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

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 Deposition of the PMQ from Defendant ALHL, LLC 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 #6 (Pertaining to IT and ESI) 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 compelling defendant ALHL to produce its Persons Most Qualified (“PMQ”) regarding “certain documents #6 (pertaining to IT and ESI),” along with the production of responsive documents at deposition, on the grounds that “despite plaintiffs’ best efforts to secure the deposition and documents at issue,

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 Deposition of the PMQ from Defendant ALHL, LLC in Department 16D

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 (1) “procedurally defective as Plaintiffs’ counsel failing [sic] to meet and confer in person, by videoconference, or telephone prior [sic] filing the instant motion pursuant to the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure, section 2016.040, subsection (a) and Code of Civil Procedure, section 2025.450, subsection (b)(2) to compel the production of the [PMQ] for deposition;” (2) “untimely and procedurally defective” insofar as “Plaintiffs’ counsel failed to file the underlying motion to compel further responses [sic] before the stipulated deadline of January 9, 2026;” (3) “moot” with respect to document request Nos. 3-8; and (4) document request Nos. 1 and 2 “are hopelessly overly broad as to time seeking five years’ worth of electronic correspondences and all electronic correspondences, improperly seek financial information, implicate HIPAA, the CMIA, and privacy rights of Defendants and third party individuals, are irrelevant, and seek documents protected from disclosure pursuant to attorney client privilege, attorney work product, and Evidence Code, section 1157.” (Opp., p.2:4-19.)

In the reply, plaintiffs first contend they adequately met and conferred prior to bringing this motion, as required by Code of Civil Procedure §2025.450(b)(2). (Reply, p.2:6- p.3:17.) According to the reply, §2025.450(b)(2) does not by its own terms mandate meet-and-confer efforts in person, by telephone or by video conference but instead provides the following:

The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance. (Underline added for emphasis).

Plaintiffs insist they permissibly complied with the latter provision of §2025.450(b)(2), which does not require meet-and-confer efforts to be completed in person, by telephone or by video conference, but regardless, relying on the supplemental declaration filed with the reply, plaintiffs state that their counsel did meet and confer with defendants’ counsel via video conference before and after the video deposition of Mr. Kahn on 10/23/2025 and via telephone in January 2026. (Id., at p.2:16-p.3:15.)

Plaintiffs next assert that this motion to compel was timely under Code of Civil

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 Deposition of the PMQ from Defendant ALHL, LLC in Department 16D

Procedure §2025.450 because (1) defendants never produced a PMQ pursuant to the subject deposition notice and (2) there was never any agreement to impose an “artificial deadline” applicable to this motion. (Reply, p.3:18-26.) Plaintiffs contend the email correspondence on which defendants rely relates only to other outstanding discovery matters that were subject to mandatory “jurisdictional deadlines under the Code of Civil Procedure.” (Id., at p.4:1-6.)

The reply contends this motion to compel PMQ testimony along with the production of documents pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §2025.480 is “not moot” with respect to document request Nos. 3-8 as a result of defendants’ responses to a “different discovery vehicle” (i.e., plaintiffs’ Request for Production pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §2031.010 et seq.), especially when the referenced responses include multiple objections, such responses are not compliant with §2031.220 et seq. and not a single responsive document was produced. (Reply, p.4:7-17.) Finally, defendants’ various objections to the “emails” sought by document request Nos. 1 and 2 “must fail.” (Id., at p.4:18-p.10:17.)

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

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 Deposition of the PMQ from Defendant ALHL, LLC in Department 16D

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.

Timeliness of Motion. As noted above, the opposition asserts that this motion to compel was not timely filed prior to the expiration of the parties’ “stipulated deadline of January 9, 2026.” (Opp., p.2:10-13.) The Court has carefully reviewed the cited email exchange attached as Exhibit 3 to the Batshoun Declaration in opposition and while these communications could have been more clear and precise as to what the parties were and were not agreeing to over the course of several days, the Court finds that the 1/9/2026 “stipulated deadline” is reasonably construed as applying only to those outstanding discovery issues subject to mandatory jurisdictional deadlines established by the Code.

Given that the present record indicates that defendants have to date not produced a PMQ pursuant to the subject deposition notice, there is under Code of Civil Procedure §2025.450 no specific statutory deadline for the present motion and thus, it seems illogical that plaintiffs would agree that the present motion would be governed by an artificial deadline of 1/9/2026. Consequently, the Court rejects defendants’ claim that this motion is untimely.

Meet & Confer. The opposition also contends this motion to compel is “procedurally defective as Plaintiffs’ counsel failing [sic] to meet and confer in person, by videoconference, or telephone prior [sic] filing the instant motion pursuant to the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure, section 2016.040, subsection (a) and Code of Civil Procedure, section 2025.450, subsection (b)(2) ” (Opp., p.2:4-9.) However, as pointed out by the reply, §2025.450(b)(2) itself provides in its entirety:

The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in

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 Deposition of the PMQ from Defendant ALHL, LLC in Department 16D

the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance. (Underline added for emphasis).

While the current version of §2016.040 does expressly require meet-and-confer efforts be conducted in person, by telephone or by video conference, §2025.450(b)(2) further specifies an alternative form of declaration is permissible and this alternative form reflects no specific limitation on the means of contacting the deponent about the nonappearance. Thus, based on the plain language of §2025.450(b)(2), this Court is unable to conclude that the present motion to compel can or should be denied on the grounds plaintiffs did not meet and confer either in person, by telephone or by video conference.

Mootness. According to the opposition, the present motion to compel is “moot” with respect to document request Nos. 3-8 because (1) defendants previously indicated in their 10/9/2025 objections/response to the subject PMQ deposition notice that “after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry,” it was determined that no documents responsive to Request Nos. 5-8 have never existed and (2) on 1/9/2026 defendants provided “verified supplemental responses” to plaintiffs’ Requests for Production, Set Six, Nos. 285-286 which are identical to document request Nos. 3-4 in the subject PMQ deposition notice, indicating that “after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, responsive documents have never existed.” (Opp., p.8:5-18.) However, as will now be shown, the opposition’s claim that this motion has been rendered “moot” does not withstand scrutiny.

First, although it does appear that defendants served on 10/9/2025 their response to and objections to the subject PMQ deposition notice and therein stated in response to document request Nos. 5-8 that “a diligent search and reasonable inquiry” had shown no documents responsive to these requests ever existed, this alone does not render this motion “moot” insofar as it appears that defendants have still not yet produced a PMQ for testimony in response to the subject PMQ deposition notice and plaintiffs have a right to explore during such deposition the nature of the search and inquiry performed in an attempt to confirm whether or not documents responsive to these requests may exist irrespective of what is asserted in the 10/9/2025 objections/response to the subject PMQ deposition notice. For this reason, the present motion to compel is not properly characterized as “moot” with respect to document request Nos. 5-8.

Second, while the opposition asserts that defendants served on 1/9/2026 “verified supplemental responses” to plaintiffs’ independent sixth set of Requests for Production pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §2031.010 et seq. which asked for the same

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 Deposition of the PMQ from Defendant ALHL, LLC in Department 16D

documents as the subject PMQ deposition notice, such responses 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., especially when it currently appears that defendants have not yet produced any PMQ for testimony in response to the subject PMQ deposition notice. Accordingly, this motion to compel cannot be considered “moot” nor is this Court persuaded that the present motion to compel should be denied with respect to document request Nos. 3-4 on such grounds.

Document Request Nos. 1-2. Both of these requests seek “[a]ll e-mails (including attachments) between any employee of YOUR FACILITY and any employee of any of the AFFILIATED ENTITIES at any time from January 1 of one calendar year before the calendar year of PLAINTIFF’S admission to YOUR FACILITY, to December 31 of one calendar year after PLAINTIFF’S discharge from YOUR FACILITY” not only “in their native electronic form or format with any metadata included” but also “exported from their native form or format into searchable.PDF format.”

The Court finds that as currently framed, both of these document requests are unreasonably overbroad in scope given that neither request contains any limitation other than the specified time period, making these requests in their present form unduly burdensome, oppressive and harassing insofar as they seek what is likely to be a large volume of documents many of which will likely have no meaningful relevance to the claims alleged in this case. Accordingly, the Court currently declines to compel the unqualified production of documents responsive to request Nos. 1-2 as propounded in the subject PMQ deposition notice.

Additionally, in light of the absence of any reasonable substantive limitation on the nature of emails encompassed by document request Nos. 1-2, this Court cannot on the present record conclude that the various objections which defendants have asserted in response including but not limited to the attorney-client privilege, the attorney workproduct doctrine, federal and state protections of medical information (including but not limited to HIPAA and CMIA), and Evidence Code §1157 are entirely without merit. Therefore, no blanket order overruling such objections will be issued here.

Moreover, given the clear breadth of documents encompassed by the current version of document request Nos. 1-2 which are not limited by any substantive matter whatsoever, the Court finds that defendants have also properly asserted objections based on the right to privacy. While even documents subject to privacy interests are not necessarily beyond the scope of discovery, where privacy rights are implicated, the party seeking discovery must show more than mere legal relevance or likely to lead to admissible

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 Deposition of the PMQ from Defendant ALHL, LLC in Department 16D

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.) Here, because plaintiffs have not made the heightened showing necessary to persuade this Court that they are entitled to the unqualified production of all emails responsive to document request Nos. 1-2 without any substantive limitations, the Court declines to grant this motion to compel as to these two requests in their present form based upon this additional ground.

However, 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 matters as Document Request Nos. 1-2.

Disposition

For the reasons explained above, the present motion to compel PMQ deposition “regarding Documents #6 (Pertaining to IT and ESI),” along with the production of existing responsive documents at deposition, is GRANTED except as to Document Request Nos. 1-2.

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 determined to exist 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. 1-2, plaintiffs remain free to propound more carefully crafted, narrowly tailored document requests bearing on the same general subject matters as these two requests.

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 Deposition of the PMQ from Defendant ALHL, LLC 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.)