2013-00149632-CU-MM

John Cazanis vs. SLHCC Inc

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Special Interrogatories

Filed By: Jamieson, David M.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories is ruled upon as
follows.

This is a negligence action against a skilled nursing home provider and various
individuals.

Plaintiff propounded special interrogatories seeking the identification and contact
information of Defendant’s current and former nursing personnel who provided care or
services to Plaintiff.

Defendant objected to the interrogatories on the grounds that it had already provided
its facility records on which the names of persons are set forth. Defendant referred to
those records pursuant to CCP §2030.230. Defendant further objected to the
interrogatories on the grounds that they violated the rights of privacy and personnel
record confidentiality requirements.

It appears that after the motion was filed, Defendant provided the identities and contact
information for the nursing personnel for individuals currently employed at the facility.
Although Defendant provided the identities of the nursing personnel who are no longer
employed at the facility, Defendant has not provided the last known address and
telephone number for these individuals. The motion is GRANTED. Defendant’s provision of supplemental responses is a
concession that its objections lack merit. Moreover, to the extent Defendant is
concerned with third party privacy, the parties may enter into a protective order.

Defendant shall serve verified written supplemental responses, by no later than June
25, 2014.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is denied for failure to comply with CCP §
2023.040.

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

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as
required by Local Rule 1.06(A). Plaintiff’s counsel is directed to contact Defendant’s
counsel forthwith and advise counsel of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative
ruling procedure. If Plaintiff’s counsel is unable to contact Defendant’s counsel prior to
hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel shall be available at the hearing, in person or by telephone,
in the event opposing party appears without following the procedures set forth in Local
Rule 1.06(A).

The court notes that moving party has indicated the incorrect address in its notice of
motion. The correct address for Department 54 of the Sacramento County Superior
th
Court is 800 9 Street, Sacramento California 95814. Moving party shall notify
responding party(ies) immediately.

Item 13 2013-00149632-CU-MM

John Cazanis vs. SLHCC Inc

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Request for Production of Documents

Filed By: Jamieson, David M.

On motion of the court, this matter is continued to July 16, 2014 at 09:00AM in
this department. If the new date is inconvenient for any party, then counsel shall
meet and confer and inform the Department 54 clerk of their request for a
different, subsequent date.

This is a negligence action against a skilled nursing home provider and various
individuals.

The Court notes that in reply, Plaintiff indicates that he has withdrawn the
Motion as to some categories of documents, but continues to seek an order
compelling the production of other categories of documents. The Court commends
the parties for its efforts. However, a motion to compel compliance pursuant to Code
of Civil Procedure §2031.320(a) is appropriate where a responding party has agreed to
produce documents but then fails to permit inspection consistent with that response.
Here, Defendant has not yet agreed to produce any responsive documents and
therefore, Defendant cannot yet be compelled to comply with its written response. Thus, the Court construes the motion as one to compel further responses.

Although Plaintiff has agreed to withdraw “some categories” of documents, it is unclear
to the Court whether all of Defendant’s objections remain at issue and, if not, which
objections Defendant has abandoned.

It is apparent to the court that counsel must resume the meet-and-confer
process in good faith before drawing upon the court’s limited resources.
Counsel for the parties are thus ordered to resume the meet-and-confer process
in order to resolve or substantially narrow their discovery dispute. Additionally,
the parties are advised that the Court will in the future seriously consider
appointing pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §639 a discovery referee who
can more quickly and efficiently respond to the parties’ needs.

In resuming the meet-and-confer process, the parties should be guided by the
observation(s) that:

(1) Defendant’s objection to the term “evidencing” lacks merit. However,
Defendant may specify that the term “evidencing” does not amount to an
admission of a given fact.

(2) The court agrees with Defendant that the RFPs which seek “All
DOCUMENTS evidencing policies and procedures . . .” are overbroad (See,
e.g., RFPs 11, 14, 15, 32, 54, 55, 56) and may implicate third parties’ right to
privacy. (See, e.g., RFPs 67 and 69.) Plaintiff should attempt to narrow the
RFPs accordingly and avoid implicating third parties’ right to privacy.

(3) To the extent that Plaintiff requests documents regarding whether Defendant
has a particular policy, procedure, or protocol in place at its facility, Defendant’s
counsel shall inform Plaintiff’s counsel of whether said policy, procedure, or
protocol exists.

(4) To the extent that Defendant has withheld documents based on attorney
client privilege and/or work product, Defendant shall produce a privilege log.

Counsel shall meet and confer in person no later than June 20, 2014. After thoroughly
meeting and conferring in an attempt to resolve each and every issue that the motion
currently encompasses, and no later than July 3, 2014, counsel shall file a joint
statement indicating which discovery issues have been resolved, and which issues (if
any) remain outstanding. For each outstanding issue, counsel shall set forth in the
joint statement their respective positions, citing the relevant facts and authorities.
Boilerplate or cut-and-paste arguments are strongly discouraged.

Counsel are reminded that this court does not have the resources to tend to and
resolve every discovery issue that could have and should have been resolved
informally. (See Young v. Rosenthal (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 96, 117 [“The very
purpose of an order to meet and confer is to obtain a negotiated resolution of a
discovery dispute without having to expend judicial time to sort out which party is
correct and what relief should be granted. What the court seeks is an agreement by
the parties which resolves the dispute”].)

Counsel are also reminded that this court has adopted, as part of its local rules, the California Attorney Guidelines of Civility and Professionalism, promulgated by the
State Bar of California. In particular, the court refers counsel to Sections 4, 6, 9 and
10. The court is bound to impose monetary sanctions against any party who
unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further discovery\line responses,
absent a substantial justification or other reason making the imposition of sanctions
unjust. The court may also impose sanctions for the failure to meet and confer in good
faith or otherwise misuse the discovery process. (See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§
2023.010-2023.030.)

The court will consider each side’s meet-and-confer efforts in deciding whether to
impose sanctions.