Plaintiffs’ motion for discovery sanctions
TENTATIVE RULING(S) FOR June 10, 2026 Department S37 – Judge Winston Keh This court follows California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(b) for tentative rulings. (See San Bernardino Superior Court Local Emergency Rule 8.) Tentative rulings for each law & motion will be posted on the internet (https://www.sb-court.org) by 3:00 p.m. on the court day immediately before the hearing.
You may appear in person at the hearing although remote appearance by CourtCall is preferred. (See www.sb-court.org/general-information/remote-access).
If you do not have Internet access or if you experience difficulty with the posted tentative ruling, you may obtain the tentative ruling by calling the department (S-37) at (909) 708-8707 or the Administrative Assistant (909) 708-8756, who prepared the ruling.
If you (or both parties) wish to submit on the Tentative, notify the other party and call the department by 4:00 pm the day before and your appearance may be excused unless the Court orders you to appear.
You must appear at the hearing if you are so directed by the court in the tentative ruling. Be prepared to address those issues set forth by the court in its ruling.
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE PREVAILING PARTY IS TO GIVE NOTICE OF THE
RULING.
PRIME HEALTH v. INSIGHT
__________________________________________________________________________
TENTATIVE RULING(S):
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for discovery sanctions against Defendant Insight
Screening. Plaintiffs move under Code Civil Procedure sections 2023.010, 2023.030, 2030.300,
2031.310, and 2033.290, for an order for monetary, issue, and evidence sanctions against
Defendant Insight Screening on grounds that Defendant Insight Screening has engaged in serial
misuses of the discovery process and other abusive litigation tactics. Those tactics include (1)
violation of this Court’s January 28, 2025 Order Granting Prime’s motion to compel responses to
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Request for Production, Set No. One; (2) Insight Screening’s failure to implement a litigation hold
to prevent the spoliation of evidence; (3) Insight Screening’s failure to produce a privilege log;
and (4) Insight Screening presenting an unprepared custodian of records at deposition.
Defendant Insight Screening opposes. Plaintiffs have not replied (due on 6/03/2026).
ANALYSIS
The evidence presented shows that Insight Screening has acted in good faith throughout
this litigation, has made substantial efforts to comply with this Court’s January 28, 2025 Order,
and has produced responsive documents in multiple productions despite significant logistical
challenges associated with operating across state lines.
The evidence presented shows that Insight Screening has:
(1) Produced documents on February 28, 2025, March 4, 2025, June 19, 2025, and
October 31, 2025;
(2) Met and conferred with Prime on numerous occasions, including April 15, April 21,
June 9, and August 12, 2025, and beyond;
(3) Provided search terms requested by Prime’s counsel and conducted searches using
those terms;
(4) Made a records custodian available for deposition on November 24, 2025; and
(5) Has continued producing documents even after the Court’s order, despite Prime’s
characterizations to the contrary.
Here, Plaintiffs’ contentions, argument and assertions are not supported by the evidence
presented. Plaintiffs fail to present sufficient evidence of Insight Screening’s complete failure to
comply with the Court’s Prior Order and that Insight Screening’s failure to comply was willful.
Plaintiffs’ entire motion is based upon their own assumptions that Insight Screening has
not produced all the responsive documents in their position. Yes, there are documented delays
and information that indicates that Insight Screening did not search every avenue, box, or
computer for all responsive documents. However, as soon as that issue was brought to Insight
Screening and its counsel’s attention Insight Screening continued to try to comply with obstacles
beyond its control, and that were created by the Haydos and not Insight Screening, Bovy, or their
counsel.
While Insight Screening’s responses are not entirely code-compliant, Plaintiffs’ remedies
included: (1) file another motion to compel further responses; or (2) wait until trial and move to
exclude any evidence that Insight Screening did not properly disclose in discovery. Therefore,
the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions in its entirety.
TENTATIVE RULING(S) FOR June 10, 2026 Department S37 – Judge Winston Keh This court follows California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(b) for tentative rulings. (See San Bernardino Superior Court Local Emergency Rule 8.) Tentative rulings for each law & motion will be posted on the internet (https://www.sb-court.org) by 3:00 p.m. on the court day immediately before the hearing.
You may appear in person at the hearing although remote appearance by CourtCall is preferred. (See www.sb-court.org/general-information/remote-access).
If you do not have Internet access or if you experience difficulty with the posted tentative ruling, you may obtain the tentative ruling by calling the department (S-37) at (909) 708-8707 or the Administrative Assistant (909) 708-8756, who prepared the ruling.
If you (or both parties) wish to submit on the Tentative, notify the other party and call the department by 4:00 pm the day before and your appearance may be excused unless the Court orders you to appear.
You must appear at the hearing if you are so directed by the court in the tentative ruling. Be prepared to address those issues set forth by the court in its ruling.
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE PREVAILING PARTY IS TO GIVE NOTICE OF THE
RULING.
PRIME HEALTH v. INSIGHT
Motion(s): Defendants Jennifer Haydon’s and Joshua Haydon’s Motions for
Summary Judgment
Movant(s): Defendants Jennifer Haydon and Joshua Haydon
Respondent(s): Plaintiffs Prime Healthcare Services, Inc., Prime
Healthcare
Management, Inc., and Prime Healthcare Services – Lehigh Acres LLC, d/b/a Lehigh
Regional Medical Center