CONGI, et al. vs DIGNITY HEALTH

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

simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.” (Ibid.)

Discussion

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.

The Court has read and considered all arguments with respect to request numbers: 89, 92-98, 100, and 102-104 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, and patient safety work product doctrine. 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. The Court notes that Dignity Health raises burden arguments in its Opposition. However, there was no burden objection made in Dignity Health’s responses; therefore, the objection was waived.

Dignity Health must serve further amended responses to set four 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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

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

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 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 assist 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 $16,570. This amount is comprised of $3,040 in fees for Mr. Greenberg related to 3.8 hours on the motion and anticipated hearing attendance, and $13,530 in fees for Mr. Palmer related to 24.6 hours on the motion. (Supplemental Greenberg Decl. ¶ 14; Supplemental Palmer Decl. ¶ 5.) 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 $8,365 ($1,600 for Mr. Greenberg (1.7 hours on motion plus.3 for hearing attendance) and $6,765 for Mr. Palmer (12.3 hours on motion).

Disposition

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

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

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to the document requests at issue in set four 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 $8,365 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.)

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

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

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.