FADDIS, et al. vs GRANDCARE INC, et al.

23CV006808: FADDIS, et al. vs GRANDCARE INC, et al. 06/25/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents in Department 53

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail 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 it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

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

23CV006808: FADDIS, et al. vs GRANDCARE INC, et al. 06/25/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents in Department 53

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.

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to their requests for production of documents, set one (“RPD”) is ruled upon as follows:

Plaintiffs’ unopposed request for judicial notice is granted for the limited purposes permitted for judicial notice.

Background

This is an elder abuse case brought pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657. Plaintiffs assert a variety of claims arising out of Defendant Doe 1’s alleged assault of P. Faddis, a resident of Defendants’ nursing facility. Plaintiffs allege Defendants failed to provide adequate staffing to keep Patrick Faddis safe, Defendant negligently admitted P. Faddis into their care knowing they were not equipped to provide proper care, and that Defendants were aware of Defendant Doe 1’s history of aggressive behavior yet they ignored it. Plaintiffs allege P. Faddis was injured as a result of the attack which caused his health to decline significantly.

On October 16, 2023, Plaintiffs propounded written discovery on Defendant Grandcare Inc. dba Mountain Manor Senior Residences (“Grandcare”), including Requests for Production of Documents, set one. (Farris Decl. ¶ 4.) Grandcare provided responses, which Plaintiffs contend were impermissibly limited in scope and otherwise insufficient. (Id. ¶ 5.) Counsel for the parties met and conferred, and agreed to extend the deadline for Plaintiffs to file the instant motion so to allow Grandcare time to serve supplemental responses. (Id. ¶ 6.) On January 19, 2024, Grandcare served supplemental responses. (Id. ¶ 8.) Counsel for the parties again met and conferred, but were unable to come to an agreement regarding the appropriate scope of discovery. (Id. ¶ 9.)

At issue in this motion are Grandcare’s responses to Plaintiffs’ RPD nos. 30, 36, and 54-57.

Request No. 30: Please produce copies of ANY and ALL of YOUR insurance policies in effect during the years 2018 to present.

Response: Objection. This request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad in scope and time, and unduly burdensome. Further, this request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, including the premium amounts. Without waiving the above objections and after a diligent search and reasonably inquiry, Defendant will comply with this request producing the primary and excess insurance policies for this matter.

Supplemental Response: Objection. This request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad in scope and

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV006808: FADDIS, et al. vs GRANDCARE INC, et al. 06/25/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents in Department 53

time, and unduly burdensome. Further, this request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, including the premium amounts. Without waiving the above objections and after a diligent search and reasonably inquiry, Defendant will comply with this request in part by producing all responsive documents, i.e. the applicable insurance policies that apply to the claims in the instant matter within the demanded category that are in its possession, custody or control as the primary and excess insurance policies for this matter, including the endorsements. This responding defendant is not producing policies for prior years as they do not afford coverage for the instant matter.

Plaintiffs contend Defendant has produced redacted versions of its insurance policies, while Plaintiffs are entitled to unredacted versions as they pertain to the named insureds on the policy. Plaintiffs argue the identities of the named insureds are relevant to joint venture and alter ego liability, as well as to show how a judgment in this case may be covered. Moreover, Grandcare has not objected on the basis of privacy so the names cannot be withheld on that basis.

Grandcare argues the alter ego doctrine does not apply in this case because Grandcare is a licensee of the facility only, and there are no facts in this case to warrant piercing the corporate veil. Thus the named insureds are not discoverable.

Grandcare’s objections as to ambiguous, overbroad in scope and time are SUSTAINED. As written, the request seeks any insurance policies Defendant has ever held, covering any subject matter. Such a broad scope is not permissible. The remaining objections are OVERRULED. The Court finds Defendant’s insurance policy from the year the incident occurred is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence in this case. Moreover, Defendant has already produced the policy with the named insureds redacted.

As Defendant notes in its opposition, whether to pierce the corporate veil is a factual inquiry. This requires gathering facts through discovery. While, at present, it may appear that piercing the corporate veil is inapplicable or unlikely, the scope of discovery is broad. Nor has Defendant objected to producing the names on the basis of privacy or privilege. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED in part as to RPD no.

30. Defendant is ordered to produce an unredacted copy of its insurance policy in effect at the time the incident occurred.

Request No. 36: Please produce a copy of ANY and ALL DOCUMENTS referenced or identified in YOUR Response to Form Interrogatory 12.6.

Response: Objection. This request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, and unduly burdensome. This request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and may be inadmissible pursuant to Evidence Code section 1151. This request may also seek Quality Assurance records protected pursuant to Evidence Code section 1157, and 42 USC sections 1395i-3(b)(1)(B), and 1396r(b)(1)(B), and/or attorney-client communication and/or attorney work produce. Defendant also objects to this request on the grounds that it potentially

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV006808: FADDIS, et al. vs GRANDCARE INC, et al. 06/25/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents in Department 53

seeks the identity of other residents, in violation of their privacy rights and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPPA”) and California Civil Code §56.10(a) (“CMIA”).

Supplemental Response: Objection. This request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, and unduly burdensome. This request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and may be inadmissible pursuant to Evidence Code section 1151. This request may also seek Quality Assurance records protected pursuant to Evidence Code section 1157, and 42 USC sections 1395i-3(b)(1)(B), and 1396r(b)(1)(B), and/or attorney-client communication and/or attorney work produce. Defendant also objects to this request on the grounds that it potentially seeks the identity of other residents, in violation of their privacy rights and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPPA”) and California Civil Code §56.10(a) (“CMIA”).

Without waiving the above objections and after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, responding Defendant refers Plaintiff to the attached Privilege Log.

Plaintiffs contend the document at issue is the “SOC 341 form” that was filled out by the facility following the attack on P. Faddis. The attacker’s personnel file has been produced to Plaintiffs separately, presumably with the form omitted. Plaintiffs argue Defendant has not met its burden to show the document was created for any internal medical investigative committee or that its other privacy objections apply as the form pertains to P. Faddis himself.

Defendant argues it has produced a blank copy of the form, which states the report is confidential. For this reason Defendant has not produced the completed form.

The Court notes that the form clearly states confidentiality may be waived by court order. The contents of the completed form are probative and Defendant has not met its burden to demonstrate that any statutory protections apply. Defendant’s objections are OVERRULED. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED as to RPD no.

36. Defendant is ordered to produce the completed form.

Request No. 54: Please produce ANY and ALL staff sign-in assignment sheets for each shift from January 1, 2023 to present.

Request No. 55: Please produce ANY and ALL DOCUMENTS evidencing any staffing schedule sheets (identifying the names of employees, titles, hours of shift worked, days worked, job assignment) for the FACILITY from January 1, 2022 to the present.

Response: Objection. This request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad in scope and time, and unduly burdensome. The Request as framed is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request seeks documents that violate the privacy rights of uninvolved third parties. Without waiving the above objections and after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Defendant will comply with this request producing the Nursing Staffing Assignment &

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV006808: FADDIS, et al. vs GRANDCARE INC, et al. 06/25/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents in Department 53

Sign-In Sheets from January 1, 2023 through March 31, 2023. Discovery and investigation are continuing; Defendant reserves the right to supplement this response upon subsequently discovered information.

Supplemental Response: Objection. This request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad in scope and time, and unduly burdensome. The Request as framed is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request seeks documents that violate the privacy rights of uninvolved third parties. Without waiving the above objections and after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Defendant will comply with this request in part by producing all responsive documents within the demanded category in its possession, custody or control as the Nursing Staffing Assignment & Sign-In Sheets from January 1, 2023 through March 31, 2023 (MMSN 3512 - MMSN 4028). Discovery and investigation are continuing; Defendant reserves the right to supplement this response upon subsequently discovered information.

Plaintiffs seek documents from April 1, 2023 through the end of 2023 on the basis that “they go to notice and ratification of understaffing and show that such understaffing was an ongoing pattern and practice of the facility.”

Defendants argue they have already produced documents to show the facility had no history of understaffing because they met the minimum threshold required by law, so the sign-in sheets sought are not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.

Plaintiffs have alleged a history of understaffing, which continued through P. Faddis’s residency at the facility. Plaintiffs are entitled to conduct discovery regarding their allegations. Defendant’s objections are OVERRULED. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED as to RPD nos. 54 and 55. Defendant is ordered to produce the remaining responsive documents in its possession, custody and control from January 1, 2023 through December 2023.

Request No. 56: Please produce in native format ANY and ALL timecards, punch in/out timecards, and/or payroll records evidencing the actual hours worked by defendant’s staff from January 1, 2022 to the present.

Response: Objection. This request is vague, ambiguous, compound, overbroad in scope and time, and unduly burdensome. The Request as framed is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request seeks documents that violate the privacy rights of uninvolved third parties. Without waiving the above objections and after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Defendant will comply with this request producing the Time Detail Reports for January 1, 2022 through March 31, 2023. Discovery and investigation are continuing; Defendant reserves the right to supplement this response upon subsequently discovered information.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV006808: FADDIS, et al. vs GRANDCARE INC, et al. 06/25/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents in Department 53

Supplemental Response: Objection. This request is vague, ambiguous, compound, overbroad in scope and time, and unduly burdensome. The Request as framed is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request seeks documents that violate the privacy rights of uninvolved third parties. Without waiving the above objections and after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Defendant will comply with this request in part by producing all responsive documents within the demanded category in its possession, custody or control as the Time Detail Reports from January 1, 2022 through March 31, 2023 (MMSN 4073 - MMSN 9496). Discovery and investigation are continuing; Defendant reserves the right to supplement this response upon subsequently discovered information.

Defendant’s objections are OVERRULED. The data Plaintiffs seek must be made available to the public upon request pursuant to 42 CFR § 483.35, thus its privacy objections are without merit. The Court finds the request for documents from January 1, 2023 to the end of 2023 is not overly broad as to time, given the nature of Plaintiffs’ allegations and the date of the incident in February 2023. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED as to RPD no.

56. Defendant is ordered to produce the remaining responsive documents in its possession, custody and control from January 1, 2023 through December 2023.

Request No. 57: Please produce ANY and ALL DOCUMENTS that evidence or refer to the census (resident population) of the FACILITY from January 1, 2023 to the present.

Response: Objection. This request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad in scope and time, and unduly burdensome. The Request as framed is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request may seek information which violates the privacy rights of uninvolved third parties, and confidential personal health information which is protected pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) and California Civil Code §56.10(a) (“CMIA”). Without waiving the above objections and after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Defendant will comply with this request producing the DHPPDs for January 1, 2023 through March 31, 2023, and the Detailed Census Report. Discovery and investigation are continuing; Defendant reserves the right to supplement this response upon subsequently discovered information.

Supplemental Response: Objection. This request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad in scope and time, and unduly burdensome. The Request as framed is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request may seek information which violates the privacy rights of uninvolved third parties, and confidential personal health information which is protected pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) and California Civil Code §56.10(a) (“CMIA”). Without waiving the above objections and after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Defendant will comply with this request in part by producing all responsive documents within the demanded category in its possession, custody or control as the DHPPDS from January 1, 2023 through March 31, 2023 (MMSN 3512 - MMSN

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV006808: FADDIS, et al. vs GRANDCARE INC, et al. 06/25/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents in Department 53

4028), and the Detailed Census Report for January 1, 2023 through March 31, 2023 (MMSN 9497). Discovery and investigation are continuing; Defendant reserves the right to supplement this response upon subsequently discovered information.

Defendant’s objections are OVERRULED. The Court finds the request for documents from January 1, 2023 to the end of 2023 is not overly broad as to time, given the nature of Plaintiffs’ allegations and the date of the incident in February 2023. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED as to RPD no.

57. Defendant is ordered to produce the remaining responsive documents in its possession, custody and control from January 1, 2023 through December 2023.

Defendant is ordered to produce further documents and amended responses in accordance with the Court’s ruling no later than July 25, 2024.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.