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.

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 Strike Objections and to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories 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 Strike Objections and to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Sets One through Three” 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. ***

The notice of motion does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure §1010 or CRC Rule 3.1110(a), requiring the moving parties to state the “grounds” for the motion presented.

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 striking defendant ALHL’s “boilerplate, meritless objections” to Special Interrogatory Nos. 1-119 and 129-156 and compelling ALHL to

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 Strike Objections and to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories in Department 16D

provide complete and straightforward responses to same.

Defendant ALHL opposes, arguing that plaintiffs’ request to strike every objection lacks merit, as the moving papers provide “no analysis regarding which specific objections are not applicable in the context of each of the 146 Special Interrogatories at issue” and that the “vast majority of [this] motion is moot, as Defendant ALHL, LLC has provided supplemental [sic] responses to all but 3 of the 146 Special Interrogatories at issue, given the interrogatories are subject to appropriate objections.” The opposition further asserts that Special Interrogatory No. 95 seeks “personal financial information for individuals, which is protected by the Constitutional right to privacy,” while Special Interrogatories Nos. 111-112 “seek expert opinion information.”

In the reply, plaintiffs “withdraw” Special Interrogatory No. 95 but otherwise contends this motion is not “moot” insofar as defendant ALHL “strategically amended [its initial responses to Set One] after plaintiffs filed this motion, and as to Sets Two and Three, immediately before serving their [sic] opposition.” According to plaintiffs. “[t]his must fail.”

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

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 Strike Objections and to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories in Department 16D

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.)

Code of Civil Procedure §2030.300(a) authorizes a motion to compel further responses where the responses to the underlying interrogatories are “evasive or incomplete” and/or includes an objection which is “without merit or too general.” The responding party generally bears the burden of justifying any objections asserted in response to discovery. (See, e.g., Hartbrodt v. Burke (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 168, 172-174.)

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.

Objections to Interrogatories. As noted above, plaintiffs request an order striking all of defendant ALHL’s “boilerplate, meritless objections” to Special Interrogatory Nos. 1- 119 and 129-156 and compelling complete and straightforward responses to same. Defendant ALHL counters with an assertion that plaintiffs’ request to strike every objection should be denied because it lacks merit and that the moving papers provide “no analysis regarding which specific objections are not applicable in the context of each of the 146 Special Interrogatories at issue.”

Because this Court is not persuaded that each and every one of the objections which defendant ALHL asserted in response to Special Interrogatory Nos. 1-119 and 129-156 is either “boilerplate” or “meritless” and because even plaintiffs concede defendant has already provided further responses to most, if not all of these same interrogatories, the Court declines plaintiffs’ invitation to issue a blanket order striking all of defendant ALHL’s objections to the subject interrogatories. However, plaintiffs remain free to seek by appropriate motion in the future a ruling on specific objections which ALHL has included in its “supplemental responses” to Special Interrogatories, Sets One through Three.

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 Strike Objections and to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories in Department 16D

Mootness. According to the opposition, the “vast majority of [this] motion is moot” given that defendant ALHL has already provided “supplemental responses” to all but 3 of the 146 Special Interrogatories at issue in this motion. More specifically, the opposition asserts that defendant ALHL served “verified supplemental responses” to Special Interrogatories, Set One (Nos. 1-69) on 1/13/2026 and also served “verified supplemental responses” to Special Interrogatories, Sets Two and Three on 6/3/2026 through Three.

The Court rejects defendant’s suggestion that this motion has been rendered “moot” by virtue of ALHL’s service of “verified supplemental responses” on 1/13/2026 (Set One) and 6/3/2026 (Sets Two and Three). Code of Civil Procedure §1005.5 specifically provides that a motion is deemed made at the time it is served and filed and here, plaintiffs’ proof of service indicates the present motion was served on defendant ALHL back on 1/9/2026 and filed shortly thereafter, while the earlier of the “verified supplemental responses” were not actually served by defendant ALHL until 1/13/2026, several days after this motion was served.

Defendant ALHL did not serve its “verified supplemental responses” to Special Interrogatories, Sets Two and Three until 6/3/2026, nearly five (5) months after this motion was filed and served in January 2026. Consequently, this motion cannot be considered “moot” within the meaning of §1005.5.

Bulk of the Interrogatories. According to the moving papers, plaintiffs seek further responses to special interrogatory Nos. 1-119 and 129-156. Based on the opposition, defendant ALHL has already served “verified supplemental responses” to each of these interrogatories except Nos. 95 and 111-112 and this is construed as a tacit concession that ALHL’s prior responses to all of these interrogatories other than Nos. 95 and 111- 112 were in some fashion incomplete and/or insufficient. Therefore, the Court will here compel defendant ALHL to provide further verified responses, without additional objections, to special interrogatory Nos. 1-94, 96-110, 113-119 and 129-156.

However, to the extent defendant ALHL has already provided verified further responses to these interrogatories (without additional objections), it need not re-serve such verified further responses in order to comply with this ruling. To the extent moving plaintiffs may contend defendant’s verified further responses to special interrogatory Nos. 1-94, 96- 110, 113-119 and 129-156 are deficient for any reason, plaintiffs may file and serve an appropriate motion only after completing the requisite meet-and-confer process “either in person, by telephone, or by videoconference,” as now expressly required by the recently amended provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §2016.040(a). (Bold added for emphasis.)

Interrogatory No.

95. Because the reply indicates that plaintiffs have “withdrawn” Special Interrogatory No. 95, no further response to this interrogatory will be ordered.

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 Strike Objections and to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories in Department 16D

Interrogatory Nos. 111-112. The only other interrogatories at issue here are Nos. 111 and 112. Interrogatory No. 111 asks defendant ALHL if it “contend[s] that [its] employees’ conduct with respect to PLAINTIFF was at all times appropriate?” and in response, defendant ALHL asserted following array of objections:

The interrogatory seeks information protected from disclosure by the right to privacy and corporate privacy pursuant to the U.S. Constitution Amendment IV. The interrogatory also seeks irrelevant information that is unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Additionally, the interrogatory is hopelessly overly broad as to time and scope, rendering it unduly burdensome, oppressive, and harassing. The interrogatory seeks a legal conclusion. Moreover, the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous as to the phrase “conduct all times appropriate,” as it is not defined forcing responding party to guess and/or speculate as to propounding party’s meaning.

The interrogatory also seeks the premature disclosure of expert opinions in violation of California Code of Civil Procedure, sections 2034.010 et. seq., 2034.210, 2034.220, and 2034.270. Moreover, as phrased, the interrogatory seeks information protected from disclosure by attorney work product, attorney client information, information gather [sic] and analysis prepared in preparation of litigation, California Evidence Code, sections 1156 and 1157 et al., Health & Safety Code, section 1370, and Patient Safety Quality Improvement Act of 2005, See 42 U.S.C. sections 299b- 22(a) & (b), et. seq.; 42 C.F.R.

Sections 3.204, 3.206, et. seq.

Although the Court finds that some of the information potentially responsive to this interrogatory meets the liberal standard for discovery, defendant’s objections based on overbreadth, undue burden and oppression, vagueness and ambiguity, and calling for the premature disclosure of expert shall nevertheless be sustained so as to preclude an order compelling a further response to this interrogatory as it is currently framed. That is, as framed and propounded, the interrogatory seeks information which is beyond the specific conduct at issue in this action and thus, the interrogatory is subject to objection.

Also, notably, while an expert who has been retained by a party and designated as a trial witness may be treated as an agent of that party for purposes of furnishing facts known to the expert which are responsive to the interrogatory, there is no evidence that such retention and disclosure has occurred as to each and every potential trial expert who may have such information. (See, Sigerseth v. Superior Court (1972) Cal.App.3d 427, 433.) However, this ruling is without prejudice to plaintiffs’ ability to propound a more carefully crafted, narrowly tailored interrogatory on the same general subject as No. 111.

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 Strike Objections and to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories in Department 16D

Interrogatory No. 112 is a follow-up to No. 111 and asks “[i]f YOUR answer to the foregoing interrogatory is ‘NO,’ please identify all employee conduct toward PLAINTIFF of which YOU do not approve.” Because defendant ALHL asserted the same array of objections to No. 112 as No. 111 and because the Court has declined to compel a further response to Interrogatory No. 111, no further response to Interrogatory No. 112 will be compelled at this time. However, again, plaintiffs shall remain free to propound a more carefully crafted, narrowly tailored interrogatory.

Disposition

For the reasons explained above, plaintiffs’ motion to compel is GRANTED with respect to Special Interrogatory Nos. 1-94, 96-110, 113-119 and 129-156 but is DENIED as to Special Interrogatory Nos. 95 and 111-112.

Where this motion is granted, defendant ALHL shall provide further responses, without additional objections, to plaintiffs’ Special Interrogatories, Sets One through Three, no later than 6/30/2026 (unless plaintiffs agree to a later date memorialized in writing). (To the extent defendant ALHL has already provided verified further responses to such interrogatories, it need not re-serve the further responses in order to comply with this ruling.) To the extent moving plaintiffs may contend defendant’s verified further responses are deficient for any reason, plaintiffs may file and serve an appropriate motion only after completing the requisite meet-and-confer process “either in person, by telephone, or by videoconference,” as now expressly required by the recently amended provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §2016.040(a). (Bold added for emphasis.)

Although this motion is denied as to Special Interrogatory Nos. 111-112, plaintiffs shall remain free to propound more carefully crafted, narrowly tailored interrogatories bearing on the same general subject matter(s) as these two interrogatories.

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.)