CONGI, et al. vs DIGNITY HEALTH

24CV015815: CONGI, et al. vs DIGNITY HEALTH 02/20/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Respons and Production of Documents from Dignity Health in Department 23

for the responses. (Ibid.) No such conversation occurred. (Ibid.) Defense counsel states that he understood Plaintiffs’ counsel response as a grant of more time but concedes that Plaintiffs’ counsel never chose or conveyed a new response deadline. On June 9, 2025, Dignity Health served amended responses to set one. (Foley Decl. ¶ 24.)

On February 19, 2025, Plaintiffs electronically served a second set of document requests on Dignity Health – comprised of request numbers 32-55. (Greenberg Decl. Ex. 9.) Based on the service date and method, Dignity Health’s responses were due on March 25, 2025. Dignity Health served responses on April 8, 2025, which Plaintiffs contend are untimely. (Greenberg Decl. ¶ 9.) According to Dignity Health’s counsel, on March 5, 2025, Plaintiffs’ counsel emailed Defense counsel asking about document production. (Foley Decl. ¶ 12 & Ex.

C.) Mr. Foley stated he could not commit to a production date and invited Mr. Greenberg to select a production deadline, but Mr. Greenberg did not. (Ibid.) Defense counsel avers that on March 25, 2025, he emailed Plaintiffs’ counsel and asked for a three-week extension regarding set two and Plaintiffs’ granted an extension to April 8, 2025. (Id. at ¶ 15.) Plaintiffs’ counsel concedes the extension was granted. (Supplemental Greenberg Decl. ¶ 8(i).)

On May 30, 2025, Plaintiffs electronically served their third set of document requests – comprised of request numbers 58-88. (Greenberg Decl. Ex. 11.) Dignity Health served timely responses on July 1, 2025. (Id. at Ex. 11; Foley Decl. Ex. D.)

In this motion, Plaintiffs seeks to compel further responses to the following document requests: 11, 28 (first set), 33-38, 42-45, 47, 53-55 (second set), and 60-63 (third set). Plaintiffs also request sanctions against Defendant in the amount of $18,860. Dignity Health opposes.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310 provides a party may move to compel a further response to a production demand if (1) a statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete, (2) a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or (3) an objection to the response is without merit or too general. If good cause is shown, the responding party has the burden to justify the objections it made. (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.) “[T]he party who seeks to compel production has met his burden of showing good cause simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.” (Ibid.)

Discussion

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV015815: CONGI, et al. vs DIGNITY HEALTH 02/20/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Respons and Production of Documents from Dignity Health in Department 23

As an initial matter, the Court finds all requests at issue are supported by good cause and related to Plaintiffs’ claims or potential claims to be brought in an amended complaint. (See Union Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 1, 10 [“[D]iscovery is proper if it would be material to any possible issued raised by new allegations in an amended complaint.”].) The Court also notes Dignity Health did not argue the requests were not supported by good cause.

Dignity Health Waived Objections to the Document Requests at Issue in Set One

If a party fails to serve a timely response to a demand for documents, “the party to whom the demand . . . is directed waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300(a).) Extensions of time may be granted but any agreement for extension must “be confirmed in a writing that specifies the extended date for service of a response.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.270(b).)

Plaintiffs argue – with respect to request numbers 11 and 28 in set one– Dignity Health waived any objections because its responses were untimely. Dignity Health contends its responses were timely, citing Mr. Foley’s declaration at paragraphs 2, 4, 7, 10, 12-13, 15, and 17. The Court finds Dignity Health’s responses to the first set of document requests were untimely. The Court agrees with Dignity Health that Plaintiffs’ counsel granted a three-week extension on December 20, 2024 – making the responses due on January 10, 2025.

The Court is less persuaded that Plaintiffs’ counsel granted any further extensions. Paragraph seven of Mr. Foley’s declaration shows negotiations occurred as to a further extension that never concluded. Plaintiffs’ counsel indicated a willingness to grant an additional extension of less than three weeks but the Parties never had the contemplated phone call to complete the discussion. (Foley Decl. ¶ 7.) Accordingly, it does not appear Dignity Health’s counsel was justified in believing he had gotten an extension of time – especially because Plaintiffs’ counsel never gave a new deadline. (Ibid.)

Section 2031.270 requires a specific date when an extension of time is granted. Even if the Court were to agree with Dignity Health on the second extension, that extension would have expired on January 31, 2025, at the latest. There is no evidence Dignity Health received an extended response deadline beyond January 31, 2025. (See Foley Decl. Ex. B [email from Plaintiffs’ counsel to Defense counsel dated 2/18/25 stating: “You asked for a three-week extension that ended last month.”].)

To the extent Dignity Health is contending it had an open-ended response deadline, such an extension is not supported by the record and would be ineffective based on the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV015815: CONGI, et al. vs DIGNITY HEALTH 02/20/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Respons and Production of Documents from Dignity Health in Department 23

requirements of section 2031.270(b). Accordingly, Dignity Health’s responses to set one – served on March 24, 2025 – were untimely and Dignity Health waived all objections to request numbers 11 and 28 – including objections based on privilege and work product. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290.)[1] Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to request numbers 11 and 28 is GRANTED. Defendant shall serve amended responses to these requests and produce documents – subject to the protective order entered in this case on July 21, 2025 – by no later than March 13, 2026, unless the Parties agree to a later response deadline in writing.

Dignity Health Did Not Waive Objections as to Set Two

In its moving papers, Plaintiffs contend Dignity Health’s responses to set two were untimely. (MPA 8:19-21 & 9:13-19.) However, on Reply, Plaintiffs’ counsel concedes he granted a two-week extension to the March 25, 2025 due date – making the due date April 8, 2025. (Supplemental Greenberg Decl. ¶ 8(i).) Based on Plaintiffs’ concession, the Court finds Dignity Health’s responses to set two – served on April 8, 2025 – were timely. (Greenberg Decl. Ex. 10.) Accordingly, Dignity Health did not waive objections to any of the set two requests.

Request Numbers 33-38, 42-45, 47, 53-55, and 60-63

The Court notes that in the responsive separate statement, Dignity Health states it served amended responses to set two on June 9, 2025 and cites the Foley Declaration at paragraphs 14 and 24. However, the Foley Declaration does not support the contention in the responsive separate statement because it states: “By the end of the day, I will have finished drafting second amended responses to SRogs, set one, amended responses to SRogs, set two, amended responses to RFPDs, set two, and amended responses to RFPDs, set three.

MSJMC will have the responses for their review by the morning of November 24, 2025.” (Foley Decl. ¶ 34 [emphasis added].) According to a Joint Case Management Statement filed on February 2, 2026, Dignity Health served amended responses to sets two and three on January 30, 2026. However, those amended responses were not submitted to the Court and the Court cannot determine whether they are code-compliant.

The Court has read and considered all arguments with respect to request numbers: 33- 38, 42-45, 47, 53-55, and 60-63 and rules as follows: The motion is GRANTED as to each of these requests. The Court OVERRULES all objections stated in Dignity Health’s responses EXCEPT for the objections based on the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product doctrine, patient safety work product doctrine, and Evidence Code section

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV015815: CONGI, et al. vs DIGNITY HEALTH 02/20/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Respons and Production of Documents from Dignity Health in Department 23

1157. During the informal discovery conference process, including a hearing held on February 6, 2025, Plaintiffs made clear that they do not seek any privileged or protected documents. However, to the extent Dignity Health is withholding any documents based on any of these protections, it must state so in its amended responses and produce a privilege log. Dignity Health’s amended responses and document production shall also be subject to the protective order entered on July 21, 2025. Dignity Health’s privacy and HIPAA concerns are covered by the protective order.

To the extent issues exist as to the amended responses in sets two and three that were served on January 30, 2026, Plaintiffs must begin the meet and confer process as to those responses – the Parties should use the Court’s order on this motion to guide that process. If Dignity Health did not serve amended responses to all requests covered by this order on January 30, 2026, Dignity Health must serve further amended responses and produce documents – subject to the protective order entered on July 21, 2025 – by no later than March 13, 2026, unless the Parties agree to a later response deadline in writing.

Sanctions

Plaintiffs seek sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010(d) and 2023.030. Section 2023.030(a) provides:

The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. The court may also impose this sanction on one unsuccessfully asserting that another has engaged in the misuse of the discovery process, or on any attorney who advised that assertion, or on both. If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Emphasis added.)

Plaintiffs argue that by failing to provide adequate responses to the requests at issue, making unmeritorious objections, and failing to meet confer in good faith, Dignity Health engaged in misuse of the discovery process. Dignity Health argues its opposition was substantially justified and the imposition of sanctions would be unjust in light of the personal hardships suffered by Defense counsel. (Foley Decl. ¶¶ 2-6, 8). There is no doubt that Mr. Foley suffered a profound and devastating personal hardship at the time

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV015815: CONGI, et al. vs DIGNITY HEALTH 02/20/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Respons and Production of Documents from Dignity Health in Department 23

the discovery at issue was pending. However, Mr. Foley was not the only attorney of record for Dignity Health in this case. Defendant provides no explanation for the law firm's apparent failure to provide assistance to Mr. Foley with this discovery during this time.

Moreover, the record shows Plaintiffs engaged repeatedly in the meet and confer and informal discovery conference process to avoid this motion and get responsive documents. Dignity Health had no substantial justification for its opposition, especially in light of the protective order entered on July 21, 2025 – before Plaintiffs filed this motion. While it seemed apparent to the Court that the protective order was sufficient, Dignity Health would not concede that point and the Court had to expressly state in its Informal Discovery Conference order filed on January 23, 2026 that the protective order in place already protects information covered by HIPAA. Under the circumstances presented, the Court finds sanctions are required under sections 2023.010 and 2023.030(a).

Plaintiffs seek sanctions in the amount of $18,860. This amount is comprised of $4,560 in fees for Mr. Greenberg related to 5.7 hours on the motion and anticipated hearing attendance, and $14,300 in fees for Mr. Palmer related to 26 hours on the motion. (Supplemental Greenberg Decl. ¶ 14; Supplemental Palmer Decl. ¶ 4.) The Court finds the claimed time associated with this motion is overstated. The Court finds the reasonable amount of time required by this motion is half the time claimed by each attorney. The Court orders Dignity Health to pay Plaintiffs sanctions in the amount of $9,550 ($2,400 for Mr. Greenberg (2.7 hours on motion plus.3 for hearing attendance) and $7,150 for Mr. Palmer (13 hours on motion).

Disposition

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to the document requests at issue in sets one through three from Dignity Health is GRANTED. Dignity Health is ordered to serve further responses and produce responsive documents as outlined above. Dignity Health is ordered to pay Plaintiffs monetary sanctions in the amount of $9,550 by no later than March 20, 2026. If sanctions are not paid by the due date, Plaintiffs may submit a formal order for enforcement purposes. (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 610.)

To request oral argument on this matter, you must call Department 23 at 916-874- 5754 by 4:00 p.m., the court day before this hearing and notification of oral argument must be made to the opposing party/counsel. If no call is made, the tentative ruling becomes the order of the court. (Local Rule 1.06.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV015815: CONGI, et al. vs DIGNITY HEALTH 02/20/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Respons and Production of Documents from Dignity Health in Department 23

Please check your tentative ruling prior to the next Court date at www.saccourt.ca.gov prior to the above referenced hearing date.

If oral argument is requested, the parties may and are encouraged to appear by Zoom with the links below:

To join by Zoom Link - https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept23 To join by phone dial (833) 568-8864 ID 16108301121

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code section 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.

This minute order is effective immediately. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order or further notice is necessary.

[1] In opposition, Defendant does not seek relief from waiver pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section

2031.300(a).