WILLIAMS vs THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, INC., A CORPORATION IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.

23CV003379: WILLIAMS vs THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, INC., A CORPORATION IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al. 04/29/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Request for Documents, Set Four in Department 8C

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard at 1:30 p.m. in Department 8C in the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Richard C. Miadich presiding.

Any party who wishes to contest the tentative ruling below must:

(1) request a hearing by calling the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the noticed hearing date, and leave a voicemail message (a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; (b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and (c) confirming that they have notified the opposing party of their intention to appear; and

(2) advise the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

If a hearing is not requested by 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the noticed hearing date, the tentative ruling will become the final order of the Court.

If a hearing is requested, the Court prefers in-person attendance by the parties. However, parties may appear by Zoom unless the Court specifically orders in-person attendance. Parties choosing to appear by Zoom are reminded, however, that a Zoom appearance is still a formal appearance before the Court. Parties appearing via Zoom should do so from a quiet location, free from undue distractions, and wear attire suitable for an in-person court appearance.

The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link:

https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16039062174

SIP Address:

16039062174@sip.zoomgov.com

(833) 568-8864

23CV003379: WILLIAMS vs THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, INC., A CORPORATION IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al. 04/29/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Request for Documents, Set Four in Department 8C

ID: 16039062174

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf

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 or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be 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 SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 28 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8C 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***

Plaintiff Shaneice Williams’ (“Plaintiff”) motion to compel Defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (“Defendant”) to serve further responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Documents, Set Four is ruled upon as follows.

This matter was continued from March 18, 2026 after the Court found that Plaintiff had not

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV003379: WILLIAMS vs THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, INC., A CORPORATION IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al. 04/29/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Request for Documents, Set Four in Department 8C

established compliance with the meet and confer requirement before filing this motion. The Court noted that the motion was filed on January 2, 2026, and thus was subject to the recent amendment to Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040(a), which now requires “a reasonable and good faith attempt, either in person, by telephone, or by videoconference, to informally resolve each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2016.040(a), emphasis added.) Since there was no evidence that Plaintiff had attempted to discuss the responses with Defendant’s counsel in person, by telephone, or by videoconference, Plaintiff had not shown compliance with this requirement.

The Court also found that Plaintiff’s meet and confer efforts were insufficient even without the change to section 2016.040, as there was no evidence that Plaintiff had made a reasonable and good faith attempt to informally resolve each issue presented by the motion.

The Court concluded its order by stating:

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is CONTINUED to April 29, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 28. In advance of the continued hearing, the parties are directed to further meet and confer, either in person, by telephone, or by videoconference (e.g., Zoom), on the individual responses that are the subject of Plaintiff’s motion. During these further meet and confer efforts, Plaintiff should be prepared to address, at a minimum, good cause justifying the discovery sought by each request. Defendant should be cognizant of the statutory requirements for responses to requests for production of documents in Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.210-2031.240, including the requirement to “[i]dentify with particularity any document falling within any category of item in the demand to which an objection is being made.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.240(b)(1).)

After the parties have further met and conferred, they shall file a single joint statement summarizing their further meet and confer efforts and identifying which responses have been resolved and which responses remain at issue, if any. The joint statement shall not exceed 10 total pages. The joint statement shall be filed by no later than April 16, 2026.

(03/18/2026 Minute Order, p. 5, emphasis in original.)

Despite the Court’s directive to “file a single joint statement” (ibid., emphasis added), Plaintiff filed her own statement on April 15, 2026, and Defendant filed its own statement on April 16, 2026. It is apparent that the failure of the parties to file a single joint statement was the result of Plaintiff’s refusal to cooperate with defense counsel. (See Defendant’s Statement, p. 2:6-7.) It is also apparent, upon review and consideration of the parties’ statements, as well as Plaintiff’s

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV003379: WILLIAMS vs THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, INC., A CORPORATION IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al. 04/29/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Request for Documents, Set Four in Department 8C

supplemental declaration filed on April 20, 2026, that the parties have still not met and conferred on the issues presented in Plaintiff’s motion, and that the failure to meet and confer is the result of Plaintiff’s conduct.

According to Plaintiff’s statement, on March 23, 2026, Plaintiff sent defense counsel another meet and confer letter. In the opening paragraph, Plaintiff stated, “Please provide the bates stamp numbers to documents that you allege you were previously produced [sic] and are responsive to each of the requests identified below. Once you provide this, I will call you to set up a time to discuss the remaining issues.” (Williams Decl., Exh. A, p. 1, emphasis in original.) The letter also purported to address each request at issue in Plaintiff’s three motions, as this was a defect with the initial meet and confer efforts the Court identified in its March 18, 2026 order. (See Williams Decl., Exh. A.) This discussion consisted of identifying and restating the requests, with each request followed by a list of three “issues to discuss.” For each request, the “issues to discuss” are the same:

1. Relevance: This request relates to each of Plaintiff’s causes of action, and it is necessary for Plaintiff’s opposition to Kaiser’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

2. Bates Stamp: Please identify the bates stamp numbers to the documents that you allege were previously produced and are responsive to this request.

3. Privilege Log: Please provide a privilege log in response to your assertion of a privilege.

(See Williams Decl., Exh. A, bold in original.)

These three issues were identified even though they are not applicable to each request. For example, Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s Request No. 38 (from Set Three) does not assert any privilege objections and does not refer to previously produced documents. The Court also notes that Plaintiff’s discussion of the relevance of the request contains no facts and thus does not satisfy the good cause requirement. Plaintiff’s letter did not otherwise address the purported defects with any of Defendant’s individual responses.

Another issue with Plaintiff’s letter is that, as noted above, Plaintiff demanded Defendant provide Bates stamp numbers for documents it had previously produced before Plaintiff would be willing to discuss the issues over the phone. Plaintiff asserted this condition despite the Court’s directive that the parties were obligated to meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by videoconference, in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040(a).

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV003379: WILLIAMS vs THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, INC., A CORPORATION IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al. 04/29/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Request for Documents, Set Four in Department 8C

Plaintiff then asserts that she did not hear back from defense counsel in response to her letter. However, Defendant’s counsel sent letters on March 26, March 31, and April 9, 2026. With the March 26 letter, Defendant reproduced its prior document production on a CD, and stated, “Please let us know if you have any difficult accessing these materials.” (Defendant’s Exh. B, p. 2.)

In the letters, Defendant’s counsel attempted to schedule a videoconference to discuss the requests. Defendant’s counsel also noted that since Plaintiff’s former attorney had withdrawn from this case, Plaintiff had refused to provide a working phone number or email address and had refused to sign for certified deliveries. Plaintiff did not immediately respond to the initial letters. On April 4, 2026, Defendant’s counsel received a voicemail from a private number that may have been from Plaintiff, but the message was difficult to decipher and no callback number was provided.

Finally, on April 8, 2026, Plaintiff left defense counsel a voicemail from a number with a 510 area code. Over the next several days, Defendant’s counsel tried to return Plaintiff’s call, and while most of the calls were answered, the person answering would not speak and would hang up after counsel introduced himself. In between these attempts by Defendant’s counsel to call Plaintiff back, Plaintiff called and left voicemails.

Finally, on April 13, 2026, at 9:28 a.m., Defendant’s counsel called Plaintiff, but again someone answered without speaking before hanging up after counsel introduced himself. Defendant called again one minute later, and the person who answered identified herself as “Sophia,” and stated that it was an “AI assistant.” Five minutes after that, Plaintiff called Defendant’s counsel. The parties spoke for several minutes and scheduled a conference call. Plaintiff ultimately called defense counsel directly at the scheduled time. During the call, Plaintiff refused to discuss the requests or responses at issue in her motions, but instead stated that she could not access Defendant’s prior document production because she did not have a CD drive, and she would not discuss the requests in the motions until she could review the documents.

Additionally, on April 13, Plaintiff provided an email address but asked that it only be used to serve documents and not to communicate with Plaintiff. On April 14, Defendant’s counsel provided Defendant’s prior document production via secure link. Plaintiff responded that same day stating that she could not open the link and asked for the documents as PDFs, but Defendant’s counsel stated that the documents were too large to send via email. Plaintiff also generally requested a privilege log, which Defendant’s counsel contended was not necessary.

The parties then exchanged emails regarding the filing of the joint statement. Plaintiff sent her position on April 15 and stated that she would be filing it that day and asked Defendant’s counsel

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV003379: WILLIAMS vs THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, INC., A CORPORATION IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al. 04/29/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Request for Documents, Set Four in Department 8C

if he wanted to provide Defendant’s position. The document apparently was not on a proper pleading form, and Defendant’s counsel offered to copy Plaintiff’s statement into a pleading document and file it along with Defendant’s position in a single document on April 16, the Court-ordered filing deadline. Plaintiff responded that she would not authorize Defendant to file anything on her behalf and that if counsel tried to incorporate her statement into Defendant’s statement, she would report him to the State Bar.

Additionally, after counsel attempted to assist Plaintiff with accessing the prior document production via the secure link, Plaintiff stated that she would report counsel to the State Bar for harassing her under the guise of meeting and conferring. During these exchanges, Plaintiff requested Defendant mail the documents to her on a flash drive, which Defendant’s counsel offered to do if Plaintiff paid for it. Defendant points out that Plaintiff’s declaration in support of her statement states that she did not receive the meet and confer letters Defendant’s counsel mailed on March 26, March 31, and April 9, but yet she insisted on the documents being mailed to her. (See Williams Decl., ¶ 8.)

Plaintiff’s supplemental declaration confirms that Defendant’s counsel emailed her several times in an effort to assist her with accessing Defendant’s prior document production via the secure link. Plaintiff vaguely refers to requests by counsel that she “reveal attorney-client information” (Williams Supp. Decl., ¶ 7), but it is unclear how or when this occurred. The supplemental declaration includes screen shots of emails from Plaintiff that are included in Defendant’s Exhibit F, but defense counsel’s responses are not included. The Court also notes that Plaintiff is not represented by counsel in this action, although her moving papers include a declaration from an attorney who states that she was retained solely to assess settlement possibilities and then to file the motion. (See Parker Decl.)

In its March 18, 2026 order, the Court stated,

Where the meet and confer efforts by the moving party are determined to be insufficient, various remedies may be appropriate to dispose of the motion. Categorical denial of the motion “should be reserved for cases of clear intent to burden or harass, cases of clear flaunting of statutory responsibilities, cases of established track records of lack of good faith, and the like.” (Obregon, supra, 67 Cal.App.4th at p. 434.) In other scenarios, “the trial court should consider whether it would be more appropriate to specify additional efforts which will be required before the court will turn to the merits of the discovery dispute.” (Id. at pp. 434-435.) On this issue, the Obregon court stated:

Relevant factors will include the history of the case and the past conduct of counsel as it reflects upon the bona fides of their efforts, the nature and extent of the actual efforts expended, the nature of the discovery requested and its

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV003379: WILLIAMS vs THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, INC., A CORPORATION IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al. 04/29/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Request for Documents, Set Four in Department 8C

importance to the case, the size and complexity of the case, the effect of expense upon litigation of the case and whether unfeasible levels of expense might force resolution on a basis other than the merits, the margin by which the moving party deviated from a reasonable and good faith effort at informal resolution under the circumstances, the predictability that an effort of the type made would be found wanting, whether supplemental responses have been served, and such other factors as are relevant under all the circumstances presented. Inasmuch as judges are duty bound to manage court calendars with a view to minimizing both delay and unnecessary expense, the prospects that further informal efforts would be fruitful should also be considered. When appropriate, the party whose efforts were found wanting may be assessed with monetary sanctions.

(Obregon, supra, 67 Cal.App.4th at p. 435, fns. and citations omitted.)

Given this guidance, the Court finds that categorical denial of Plaintiff’s motion is not appropriate. Instead, the Court orders the parties to engage in additional efforts before it will turn to the merits of the motion.

(03/18/2026 Minute Order, pp. 4-5.)

The events following the Court’s March 18, 2026 order, as evidenced by the parties’ respective statements, provide the Court with additional information and factors to consider in addressing Plaintiff’s motion. Based on this additional information, it is apparent that denial of Plaintiff’s motion is warranted. The Court’s March 18, 2026 order granted Plaintiff additional time to comply with the statutorily required meet and confer requirement. Plaintiff either refused or was incapable of complying.

Plaintiff never addressed the individual requests or responses at issue in the motion. Plaintiff unreasonably demanded Defendant reproduce documents it produced in response to Plaintiff’s first set of document requests (which were served while Plaintiff was represented by counsel in this matter) before she would even call Defendant’s counsel. Until this month, Plaintiff had not provided Defendant’s counsel a working telephone number or email address at which to contact her. Defendant’s counsel reproduced the prior document production on a CD via mail and then on a secure link via email, but Plaintiff claimed she did not receive the CD and/or she could not view the documents on the CD because she did not have the requisite equipment, and also claimed that the secure link was inaccessible.

When Defendant’s counsel tried to help Plaintiff access the link, he was met with threats to report him to the State Bar. Thus, even though Plaintiff placed an unreasonable condition on Defendant before she would be willing to talk to defense counsel on the phone as required, Defendant reasonably tried to satisfy the condition, but Plaintiff impeded these efforts and still refused to address the individual

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV003379: WILLIAMS vs THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, INC., A CORPORATION IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al. 04/29/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Request for Documents, Set Four in Department 8C

requests or responses at issue. These facts show a “clear flaunting of statutory responsibilities” and “an established track records of lack of good faith,” which warrants outright denial of a motion to compel even before further meet and confer opportunities are given. (Obregon, supra, 67 Cal.App.4th at p. 434.) Other factors that support denial include the history of the case, Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s counsel’s past conduct, the margin of Plaintiff’s deviation from compliance with the meet and confer requirement, and the unlikelihood that any further meet and confer efforts would be futile.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

Defendant’s original opposition requests sanctions in the amount of $7,500 at a minimum, based on 10 hours at $750 per hour. This amount represents the total sanctions requested for opposing all three of Plaintiff’s motions on today’s calendar. The Court finds that sanctions are warranted under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.210(h), 2023.010(h) and (i), 2023.020, and 2023.030(a). However, the Court finds the amount requested to be excessive. Thus, the sanctions are reduced to $3,000, representing 10 hours at $300 per hour. Sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff and shall be paid to Defendnat’s counsel by no later than May 19, 2026. If not paid by that date, Defendant may prepare for the Court’s signature a formal order granting the sanctions, which may then be enforced as a separate judgment. (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.)

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)