Peter Rasmussen, by and through his successor-in-interest vs. ALHL, LLC, a limited liability company

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 #4 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 #4 (Omnibus) 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 Qualified (“PMQ”) regarding “Documents #4 (Omnibus)” along with the production of

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 #4 in Department 16D

responsive 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.3:3-7.)

Defendants oppose, arguing that the present motion to compel is “moot” and “should be denied in its entirety” because (1) on 10/9/2025, defendant ALHL served objections and responses to the subject deposition notice “which made clear each document would, and in fact was, produced at the PMQ deposition;” (2) on 1/9/2026, the same day this motion was served, “verified supplemental responses” to the discovery requests “which asked for the identical documents in the PMQ #4 notice;” (3) the only exception was that at the PMQ #4 deposition, defendants did not produce documents or a witness regarding Topic/Request for Production Nos. 26, 40 and 52, as those were subject to appropriate objections;” (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.2:5-17.) The opposition also specifically contends this Court should deny the motion as it pertains to Document Request Nos. 26, 40 and 52. (Id., at p.6:1-21.)

In the reply, plaintiffs insist the opposition “substantively concede[s] plaintiffs’ motion as to Request [Nos.] 9, 11, 13-25, 27-38, 41-53 and 57-69” and 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. (Reply, p.2:6-p.3:6.)

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 p.3:8-21.) 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.3:22-27.)

Finally, plaintiffs provide specific reasons why they need the documents sought in Request Nos. 26, 40 and 52, as well as reasons why 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 #4 in Department 16D

opposition’s counterarguments are insufficient. (Id., at p.5:1-p.6:12.)

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 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.

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 #4 in Department 16D

Mootness. According to the opposition, the present motion to compel is “moot” and “should be denied in its entirety” because (1) on 10/9/2025, defendant ALHL served objections and responses to the subject deposition notice “which made clear each document would, and in fact was, produced at the PMQ deposition;” (2) on 1/9/2026, the same day this motion was served, “verified supplemental responses” to the discovery requests “which asked for the identical documents in the PMQ #4 notice;” (3) the only exception was that at the PMQ #4 deposition, defendants did not produce documents or a witness regarding Topic/Request for Production Nos. 26, 40 and 52, as those were subject to appropriate objections;” (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.2:5-17.)

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, while defendants maintain that they served on 10/9/2025 objections and responses to the subject deposition notice “which made clear each document would, and in fact was, produced at the PMQ deposition” (Opp., p.2:6-8), this is directly contradicted by another portion of the opposition as well as the very 10/9/2025 objections and responses to the subject PMQ deposition notice attached as Exhibit B to the Munoz Declaration in opposition.

More specifically, Page 4 of the opposition states that “Defendant’s objections and responses to the PMQ topics, served on [10/9/2025], responded to all of these Topic requests, except for Nos. 15-17, 25-26, 42, 45-54, and 62-69. (Exhibit B.)” (Id., at p.4:10-12 (underline added for emphasis).) Exhibit B to the Munoz Declaration confirms that defendant objected to each of these document requests (i.e., Nos. 15-17, 25-26, 42, 45-54 and 62-69) without an indication that any responsive document would be produced.

Accordingly, the opposition’s first argument is without factual support.

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 #4 notice,” such responses and/or production are not relevant to the disposition of the present motion to compel unless plaintiffs otherwise agree to accept the responses and documents under §2031.010 et seq. as compliance with the separate and distinct statutory obligations under §2025.010 et seq. Even if there were such an agreement in this instance (which there is not), the opposition concedes that the 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

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 #4 in Department 16D

documents or a witness regarding Topic/Request for Production Nos. 26, 40 and 52 ” (Id., at p.2:11-13.)

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.2:14-17) are unavailing and do not, in and of themselves, defeat the present motion to compel not only the subject PMQ deposition but also the production of responsive documents.

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 itself and as to any document request included in the subject PMQ deposition notice other than Document Request Nos. 26, 40 and 52, which are addressed below, the Court grants the motion as to the subject PMQ deposition and all other requests included with this deposition notice.

Document Request No.

26. This request asks defendants to produce “[a]ll face pages of complaints and/or claims regarding any other litigation concerning resident care, including pending lawsuits against YOUR FACILITY during the calendar year(s)” when the decedent resided at the subject care facility as well as “two calendar years before” his admission to same. Because the responsive documents are equally available to plaintiffs, the Court declines to compel the production of documents responsive to Request No. 9 as currently framed.

Furthermore, plaintiffs do not provide sufficient evidence that they are somehow disabled from obtaining on their own such “face pages of complaints” referenced in this request. As to plaintiffs’ argument on reply that this request is proper because it is relevant to whether Lodi Nursing would be on “notice of problems” at its facility, the request is not reasonably likely to lead to such evidence in that it seeks “face pages” of complaints regardless of whether Lodi Nursing was served with such complaints and regardless of when they may have been served or notice thereof was provided.

Indeed, this request, as presently framed, would encompass “face pages” for complaints never served and instead merely collected after this litigation was commenced.

Document Request No.

40. Plaintiffs here request the production of “[a]ll Staff

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 #4 in Department 16D

Competencies performed by YOUR FACILITY pursuant to the requirements of 42 CFR section 483.70(e)(1)(iii) from January 1 of two calendar years before the calendar year of PLAINTIFF’S admission to YOUR FACILITY, to the present.” However, plaintiffs state in reply they did not move to compel the production of documents responsive to Document Request No. 40 and thus, the Court need not address defendants’ arguments regarding Request No.

40. To the extent that similar issues may relate to other Document Requests at issue in this motion, the Court has granted this motion in such regard given that no specific opposition to other Document Requests (aside from the generalized arguments discussed and rejected above) is advanced in defendants’ opposition.

Document Request No.

52. This request asks defendants to produce “[a]ll employee turnover reports” for the subject care facility for each year of the decedent’s residency there, as well as two years before and two years after. While some of the information which may be reflected in the responsive documents may be discoverable in this case, the unqualified nature of this Document Request in its current form does implicate the privacy rights of the employees who may be identified in the responsive documents including, for example, specific identification of employee names and references to the grounds for an employee’s termination of employment.

Where privacy rights are implicated, the party seeking discovery must show more than mere legal relevance or likely to lead to admissible evidence. He/she must first establish that the information sought is not only “directly relevant” to the parties’ claims but also “essential” to a fair resolution of the lawsuit. (See, e.g., Alch v. Superior Court (Time Warner Entertainment Co.) (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1432-1433.) Additionally, in order to pass constitutional scrutiny, any discovery into matters deemed private must be “narrowly tailored” to obtain only the “essential” information and the party seeking the discovery must show there is no less intrusive means to obtain this information. (See, e.g., Tien v.

Superior Court (Tenet Healthcare Corp.) (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 528, 539-540; In re Marriage of Harris (2004) 34 Cal.4th 210, 244.) Even where all these prerequisites are met, there is still no categorical right to conduct discovery into the private matters as the trial court is required to “carefully balance” the rights and interests involved before permitting the proposed invasion of privacy. (See, e.g., Alch, at 1423-1425.) Because plaintiffs have not made the heightened showing necessary to persuade this Court that they are entitled to the unqualified production of responsive documents, this motion shall be denied as to Request No. 52 as it is framed here but as before, 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. 52 so as to exclude information which implicates the privacy rights of employees in their personnel matters.

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 #4 in Department 16D

Disposition

For the reasons explained above, the present motion to compel defendants' PMQ deposition “regarding Documents #4 (Omnibus),” along with the production of responsive documents at deposition, is GRANTED except as to Document Request Nos. 26 and 52.

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 Nos. 26 and 52, plaintiffs remain free to propound more carefully crafted, narrowly tailored document requests bearing on the same general subject matter as these two requests.

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

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.)