LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING LINE 1 20CV362060 Echeverria v. Tapestry, Inc. dba Coach See Line 1 for tentative ruling. LINE 2 20CV373916 Chai v. Velocity Investments, LLC, et al. See Line 2 for tentative ruling. LINE 3 23CV411280 Blake v. Old Crow Smokehouse Orange, See Line 3 for tentative ruling. LLC, et al. (Class Action/PAGA) LINE 4 23CV422390 Brown v. Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. See Line 4 for tentative ruling. (Class Action) LINE 5 23CV427314 Good Samaritan Hospital, L.P., et al. v. See Line 5 for tentative ruling.

Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. LINE 6 25CV464775 Anthony Turiello vs Piping Systems See Line 6 for tentative ruling. Engineering Inc. LINE 7 25CV471436 Francisco Guevara Vs Westcoast See Line 7 for tentative ruling. Plumbing Service, Inc. LINE 8 25CV481717 Heather Buxbaum vs Stanford Health Unopposed motion for Care admission pro hac vice of Attorney Lange is GRANTED. No appearance necessary. Counsel to submit Proposed Order. LINE 9 25CV481717 Heather Buxbaum vs Stanford Health Unopposed motion for Care admission pro hac vice of Attorney Sukert is GRANTED.

No appearance necessary. Counsel to submit Proposed Order. LINE 10 25CV483219 Herlinda Estrada et al vs Chattem, Inc., See Line 10 for tentative individually, as alter ego of, and as ruling. successor-in-interest to TH et al LINE 11 LINE 12 LINE 13

Calendar Line 5

Case Name: Good Samaritan Hospital, L.P. et al. v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. Case No.: 23CV427314

This is an action between plaintiffs and cross-defendants Good Samaritan Hospital, L.P., San Jose Healthcare System, L.P., Los Robles Regional Medical Center, Riverside Healthcare System, L.P., and West Hills Hospital (collectively, “Hospitals” or “HCA”) and defendant and cross-complainant Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (“KFHP”). Before the Court is Hospitals’ motion for an order compelling nonparty Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (“KFH”) to produce documents in response to Hospitals’ Request for Production of Documents (“RFP”) Nos. 2 and 5 as well a witness prepared to testify as Person Most Qualified (“PMQ”) Topic 3. As discussed below, the motion to compel is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

Background

This action concerns the reasonable and customary value of emergency and poststabilization services rendered by the five HCA-affiliated Hospitals to members of defendant KFHP members between May 23, 2021 and December 31, 2024. Hospitals contend KFHP is an out-of-network payor whose payments should reflect market rates for out-of-network emergency care. KFHP, in its cross-complaint, alleges that Hospitals unilaterally and arbitrarily set billed charges at unreasonable levels and routinely accept lower reimbursement.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…

Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Other rulings by Theodore C. Zayner Judge Theodore C. Zayner dossier Other Motion to Compel Discovery in SANTACLARA All SANTACLARA County rulings Other Breach of Contract/Reimbursement cases Other granted rulings in SANTACLARA

Related rulings

by semantic similarity

Source

Print-friendly view

Hospitals initially sought information regarding KFH hospitals directly from KFHP directly. (Hospitals’ Motion, pp. 5:26–6:5.) After KFHP took the position that it did not have possession of agreements entered into by KFH, Hospitals withdrew their request and elected to seek the information from KFH. (Ibid.) KFH is KFHP’s affiliated hospital entity and is not a party to this action. On January 2, 2026, Hospitals served a deposition subpoena on KFH, seeking documents and PMQ testimony regarding KFH’s own reimbursement arrangements with non-Kaiser commercial payors.

More specifically, KFHP’s deposition subpoena seeks: (1) single case agreements (“SCAs”) for both emergency and elective services from five KFH hospitals; (2) a sample of 200 claims packets reflecting KFH’s billing disputes with non-contracting payors; and (3) PMQ testimony regarding KFH’s reimbursement strategies for outof-network payors. (Hospitals’ Motion, pp. 4:23–6:22.)

The dispute proceeded to an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) on February 23, 2026. The Court indicated that the SCA’s sought from KFH appeared relevant and that KFH had not, at that point, demonstrated undue burden, and directed KFH to undertake the work necessary to produce reasonable responsive material. The Court did not address Hospitals’ broader contention for claims packets and PMQ testimony; its guidance on the KFH subpoena was limited to the SCAs. The Court also addressed KFHP’s challenge to certain entries on the Hospitals’ privilege log related to the Hospitals’ Dispute Resolution Team.

In that context, the Court stated that disputes about rates and a determination about whether to seek or resolve disputes did not bear on reasonable and customary value. The Court drew a distinction between the rates that are paid and accepted in the market (which are relevant and discoverable) and the decision-making and process of disputing those rates (which are not relevant or discoverable).

Following the IDC, KFH agreed to produce SCAs for emergency and trauma services for all California facilities (because its third-party vendors cannot filter by individual facility). KFH refused to produce elective-care SCAs, any claims packets, or a witness for Topic 3. Hospitals filed the motion on April 2, 2026, and the hearing was advanced from September to May to accommodate the August 24, 2026 trial date. By stipulation entered May 13, 2026, expert and pretrial deadlines were also amended, but the trial date was preserved.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.480 permits a party to move to compel compliance with a deposition subpoena upon a showing of “good cause,” which requires a factspecific demonstration of relevance. (Glenfed Dev. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117; Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.) “[T]he broad scope of permissible discovery is ‘equally applicable to discovery of information from a nonparty as it is to parties in the pending suit.’ [Citations.]” (Moore v. Mercer (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 424, 447.) Discoverability does not turn on admissibility; information is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence. (Gonzalez v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.)

Non-parties are nevertheless entitled to heightened protection from the burdens of litigation. (Monarch Healthcare v. Superior Court (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1282, 1289–1290 [nonparty witnesses should be somewhat protected from the burdensome demands of litigation]; Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 224–225 [“[a]s between parties to litigation and nonparties, the burden of discovery should be placed on the latter only if the former do not possess the material sought to be discovered”].)

In emergency-care reimbursement disputes, the “fair market value” inquiry turns on the “full range of fees that the hospital both charges and accepts as payment for similar services,” reflecting what a willing buyer and willing seller would agree to at arm’s length. (Children’s Hospital Central California v. Blue Cross of California (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1260, 1274– 1275 (Children’s Hospital).)

III. Parties’ Arguments

Hospitals seek an order compelling nonparty KFH’s compliance with the following requests: (1) SCAs for both emergency and elective services from five KFH hospitals; (2) a sample of 200 claims packets reflecting KFH’s billing disputes with non-contracting payors; and (3) PMQ testimony regarding KFH’s reimbursement strategies for out-of-network payors.

A. Hospitals’ Position

1. Single Case Agreements (RFP No. 5)

Hospitals contends that all SCAs from the five designated KFH hospitals are relevant because they reflect arm’s-length, out-of-network negotiated rates for services comparable to those at issue. (Hospitals’ Concise Outline, pp. 1:9 – 2:5; Motion, pp. 7:25–10:3.) They assert that both emergency and elective SCAs are probative of the broader market dynamic in which out-of-network payors pay more than in-network rates. Hospitals contend the request is narrowly tailored to only five hospitals and any burden is self-created by KFH’s unilateral decision to limit production to emergency/trauma SCAs.

2. Claims Packets (RFP No. 2) and Related Testimony (PMQ Topic No. 3)

Hospitals contend the claims packets demonstrate how KFH seeks and obtains higher reimbursement from out-of-network payors, directly testing KFH’s litigation position. (Hospitals’ Concise Outline, pp. 2:6–3:11; Motion, pp. 10:4–11:12.) Hospitals further argue that a 200-claim sample is reasonable, and that the information is needed because the paid claims data already produced does not fully disclose the underlying negotiation and dispute process.

1. Single Case Agreements (RFP No. 5)

KFH asserts it agreed to produce all emergency and trauma SCAs and argues that elective-care SCAs are less relevant to the emergency services at issue. (KFH’s Separate Statement, pp. 3:9–4:6; Opposition pp. 8:5 –9:24; Declaration of Joseph A. Reiter (“Reiter Decl.”), ¶¶ 8–14.) KFH further argues that the collection and review of elective SCAs is extraordinarily burdensome, explaining that it has already collected and reviewed thousands of documents.

2. Claims Packets (RFP No. 2) and Related Testimony (PMQ Topic No. 3)

KFH argues that the claims packets and PMQ testimony regarding reimbursement strategy are irrelevant under Children’s Hospital because reasonable value turns on actual paid and accepted rates, not what a provider demands or its internal strategies. (KFH’s Separate Statement, pp. 2:4–3:8; Opposition, pp. 5:25–8:4.) KFH further argues it has already produced paid claims data (which include additional payments from any disputes), chargemaster, and contracts. KFH argues that further production of underlying packets and testimony would be cumulative, overbroad, and unduly burdensome for a non-party, and would be inconsistent with the Court’s guidance at the IDC.

A. Single Case Agreements (RFP No. 5)

The relevance of the SCAs to fair market value is established and substantially conceded by KFH’s ongoing production. The remaining dispute is narrow: whether KFH must produce SCAs covering elective care in addition to those for emergency and trauma services. The arguments favoring production are stronger than those arguing against.

1. Emergency and Trauma SCAs

This portion of the motion appears to be undisputed. KFH has confirmed it is producing emergency and trauma SCAs for all KFH facilities in California for the period May 23, 2021 through December 31, 2024. Due to the way SCAs are stored by KFH’s vendors, the production will encompass all KFH facilities in California, not just the five hospitals the Hospitals identified. The collection process has been burdensome, taking over a month and yielding more than 7,000 documents that require manual review to filter unexecuted agreements. Nevertheless, KFH has committed to completing this production. Accordingly, KFH shall complete the production of its emergency and trauma SCAs within 15 days of the entry of this Order.

2. Elective Care SCAs

The remaining dispute concerns whether KFH must also produce SCAs for elective services. The Hospitals argue that elective care SCAs are relevant because: (1) both parties have already produced SCAs for both emergency and elective care; (2) rate information about elective care has been part of the accepted scope of discovery, with both sides’ experts utilizing rates for elective care in their opinions on fair market value; and (3) elective care SCAs may provide better data points because they are often negotiated before care is provided.

KFH opposes production of elective care SCAs on burden grounds. KFH's vendors have confirmed that expanding the scope to include elective services would take at least several more weeks of additional collection work. KFH argues that any incremental value elective care SCAs would provide is minimal, considering that KFH’s services are not at issue in this case and KFH has already produced its paid claims data.

The elective care SCAs appear relevant to the fair market value determination in this case. The Court’s guidance at the February 23, 2026 IDC regarding the relevance and burden related to the SCAs did not distinguish between emergency and elective services. Both parties’ experts have relied on rates for elective care in calculating fair market value. The parties have already produced SCAs and paid claims data reflecting both elective and emergency care. The SCAs represent arms-length transactions between out-of-network payors and hospitals, which is relevant to the legal standard the jury will apply under Children’s Hospital. Elective care SCAs could provide valuable data because they are often negotiated before care is provided.

Nevertheless, the Court acknowledges that KFH’s burden concerns are substantial. KFH is a non-party entitled to greater protection from burdensome discovery demands. The collection process has already been extraordinarily burdensome, taking over a month and yielding more than 7,000 documents. The documents require manual review to filter unexecuted agreements. KFH represents that repeating this exercise for elective care SCAs would take several additional weeks. (Reiter Decl., ¶ 14.) On balance, the Court finds that the relevance of the elective care SCAs outweighs the burden on non-party KFH. Accordingly, KFH shall produce the elective care SCAs but may do so on a rolling basis to be completed within 25 days of the entry of this Order.

B. Claims Packets (RFP No. 2) and Related Testimony (PMQ Topic No. 3)

The Court’s guidance at the February 23, 2026 IDC directly addresses this category of discovery. The Court explained that disputes about rates and a determination about whether to seek or resolve disputes did not go to reasonable and customary value. This guidance was consistent with Court’s prior statements regarding settlement agreements. The claims packets sought by Hospitals reflect billing disputes, and PMQ Topic 3 is directed at KFH’s strategies for seeking reimbursement. Neither category represents relevant information regarding amounts paid and reasonable and customary value.

As KFH persuasively argues, the focus under California law in the analysis of reasonable and customary value is on actual market outcomes, as opposed to what the provider unilaterally says its services are worth. (Opposition, p. 6:7–16; Children’s Hospital, supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at 1274–1275; Long Beach Mem’l Med. Ctr. v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc. (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 323, 341.) KFH’s paid claims data has already been produced, and if any billing dispute resulted in a higher payment rate, that result is encompassed by the paid claims data.

The Hospitals’ argument that they need this discovery to test Kaiser’s credibility is undermined by the fact that the Hospitals' own expert does not rely on the Hospitals’ dispute correspondence or out-ofnetwork reimbursement strategies to calculate fair market value. If the Hospitals’ expert does not rely on such evidence for her own clients, the relevance of compelling non-party KFH to produce it is questionable.

In sum, the Court’s guidance at the February 23, 2026 IDC drew a clear line between rates paid (relevant and discoverable) and the process of disputing those rates (not relevant to reasonable and customary value and not discoverable). The discovery Hospitals seek through their RFP No. 2 and PMQ Topic No. 3 falls on the not-discoverable side of that line. Accordingly, Hospitals’ motion to compel is DENIED as to RFP No. 2 and PMQ Topic No.

For the reasons stated, the motion to compel is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The motion to compel is GRANTED with respect to Request for Production No. 5 regarding Single Case Agreements: KFH shall complete the production of its emergency and trauma SCAs within 15 days of the entry of this Order; and KFH shall produce the elective care SCAs but may do so on a rolling basis to be completed within 25 days of the entry of this Order. The motion to compel is DENIED with respect to Request for Production No. 2 and Person Most Qualified Topic No.

3. KFH shall prepare the order.