RICHARDS vs KAISER PERMANENTE, et al.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 24CV062948: RICHARDS vs KAISER PERMANENTE, et al. 06/04/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Kenesha Richards (Plaintiff) CRS# 793124578804 in Department 23 On 2/1/2026, Plaintiff sent a second email acknowledging TPMG’s verifications and identifying defects in TPMG’s production including the failure to sufficiently identify or produce responsive information or adequately explain why the records were unavailable. (Id.

Ex. L.) On 2/9/2026, Plaintiff sent a follow-up email and set a 2/12/2026 deadline for supplemental responses. On 2/11/2026, TPMG indicated that it did not consider Plaintiff’s 2/1/2026 email to be responsive to its 1/28/2026 email. (Id.) On 2/15/2026, Plaintiff sent TPMG an itemized “deficiency chart” identifying perceived problems with all of TPMG’s responses and requesting further responses by 2/20/2026 at 4:00 p.m. (Richards Decl. Ex. D.) On 2/20/2026, TPMG indicated that it was “working on an omnibus response to [Plaintiff’s] last several emails and will provide a response by early next week.” (Id.)

On 2/22/2026, Plaintiff communicated her intention to file a motion to compel. (Wayne Decl. Ex. M.) TPMG requested that Plaintiff extend her deadline to Wednesday 2/25/2026. (Id.) On 2/23/2026, Plaintiff filed this motion to compel further responses.

MEET AND CONFER EFFORTS

Based on the correspondence submitted with the parties’ papers, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s meet and confer efforts satisfied the statutory requirements. (CCP §§ 2030.300(b) & 2031.310(b).)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff contends that TPMG’s failure to serve timely verifications resulted in the waiver of objections. This is incorrect. In hybrid discovery responses like those served by TPMG, objections are preserved even if verifications are not served concurrently with the responses. (See Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 651, 657-58.) Thus, TPMG did not waive objections by serving verifications after the statutory deadline. The Court addresses the remaining issues below.

SI2, No. 20: This interrogatory asked TPMG to “Identify each and every electronic system, platform, application, database, or service used by or on behalf of The Permanente Medical Group, Inc. from June 1, 2022 to the present that creates, maintains, or stores audit logs reflecting access to, activity involving, or interaction with Plaintiffs PHI or PII. For each system identified, state: a. The name of the system and vendor/provider; b. Whether the system is internally hosted or vendor-hosted; c. The categories of audit logs maintained; d. The audit-log retention period; e. Whether audit logs for that system are currently available for the requested time period; f. The person(s) or departments) responsible for maintaining or producing the logs.”

Subject to numerous objections including the failure to define terms, the request for proprietary or private information, and the compound nature of the request, TPMG identified “HealthConnect” as the relevant program. Plaintiff contends this response is incomplete because, among other concerns, it did not respond to any of the interrogatory’s subparts.

This interrogatory is impermissibly compound in violation of CCP section 2030.060(f). Section

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 24CV062948: RICHARDS vs KAISER PERMANENTE, et al. 06/04/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Kenesha Richards (Plaintiff) CRS# 793124578804 in Department 23 2030.060(f) states, “No specially prepared interrogatory shall contain subparts, or a compound, conjunctive, or disjunctive question.” Because the request is compound, Plaintiff is not entitled to further responses to the subparts. The Court finds the response to be adequate. If Plaintiff wishes to propound follow-up, non-compound interrogatories regarding this program, she may do so pursuant to limitations set forth in the Discovery Act.

The motion is DENIED as to SI2, No.

20.

RFP2, No. 21: This request seeks production of “the complete audit trail(s) and native electronic metadata from Defendant’s electronic medical record (EMR) system (including but not limited to EPIC, CareEverywhere, or other platforms used) showing the date, time, author, and method of creation, modification, or upload for the following documents in Plaintiff’s medical chart: a. The document purporting to record Plaintiff’s “verbal consent” for medical authorizations; b. All records containing psychiatric or psychological notations (including references to “conversion disorder,” “functional neurological disorder,” or trauma history); c. All records scanned into Plaintiff’s chart between August 18, 2023 and October 31, 2023, that lack a date/time stamp or appear in PDF/image format rather than native EMR format.”

TPMG asserted multiple objections to No. 21 but responded substantively by identifying two prior document productions as responsive to this request: KFH.Richards001014 - KFH.Richards005796 and KFH.Richards000001 – KFH.Richards001013.

Plaintiff argues that the documents identified by TPMG are incomplete because they do not include or identify the metadata she seeks. Plaintiff contends that she is entitled to this information because TPMG omitted prior versions of amended medical notes from its production, essentially eliminating the underlying history showing what was changed, when, and by whom (see also Plaintiff’s Reply Decl. ¶ 8); that scanned records in Plaintiff’s chart contain no signature or timestamp (see id. ¶ 9); and that the records do not include metadata for the document purporting to show Plaintiff’s “verbal consent.” Plaintiff contends her request is not burdensome because it pertains to a limited time period and imposes a minimal burden while enabling her to litigate her claims.

Plaintiff requests an order compelling production of “complete document-level audit trails and native electronic metadata for the specified records, including creation, modification, scanning, upload history, authorship, and timestamps” in their “native or system-generated format,” or a specific explanation why such metadata cannot be produced and the identification of “each EMR system searched and the scope of the search conducted.” (See Sep. Stmt. at pp. 18-19.)

TPMG contends that its response to No. 21 was complete because it referenced a document production of logs that showed who accessed Plaintiff’s medical records, what action they performed, and the date and time of the action, and Plaintiff did not respond to TPMG’s request that she explain why further records or information is necessary or relevant to this case. (See Wayne Decl. ¶¶ 7, 15.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 24CV062948: RICHARDS vs KAISER PERMANENTE, et al. 06/04/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Kenesha Richards (Plaintiff) CRS# 793124578804 in Department 23 Acivil litigant’s right to discovery is “broad.” (Williams v. Superior Ct.(2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541; Code Civ. Proc.(“CCP”)§ 2017.010.) The Court has found that Plaintiff stated a claim for breach of privacy rights based on a theory of retaliation. (See Order dated 11/21/2025.) Plaintiff has articulated a need for the requested metadata and has therefore satisfied the good cause requirement under CCP section 2031.310. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to discovery of information that may allow her to prove her breach of privacy claim. TPMG has not articulated why it cannot produce the requested information.

On 5/28/2026, the Court continued this matter and ordered TPMG to submit a sample of the audit detail documents it previously produced so the Court could determine whether they contain the information sought by Plaintiff. Upon review, the Court finds that the documents produced by TPMG do not appear to contain audit trails with responsive metadata in native format.

Therefore, the motion is GRANTED as to No.

21. TPMG is ORDERED to produce an audit trail in native format, spreadsheet or database format, or some other appropriate format that captures the requested metadata, and provide a privilege log for any data withheld on privilege grounds. Alternatively, TPMG shall serve a supplemental code-compliant response stating that the audit trails and native format metadata sought in No. 21 do not exist or are unavailable.

RFP3, Nos. 22-24: These requests seek production of “all video recordings, including but not limited to surveillance footage, security camera recordings, patient room cameras, hallway footage, waiting area recordings, or any other video maintained by Kaiser/TPMG, that depict Plaintiff Kenesha Richards during her treatment, admission, or discharge at any Kaiser facility from August 2023 through October 2023” (No. 22); “all video recordings referring, regarding, or relating to Plaintiff’s complaints, treatment, or condition during the same timeframe, whether maintained by hospital security, risk management, or any Kaiser department” (No. 23); and “all body camera recordings, law enforcement video, or third-party security recordings in your possession, custody, or control that relate to Plaintiffs discharge or post-discharge events alleged in the Complaint” (No. 24).

In response, TPMG asserted objections based on vagueness of certain terms in the request, but stated, “A diligent search and a reasonable inquiry have been made in an effort to comply with this request. To the extent Defendant understands this request, Defendant is unaware of items that exist responsive to this request.” Plaintiff’s separate statement appears to confuse RFP3 with RFP2, arguing that TPMG’s response was non-responsive because these requests seek native audit logs and metadata rather than video recordings (see Sep.

Stmt. at pp. 26-29), but later asks the Court order TPMG to either produce video recordings or produce their non-existence after a reasonable and diligent inquiry (see id. at p. 29.) Because TPMG has already confirmed the nonexistence of the requested materials (i.e., video recordings) after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, the Court finds no basis to grant the motion as to RFP3.

The motion is DENIED as to RFP3, Nos. 22-24.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 24CV062948: RICHARDS vs KAISER PERMANENTE, et al. 06/04/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Kenesha Richards (Plaintiff) CRS# 793124578804 in Department 23 RFP4, No. 25: This request demands the production of “complete, unaltered, and native audit log(s) for all electronic systems and platforms that created, stored, accessed, viewed, modified, disclosed, transmitted, exported, or otherwise interacted with Plaintiffs protected health information ("PHI") or personally identifiable information ("PII"), for the period June 1, 2022 through the present.” This request includes but is not limited to “[a]ny health Software company and or Electronic Health Record (EHR) Systems used by the defendant; Epic (including all Epic modules and environments); Care Everywhere; [a]ny affiliated, integrated, downstream, upstream, or interoperable platforms; and [a]ny third-party, vendor-hosted, or contractormaintained systems used by or on behalf of The Permanente Medical Group, Inc. ("TPMG").

The request further includes “audit logs reflecting: 1. All access events, including view-only access; 2. Identity of each user (name, unique user ID, role, department, and credentials); 3. Date and time stamps for each access or event, to the highest level of precision recorded; 4. Type of activity performed, including view, edit, create, delete, print, export, download, transmit, disclose, override, or "break-the-glass" access; 5. Patient identifiers sufficient to confirm the accessed record relates to Plaintiff; 6.

Source and destination information, including IP address, workstation, terminal ID, device ID, remote access indicator, or equivalent; 7. System-generated alerts, flags, justifications, or override documentation; [and] 8. Audit logs required to be maintained under HIPAA, the CMIA, Defendant’s internal compliance policies, or contractual obligations.”

In response to this lengthy and complex request TPMG asserted multiple objections, but as with RFP2 No. 21, TPMG responded substantively by identifying two prior document productions: KFH.Richards001014 - KFH.Richards005796 and KFH.Richards000001 – KFH.Richards001013.

As with RFP2 No. 21, Plaintiff contends that TPMG’s response is incomplete because it does not include audit trails or native metadata showing how, when, and by whom specific records were created, modified, or uploaded.

The Court agrees for the same reasons discussed above with respect to RFP2 No.

21. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED as to RFP4 No.

25. TPMG is ORDERED to produce native audit logs in native format, spreadsheet or database format, or some other appropriate format that captures the requested metadata responsive to No. 25, and provide a privilege log for any data withheld on privilege grounds. Alternatively, TPMG shall serve a supplemental codecompliant response stating that the audit logs and native format metadata sought in No. 25 do not exist or are unavailable.

ORDER

The motion is GRANTED IN PART as to RFP2 No. 21 and RFP4 No.

25. The motion is DENIED IN PART as to RFP3 Nos. 22-24 and SI2, No.

20. All responsive documents or supplemental responses are due no later than 5:00 p.m. on 6/12/2026.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 24CV062948: RICHARDS vs KAISER PERMANENTE, et al. 06/04/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Kenesha Richards (Plaintiff) CRS# 793124578804 in Department 23 Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED. The Court finds no basis to award monetary sanctions in light of the complexity of Plaintiff’s discovery requests and TPMG’s apparent efforts to meet and confer in an attempt to avoid this motion. *If a party does not timely contest the tentative ruling and appear at the hearing, the tentative ruling will become the order of the Court.*

How to Contest a Tentative Ruling Through the eCourt Public Portal To contest a tentative ruling, notify the Court and all parties no later than 4:00 p.m. one court day before the scheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue by completing the following steps: 1. Log in to the eCourt Public Portal.

2. Select Case Search.

3. Enter the case number and select Search.

4. Select the case name.

5. Select the Tentative Rulings tab.

6. Click “Contest This Ruling.” 7. Enter your name and reason for contesting.

8. Select Proceed. You must also notify the department and all opposing parties by 4:00 p.m. one court day before the hearing. Notice to the department must be sent to: Dept23@alameda.courts.ca.gov. Remote Appearance Information For Department 23 Zoom appearance information, please visit: https://eportal.alameda.courts.ca.gov/?q=node/397/1152402 Please provide this information to any self-represented or opposing parties.