Case Number: EC064532 Hearing Date: March 01, 2019 Dept: NCD

TENTATIVE RULING

Calendar: 5

Date: 3/1/19

Case No: EC 064532 Trial Date: June 17, 2019

Case Name: Royal Home Healthcare Agency, Inc. v. Noho Home Health Care Inc., et al.

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

TO DOCUMENT DEMANDS

(CCP § 2031.310)

Moving Party: Defendant Remile Charmaine Gonzales

Responding Party: Plaintiff Royal Home Healthcare Agency, Inc.

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Further Responses to Demand for Documents and Things, Set No. Six

FACTUAL BACKGROUD:

Plaintiff Royal Home Healthcare Agency, Inc. alleges that its former employee, defendant Remil Charmaine Gonzales, used her access to plaintiff’s information to illegally steal plaintiff’s client and employee lists for the benefit of defendant Noho Home Health Care, Inc., and its owner, defendant Bella Aslanova. It is also alleged that Gonzales intentionally allowed plaintiff’s current roster of patients’ medical authorizations to lapse without seeking renewals, and then failed to respond to requests for access to all of her billing sites’ usernames and passwords, so that without those usernames and passwords, plaintiff was unable to bill for services provided or obtain treatment authorization requests, resulting in delayed payments for services. The complaint alleges a series of misdeeds and false statement, including failing to submit required documentation so that plaintiff’s license with the Regional Center of Orange County expired. It is also alleged that it has since been discovered that defendant Elizabeth Hernandez, another former employee, had been supplying information to aid Gonzales’ conduct, and then became an employee of defendant Noho. It is alleged that plaintiff has received numerous Transfer of Service Agreements notifications from defendant Noho pursuant to which patients wrongfully discharged from care by Gonzales while working for plaintiff, are now receiving home health care services from Noho, and that other of plaintiff’s patients are now being serviced by Noho, Gonzales and Hernandez.

Defendants Noho Home Health Care, Inc. and Bella Aslanova have filed a cross-complaint for indemnity and contribution against Gonzales, Hernandez, and cross-defendant Mechab, Inc. alleging that if cross-complainants are held responsible to plaintiff for damages in connection with the complaint, it will be solely due to the conduct of cross-defendants, entitling cross-complainants to indemnity and contribution.

Gonzales has filed a cross-complaint against Royal Home Healthcare Agency and its administrator, cross-defendant Christopher Chen, alleging that cross-defendants have wrongfully made malicious and false statements to their employees, agents and patients with regard to cross-complainant Gonzales and her character

in order to damage her reputation and career. The cross-complaint alleges causes of action for slander per se, defamation, negligence, and IIED.

RULING:

Motion of Defendant Remil Charmaine Gonzales to Compel Further Responses to Demand for Production Set Six:

Motion is GRANTED as to Requests Nos. 75, 76, 77, and 78 of all of which relate to operating expenses for the years 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017, respectively. Plaintiff Royal Health Homecare Agency, Inc. is ordered to provide further complete responses, without objections, and inspection is to be permitted of all responsive documents within 10 days. Responding party has failed to justify objections, which the court finds without merit, and the objections are overruled. The further responses must fully comply with CCP §2031.220, including for each request a statement that defendant will comply with the particular demand, including a statement that the production, inspection, and related activity demanded will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of defendant will be included in the production. The further responses and production must include information relating to the actual dollar value of operating expenses. Plaintiff need not produce tax returns, but must produce profit and loss statements.

Motion is DENIED as to Request No. 79. There has been no showing that the privacy rights to tax returns has been overcome.

Monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,627.50 [$2,177.50 requested] are awarded in favor of defendant Remil Charmaine Gonzales and against plaintiff Royal Home Healthcare Agency, Inc., payable within 30 days. CCP sections 2031.310(h), 2023.010 (e) and (f), and 2023.030(a). This amount consists of 9.3 hours of attorney time at $175.00 per hour. The court does not award attorneys fees for attorney travel time to court.

TENTATIVE RULING

Calendar: 5A

Date: 3/1/19

Case No: EC 064532 Trial Date: June 17, 2019

Case Name: Royal Home Healthcare Agency, Inc. v. Noho Home Health Care Inc., et al.

DISCOVERY MOTIONS (2)

Moving Party: Plaintiff Royal Home Healthcare Agency, Inc.

Responding Party: Defendant NoHo Home Healthcare, Inc.

Opposition filed by Defendant Remile Charmaine Gonzales

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One.

Compel Compliance with Deposition Subpoenas for Production of Business Records by Defendant NoHo Home Health Care, Inc.

FACTUAL BACKGROUD:

Plaintiff Royal Home Healthcare Agency, Inc. alleges that its former employee, defendant Remil Charmaine Gonzales, used her access to plaintiff’s information to illegally steal plaintiff’s client and employee lists for the benefit of defendant Noho Home Health Care, Inc., and its owner, defendant Bella Aslanova. It is also alleged that Gonzales intentionally allowed plaintiff’s current roster of patients’ medical authorizations to lapse without seeking renewals, and then failed to respond to requests for access to all of her billing sites’ usernames and passwords, so that without those usernames and passwords, plaintiff was unable to bill for services provided or obtain treatment authorization requests, resulting in delayed payments for services. The complaint alleges a series of misdeeds and false statement, including failing to submit required documentation so that plaintiff’s license with the Regional Center of Orange County expired. It is also alleged that it has since been discovered that defendant Elizabeth Hernandez, another former employee, had been supplying information to aid Gonzales’ conduct, and then became an employee of defendant Noho. It is alleged that plaintiff has received numerous Transfer of Service Agreements notifications from defendant Noho pursuant to which patients wrongfully discharged from care by Gonzales while working for plaintiff, are now receiving home health care services from Noho, and that other of plaintiff’s patients are now being serviced by Noho, Gonzales and Hernandez.

Defendants Noho Home Health Care, Inc. and Bella Aslanova have filed a cross-complaint for indemnity and contribution against Gonzales, Hernandez, and cross-defendant Mechab, Inc. alleging that if cross-complainants are held responsible to plaintiff for damages in connection with the complaint, it will be solely due to the conduct of cross-defendants, entitling cross-complainants to indemnity and contribution.

Gonzales has filed a cross-complaint against Royal Home Healthcare Agency and its administrator, cross-defendant Christopher Chen, alleging that cross-defendants have wrongfully made malicious and false statements to their employees, agents and patients with regard to cross-complainant Gonzales and her character

in order to damage her reputation and career. The cross-complaint alleges causes of action for slander per se, defamation, negligence, and IIED.

RULING:

Plaintiff Royal Health Homecare Agency, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set One) to Defendant Noho Home Healthcare, Inc. is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

As to Requests Nos. 3, 7 and 8, defendant Noho Homecare Agency is ordered to serve further responses without objection and to permit inspection and copying of documents, limited to communications with former Royal patients and employees regarding their decision to transfer their care/services to Noho, along with documents evidencing compensation Noho has gained from services provided to former Royal patients. Documents maintained exclusively in confidential employee personnel files need not be produced. The responses must fully comply with CCP §2031.220, including for each request a statement that defendant will comply with the particular demand, including a statement that the production, inspection, and related activity demanded will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of defendant will be included in the production. (As for documents withheld as maintained exclusively in personnel files, a privilege log must be served). Further responses to be served and inspection and copying permitted within ten days.

Motion as to Requests Nos. 9 and 10 is DENIED. The court finds that plaintiff has failed to establish that the production of employment files is warranted in this matter, given the reasonable expectation of privacy under the circumstances, a threatened invasion which is serious, and plaintiff’s failure to establish a legitimate countervailing interest which discovery would serve.

Motion as to Request No. 31 is GRANTED. Defendant Noho Homecare Agency is ordered to serve further responses without objection and to permit inspection and copying of all responsive documents within ten days. The response must fully comply with CCP §2031.220, including a statement that defendant will comply with the particular demand, including a statement that the production, inspection, and related activity demanded will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of defendant will be included in the production. Defendant need not produce tax returns.

Monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,020.00 [$2,040 requested] are awarded in favor of plaintiff Royal Health Homecare Agency, Inc. and against defendant NoHo Home Healthcare, Inc., defendant Remil Charmaine Gonzales and against plaintiff Royal Home Healthcare Agency, Inc., payable within 30 days. CCP sections 2031.310(h), 2023.010 (e) and (f), and 2023.030(a). Sanctions are cut in half due to motion only being partly unsuccessfully opposed.

Plaintiff Royal Health Homecare Agency, Inc.’s Motion to Compel NoHo Home Health Care, Inc.’s Compliance with Deposition Subpoenas for Production of Business Records is DENIED. Plaintiff has failed to submit copies of the subpoenas plaintiff seeks to enforce or copies of the notices to consumers, to permit the court to determine if the subpoenas are appropriate. The motion includes only proofs of service. The court also finds that plaintiff has failed to establish that the production of employment files is warranted in this matter, given the reasonable expectation of privacy under the circumstances, a threatened invasion which is serious, and plaintiff’s failure to establish a legitimate countervailing interest which discovery would serve.

Monetary sanctions are DENIED.