c).)

The motion is therefore DENIED for failing to engage in any meet-and-confer efforts related to the special interrogatory at issue. As the Court denied Defendants’ motion, Defendants’ request

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00329739-CU-MC-GDS: Peter Rasmussen, by and through his successor-in- interest vs. ALHL, LLC, a limited liability 08/29/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Supplemental Interrogitories in Department 53

for sanctions is also DENIED.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC, Rule 3.1312.)