Peter Rasmussen, by and through his successor-in-interest v. 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.

34-2022-00329739-CU-MC-GDS: Peter Rasmussen, by and through his successor-in- interest vs. ALHL, LLC, a limited liability 06/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel the Deposition of the Persons Most Qualified from ALHL, LLC dba Lodi Nursing & Rehabilitation Regarding Documents #3 in Department 16D

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.

TENTATIVE RULING:

*** NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET IN SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 53 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 16D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION. PARTIES MAY CONTINUE TO APPEAR REMOTELY IN DEPARTMENT 16D UNLESS SPECIFICALLY ORDERED OTHERWISE. ***

Plaintiffs’ “Motion to Compel the Deposition of the Persons Most Qualified from Defendant ALHL, LLC Regarding Documents #3 (Pertaining to Policies and Procedures, Job Descriptions, Training and Staffing) and Request for Production of Documents at Deposition” is ruled upon as follows.

*** If oral argument is requested, the parties must at the time oral argument is requested notify the clerk and the opposing party of the specific discovery requests that will be addressed at the hearing. The parties are also reminded that pursuant to local rules, only limited oral argument is permitted on law and motion matters. ***

Factual Background

This elder abuse/wrongful death action was commenced in November 2022 against defendant ALHL, LLC, dba Lodi Nursing & Rehabilitation as operator of a skilled nursing facility, along with several other individual defendants. Trial is currently set for 9/28/2026.

Plaintiffs now move for an order compel defendant ALHL to produce its Persons Most

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 06/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel the Deposition of the Persons Most Qualified from ALHL, LLC dba Lodi Nursing & Rehabilitation Regarding Documents #3 in Department 16D

Qualified (“PMQ”) regarding Documents #3 (pertaining to policies and procedures, job descriptions, training and staffing) and request for production of documents at deposition on the grounds that “despite plaintiffs’ best efforts to secure the deposition and documents at issue, defendants [sic] failed to produce the witness for deposition, failed to produce the documents requested, and failed to provide potential deposition dates to plaintiffs so that the depositions could be scheduled in the future.” (Not. of Mot., p.3:1-5.)

Defendants oppose, arguing that the present motion to compel is “moot” and “should be denied in its entirety” because (1) responses and related documents to “all but three requests for further responses” were provided on 10/23/2025 and 1/9/2026; (2) on 1/9/2026, the same day this motion was served, defendants served “verified supplemental responses” to the discovery requests “which asked for the identical documents in the PMQ #3 notice,” with the “only exception” being that defendants “did not produce documents or a witness regarding Topic/Request for Production Nos. 9, 64, 70, and 80 as those were subject to appropriate objections; (3) “Defendants will provide a second supplemental response to requests 70 and 80, stating that after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, the responsive documents are lost;” (4) plaintiffs already “have all of the documents they have requested, including a verified response stating full compliance with the discovery requests;” and (5) “Plaintiffs’ request for a PMQ simply confirm those are the responsive documents is simply a tool to burden Defendant.” (Opp., p.2:6-20.) The opposition also specifically contends this Court should deny the motion as it pertains to Request for Production, Nos. 9 and 64. (Id., at p.8:5-p.11:15.)

In the reply, plaintiffs “withdraw” their motion to compel with respect to Request No 64 but then contend that the opposition “substantively concede[s] plaintiffs’ motion as to Request [for Production Nos.] 1-8, 10-63 and 65-80.” (Reply, p.2:1-21.) Plaintiffs further insist this motion to compel PMQ testimony along with the production of documents pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §2025.480 is “not moot” because of defendants’ production of documents in response to a “different discovery vehicle” (i.e., plaintiffs’ Request for Production pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §2031.010 et seq.) on the same day this motion was filed, especially when a motion is deemed filed when it is served and filed and when this “belated and partial production of documents was a calculated tactic meant to frustrate discovery in this case. (Id., at p.2:22-p.3:9.)

According to the reply, defendants “intentionally waited until the last minute to make a belated partial document production in response to another discovery vehicle” but since defendants’ responses include “meritless boilerplate objections” and provides none of the PMQ testimony sought by plaintiffs, this motion cannot be considered “moot.” (Id., at

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 06/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel the Deposition of the Persons Most Qualified from ALHL, LLC dba Lodi Nursing & Rehabilitation Regarding Documents #3 in Department 16D

p.3:9-24.) Plaintiffs add that any argument in the opposition about undue burden and the like is factually and legally meritless particularly when “[t]hese are standard documents sought in elder abuse matters” and plaintiffs have set forth why they need the PMQ testimony and documents sought to prove their case. (Id., at p.4:1-p.5:21.) Finally, plaintiffs provide specific reasons why they need the documents “identifying the governing body” for the subject care facility and explain why defendants’ counterarguments are insufficient. (Id., at p.5:22-p.8:17.)

Legal Standards for Discovery

“[A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc. §2017.010.) “In the absence of contrary court order, a civil litigant’s right to discovery is broad...[and] statutes governing discovery ‘must be construed liberally in favor of disclosure unless the request is clearly improper by virtue of well-established causes for denial.’ [Citation.]” (Williams v.

Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541; see also Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 378 [“disclosure is a matter of right unless statutory or public policy considerations clearly prohibit it”].) Nevertheless, while civil discovery is broad, it is not limitless. (Board of Registered Nursing v. Superior Court (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 1011, 1039 [citing Calcor Space Facility v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 223].) It cannot be based on pure speculation. (Digital Music News LLC v.

Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216, 227.)

The party seeking to resist discovery based upon objections has the burden to justify its objections. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255 [citing Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 220-221].) Indeed, in the discovery context, information is relevant “if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. [Citations omitted.] Admissibility is not the test and information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence.” (Lipton v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611-1612 [emphasis in original].) “Any doubts regarding relevance are generally resolved in favor of allowing the discovery.” (Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 98.)

Discussion

At the outset, the parties are reminded that they remain free to stipulate to the

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 06/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel the Deposition of the Persons Most Qualified from ALHL, LLC dba Lodi Nursing & Rehabilitation Regarding Documents #3 in Department 16D

appointment of a discovery referee who can more quickly and efficiently address the parties’ discovery needs in this case. If they agree to having someone act as discovery referee, the parties may prepare and submit a stipulation and proposed order pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §638, using Judicial Council-approved forms ADR-109 and ADR-110. The parties are also advised that this Court may in the future appoint a referee on its own motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 639.

Mootness. According to the opposition, the present motion to compel is “moot” and “should be denied in its entirety” because (1) responses and related documents to “all but three requests for further responses” were provided on 10/23/2025 and 1/9/2026; (2) on 1/9/2026, the same day this motion was served, defendants served “verified supplemental responses” to the discovery requests “which asked for the identical documents in the PMQ #3 notice,” with the “only exception” being that defendants “did not produce documents or a witness regarding Topic/Request for Production Nos. 9, 64, 70, and 80 as those were subject to appropriate objections; (3) “Defendants will provide a second supplemental response to requests 70 and 80, stating that after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, the responsive documents are lost;” (4) plaintiffs already “have all of the documents they have requested, including a verified response stating full compliance with the discovery requests;” and (5) “Plaintiffs’ request for a PMQ simply confirm those are the responsive documents is simply a tool to burden Defendant.” (Opp., p.2:6-20.)

As will now be shown, the opposition’s claim that this motion has been rendered “moot” and should therefore “be denied in its entirety” does not withstand scrutiny. First, defendants explicitly acknowledge that their responses and related document production on 10/23/2025 and 1/9/2026 were not complete (i.e., defendants provided responses and related documents to “all but three requests for further responses”). (Opp., p.2:8-10.) Second, while the opposition asserts that defendants served on 1/9/2026 “verified supplemental responses” to plaintiffs’ independent Request for Production pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §2031.010 et seq. “which asked for the identical documents in the PMQ #3 notice,” such responses and production are not relevant to the disposition of the present motion to compel unless plaintiffs agree to accept the responses and documents under §2031.010 et seq. as compliance with defendants’ separate and distinct statutory obligations under §2025.010 et seq.

Even if there were such an agreement (which there is not), the opposition concedes that defendants’ 1/9/2026 “verified supplemental responses” to plaintiffs’ Request for Production under §2031.010 et seq. were not complete insofar as defendants “did not produce documents or a witness regarding Topic/Request for Production Nos. 9, 64, 70,

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 06/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel the Deposition of the Persons Most Qualified from ALHL, LLC dba Lodi Nursing & Rehabilitation Regarding Documents #3 in Department 16D

and 80 ” (Id., at p.2:12-14.) Similarly, while defendants represent that they “will provide a second supplemental response to requests 70 and 80 ” (Id., at p.2:14-16), the representation of some compliance on an unspecified date in the future cannot be fairly construed as rendering the present motion “moot” given that a motion is deemed made at the time it is served and filed and here, the present motion was filed and served back on 1/9/2026. As such, the present motion cannot be properly considered as “moot” by virtue of some subsequent event, making defendants’ argument about an anticipated “second supplemental response to requests 70 and 80” ineffectual.

Finally, because the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §2025.010 et seq. are separate and distinct from those of §2031.010 et seq. and trigger separate and distinct statutory obligations, the opposition’s claims that (1) plaintiffs now “have all of the documents they have requested, including a verified response stating full compliance with the discovery requests,” and (2) “Plaintiffs’ request for a PMQ simply confirm those are the responsive documents is simply a tool to burden Defendant” (Opp., p.2:17-19) are unavailing and do not, in and of themselves, defeat the present motion to compel.

For all these reasons, this motion to compel cannot be considered “moot” within the meaning of §1005.5 nor is this Court persuaded that the present motion to compel “should be denied in its entirety” on any or all of the various grounds cited above. Because the opposition provides no other argument for denying this motion as to the PMQ deposition at issue or its included document requests other than Request Nos. 9 and 64, which are addressed below, the Court grants the motion to compel as to the subject PMQ deposition and as to all other document requests included in the subject PMQ deposition notice.

Request No.

9. The subject PMQ deposition notice includes a number of document requests and Request No. 9 seeks “[a]ll DOCUMENTS () identifying the names, addresses, email addresses, phone numbers and/or the DATES OF SERVICE () of all individuals who served on YOUR FACILITY’S governing body from January 1 of two calendar years before the calendar year of PLAINTIFF’S admission to YOUR FACILITY, to the present. According to the opposition, this request is “hopelessly overly broad as to time seeking nine years’ worth of documents, improperly seeks financial information, and implicates the privacy rights of Defendants and third party individuals, and seek irrelevant documents” but defendants have already provided plaintiffs’ counsel with the names of the members of the governing body” and advised that the latter may be contacted through defendants’ counsel. (Opp., p.8:8-p.10:17.)

Although the Court finds that the names of the individuals who served on the subject

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 06/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel the Deposition of the Persons Most Qualified from ALHL, LLC dba Lodi Nursing & Rehabilitation Regarding Documents #3 in Department 16D

care facility’s governing body shortly before and during the decedent’s residency, along with the dates of service, are relevant and discoverable, Request No. 9 is unreasonably overbroad as to time (as it seeks records up “to the present” even though the complaint alleges the decedent died in November 2020) and scope (as it seeks documents reflecting these individuals’ addresses, email addresses and phone numbers). The request is also unduly burdensome, oppressive and harassing insofar as it seeks not just the names of all individuals who served on the subject care facility’s governing body, along with their dates of service, but instead each and every document which bears the name or names of such individuals as well as those documents bearing their addresses, emails and telephone numbers, even where defendants’ counsel has represented that plaintiffs may contact such individuals through defendants’ counsel.

For these and other reasons, the Court declines to compel the production of documents responsive to Document Request No. 9 as currently framed. However, this ruling is without prejudice to plaintiffs’ ability to propound more carefully crafted, narrowly tailored document requests relating to the same general subject matter as Request No. 9 if plaintiffs determine that the names they have been provided are deficient and/or they are entitled to contact information even where defendants’ counsel have agreed to be contacted on behalf of such individuals and potentially produce them as needed.

Request No.

64. Because the reply indicates that plaintiffs have “withdrawn” Request No. 64, the motion is denied as to this particular request.

Disposition

For the reasons explained above, the present motion to compel PMQ deposition “regarding Documents #3 (Pertaining to Policies and Procedures, Job Descriptions, Training and Staffing),” along with the production of responsive documents at deposition, is GRANTED except as to Document Request Nos. 9 and 64.

Where this motion is granted, defendants shall produce for testimony the appropriate PMQ(s) for the subject deposition notice and produce any and all responsive documents without additional objections at a mutually agreeable time no later than 7/16/2026 (unless plaintiffs agree to a later date memorialized in writing).

Although this motion is denied as to Document Request No. 9, plaintiffs remain free to propound more carefully crafted, narrowly tailored document requests bearing on the same general subject matter as Request No.

9.

Neither side requested monetary sanctions and thus, none are awarded here.

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 06/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel the Deposition of the Persons Most Qualified from ALHL, LLC dba Lodi Nursing & Rehabilitation Regarding Documents #3 in Department 16D

Moving parties to provide notice of this ruling and file proof of service of same within five (5) court days.

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