County of Sacramento vs. Valley Healthcare Systems, Inc.

Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Sanctions

Filed By: Ullrich, Gabriel

Defendant Valley Healthcare Systems, Inc.’s Second Motion for Sanctions, or in the
Alternative for Order Compelling Further Special Interrogatory Responses from Plaintiff
County of Sacramento is DENIED. C.C.P., sec. 2030.290(b) and 2023.030.

Defendant served Special Interrogatories (Set One) on plaintiff on July 29, 2013.
Defendant moved to compel Plaintiff to provide discovery responses. On Dec. 3,
2013, the Court ordered the parties to further meet and confer and to file a Joint
Statement.

The Joint Statement filed by counsel on Dec. 26, 2013, represented, inter alia, that
plaintiff would provide further responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 1-6.

On Jan. 9, 2014, at the hearing on defendant’s motion to compel further discovery
responses, the Court addressed the motion to compel a further response as to Special
Interrogatories nos. 8, 9, 10 and 12, only, acknowledging that the Joint Statement
represented that counsel had informally resolved their remaining disputes as to the
Special Interrogatories.

Defendant’s current motion represents that the County’s Further Responses to the
Special Interrogatories (nos. 1-6), served Feb. 7, 2014 failed to fully and completely
respond to Special Interrogatories nos. 1-6.

After further meet and confer, the County served Supplemental Further Responses to
the Special Interrogatories (nos. 1-6) on Feb. 25, 2014. Despite further meet and
confer correspondence from moving party, no second set of further responses were
provided.

Moving party plaintiff requests imposition of sanctions on the County for misuse of
discovery, including failing to respond or to submit to any authorized method of
discovery, making without substantial justification an unmeritorious objection and
making an evasive response. C.C.P., sec. 2023.010(d)-(f).

Moving party characterizes the Court’s minute order of Jan. 9, 2014 as incorporating
the parties’ Joint Statement, in which the County agreed to provide further responses.
The Court does not concur, as the Discovery Act is intended to be self-executing and
the meet and confer requirement prior to bringing a motion to compel further
responses is intended to narrow the issues needing to be addressed by the Court.

Even if the Court were to agree with moving party’s analysis that the Minute Order of
Jan 9, 2014 implicitly included an order to provide further responses to Special
Interrogatories nos. 1-6, the moving party concedes that the County has done so, thus
sanctions on this basis are not warranted.

In the alternative, defendant requests that the Court order plaintiff to provide further
responses to Special Interrogatories nos. 1-6.

All of the interrogatories in question are contention interrogatories. Each interrogatory is addressed to the settlement of the underlying Hewitt litigation. That Hewitt action
was filed in the U.S.D.C. The County was sued for the death of an inmate at the
County Jail, an inmate named William Sams. At that time moving party Valley,
pursuant to contract with the County, furnished temporary medical personnel to the
County. In June 2006, Valley furnished the County with a temporary employee named
Edgar Diza, RN. Diza was assigned to the Sacramento County Main Jail where he
began providing nursing services to inmate Sams. Sams later died. Sams’ heirs sued
the County in the US District Court. The County settled with the heirs.

Each of the special interrogatories at issue in this motion addresses that settlement in
the underlying Hewitt action.

Interrogatory no. 1 requests that the County “state the percentage of the
SETTLEMENT YOU contend paid based on anticipated, then existing exposure to
liability for each Count in the HEWITT OPERATIVE COMPLAINT.”

The County’s response to no. 1, after asserting objections on the grounds of attorney-
client and attorney work product doctrine, was that “it paid 100% of the settlement
funds to resolve all of the ‘counts’ asserted against it in the Hewitt operative complaint.
The County did not perform any analysis, nor make any allocation of any percentage
or amount of the total settlement payment to any particular count or cause of action set
forth in the Hewitt lawsuit.”

Each of the remaining interrogatories seeks further information in this vein: No. 2 ( the
percentage of settlement County contends that it paid based on anticipated, then
existing exposure to liability for each type of relief prayed for in the Hewitt complaint),
no. 3 ( the percentage of the settlement County contends it paid based on anticipated,
then existing liability to vicarious liability for its relationship with Nurse Diza), no. 4 (the
percentage of the settlement County contends it paid based on anticipated, then
existing exposure to liability for its direct, non-vicarious liability.), no. 5 (If the County’s
response to the foregoing Special Interrogatories 3 and 4 do not equal 100%, state
what anticipated, then existing exposure to liabilities compose the remaining balance.)
and no. 6 (apportion the County’s answer to no. 4 for each named County Defendant
in the underlying action.)

As to each response, the County makes no contention that it separately allocated any
percentage or amount of the settlement monies paid in Hewitt to any of the identified
categories.

The court understands that the moving party is concerned because two of the answers
(Special Interrogatories nos. 2 and 4) qualify that answer by stating that the County “
does not presently contend that it paid any particular percentage of the settlement in
the Hewitt action…” The word “presently” merely adds noise to the response; a
contention is a point confirmed in controversy. The qualifying word is inapposite in this
context.

This Court interprets that verified representation to bar any future change in position.
If the County does intend to change its contention, at some future date, that an
allocation was made in the past, it must serve a verified second supplemental
response to those interrogatories not later than Monday, May 19, 2014.

Nonetheless, the Court finds that the County’s responses are consistent and complete.
Its verified responses establish it contends that it did not apportion its settlement in the
underlying Hewitt action, thus it does not have any “contentions” as to the manner in
which it did so.

Valley’s motion for imposition of sanctions is also denied. As the County has not
requested the imposition of sanctions on moving party, none are awarded.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule
3.1312 or further notice is required.