Motion to Compel Discovery in JEFFREY MOR, IN AND THROUGH HIS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST, JEFFREY S.REISBECK, ET AL. VS MONTROSE SPRINGS SKILLED NURSING & WELLNESS CENTER, ET AL.| Trellis.Law

On March 30, 2020 a Hearing was filed involving a dispute between Jeffrey Mor In And Through His Successor-In-Interest Jeffrey S.Reisbeck, Mor Marie, and Brius Management Co. Inc., Montrose Springs Skilled Nursing & Wellness Center, Rechnitz Shlomo, Rockport Administrative Services Llc, Verdugo Valley Skilled Nursing & Wellness Centre Llc Dba Verdugo Valley Skilled Nursing & Wellness Centre, for civil in the District Court of Los Angeles County.

Preview
Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 11/12/2020 05:21 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by K. Hung,Deputy Clerk

1 MORAN LAW
Michael F. Moran SB# 121665
2 Lisa Trinh Flint SB# 243468
Brandon S. Kelly SB# 320381
3 5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 1050
Santa Ana, CA 92707
4 Telephone: (714) 549-0333
Facsimile: (714) 549-0444
5
Attorneys for Plaintiffs, JEFFREY MOR, in and through his Successor-in-Interest, Jeffrey S.
6 Reisbeck, and MARIE MOR, an individual
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES [CENTRAL DISTRICT]
10
JEFFREY MOR, in and through his Successor- ) CASE NO.:20STCV12538
11 in-Interest, Jeffrey S. Reisbeck, and MARIE ) [Assigned for all purposes to the Hon.
MOR, an individual, ) Michelle Williams Court, Dept. 74]
12 )
)
13 Plaintiffs, ) PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION
) AND MOTION TO COMPEL
14 vs. ) FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST
) FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS,
15 )
MONTROSE SPRINGS SKILLED NURSING ) SET ONE, FROM DEFENDANT,
16 & WELLNESS CENTER; VERDUGO ) ROCKPORT ADMINISTRATIVE
VALLEY SKILLED NURSING & ) SERVICES, LLC; REQUEST FOR
17 WELLNESS CENTRE, LLC dba VERDUGO ) MONTEARY SANCTIONS IN THE
)
18 VALLEY SKILLED NURSING & ) AMOUNT OF $2,500.00;
WELLNESS CENTRE; BRIUS ) DECLARATION OF BRANDON S.
19 MANAGEMENT CO., INC.; ROCKPORT ) KELLY, ESQ.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC; )
20 SHLOMO RECHNITZ; and DOES 1 through ) [Filed Concurrently with Plaintiffs’
)
21 60, inclusive. ) Separate Statement and [Proposed] Order]
Defendants. )
22 ) Hearing Date: March 8, 2021
) Time: 8:30 a.m.
23 )
) Department: 74
24 ) Reservation: 399607526798
)
25 )
) Complaint filed: March 30, 2020
26 )
) Trial Date: November 30, 2020
27
28

i
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE, FROM DEFENDANT, ROCKPORT
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC; REQUEST FOR MONTEARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT
OF $2,500.00; DECLARATION OF BRANDON S. KELLY, ESQ.
1 TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on March 8, 2021 at 8:30 a.m., or as soon as the matter
3 may be heard in Department “74” of the Los Angeles Superior Court, located at 111 N. Hill
4 Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012, Plaintiffs, JEFFREY MOR, in and through his Successor-in-
5 Interest, Jeffrey S. Reisbeck, and MARIE MOR, an individual, will move the court for an
6 order compelling Defendant, ROCKPORT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC,
7 (hereinafter “ROCKPORT”), to provide further responses to Plaintiffs’ Request for
8 Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 14-15, 21, 46, 49-50, and 54-62. This motion is
9 made pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure (“C.C.P.”) § 2031.310(a)(1-3).
10 Notice is additionally given that Plaintiffs will request that the Court award monetary
11 sanctions against Defendant, ROCKPORT, and its attorneys of records, Gordon Rees Scully
12 Mansukhani, LLP, in particular, jointly and severally, in favor of Plaintiffs, JEFFREY MOR,
13 in and through his Successor-in-Interest, Jeffrey S. Reisbeck, and MARIE MOR, an
14 individual, in the sum of $2,500.00, pursuant to C.C.P. § 2023.010(d-f) and 2031.310(h).
15 This motion is based upon this notice, the attached Memorandum of Points and
16 Authorities, the supporting Declaration of Brandon S. Kelly, Esq., the separate statement in
17 support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel, the complete files and records of this action, and all
18 other evidence that may be presented at the hearing of this matter.
19
20 DATED: November 12, 2020 MORAN LAW
21
22
23 Lisa Trinh Flint
Brandon S. Kelly
24 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, JEFFREY MOR, in
and through his Successor-in-Interest,
25
Jeffrey S. Reisbeck, and MARIE MOR, an
26 individual

27
28

ii
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE, FROM DEFENDANT, ROCKPORT
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC; REQUEST FOR MONTEARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT
OF $2,500.00; DECLARATION OF BRANDON S. KELLY, ESQ.
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 1. INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF FACTS
3 On March 30, 2020, MARIE MOR (“Ms. MOR”) filed a wrongful death action
4 against Defendants, MONTROSE SPRINGS SKILLED NURSING & WELLNESS
5 CENTER; VERDUGO VALLEY SKILLED NURSING & WELLNESS CENTRE, LLC dba
6 MONTROSE SPRINGS SKILLED NURSING & WELLNESS CENTRE; BRIUS
7 MANAGEMENT CO., INC.; ROCKPORT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC; and
8 SHLOMO RECHNITZ (collectively referred to as “DEFENDANTS”), for the neglect of her
9 son, JEFFREY MOR, while he resided at Defendants’ skilled nursing facility. (See
10 Declaration of Brandon S. Kelly (“Kelly Decl.”), ¶ 2).
11 On June 19, 2020, Plaintiff served Defendant ROCKPORT ADMINISTRATIVE
12 SERVICES, LLC (“ROCKPORT”) with Requests for Production of Documents, Set One.
13 (“RFPD”) (Kelly Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. “1”). On August 24, 2020, ROCKPORT provided its
14 responses to these requests. (Kelly Decl. ¶ 4). Plaintiffs’ counsel met and conferred with
15 ROCKPORT’s counsel about ROCKPORT’s initial responses and on October 13, 2020,
16 ROCKPORT provided unverified, supplemental responses to RFPD. However, RFPD Nos.
17 14-15, 21, 46, 49-50, and 54-62 were not supplemented. (Kelly Decl. ¶ 5, Exh. “2”).
18 Plaintiffs’ counsel met and conferred again with ROCKPORT’s counsel about supplementing
19 the insufficient responses and it was agreed that this issue was to be determined at the
20 Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”), which was held on November 2, 2020. (Kelly Decl.
21 ¶ 6, Exh. “3”). At the IDC, Judge Court substantiated that ROCKPORT was to provide
22 sufficient, further responses to RFPD Nos. 9-11 and 18-20. (Kelly Decl. ¶ 7). Plaintiffs and
23 Defendants agreed that said responses would be provided by November 6, 2020. (Kelly Decl.
24 ¶ 8).
25 On November 10, 2020, Plaintiffs’ counsel emailed ROCKPORT’s counsel and
26 requested that further responses be provided by no later than 5:00 p.m. (Kelly Decl. ¶ 9, Exh.
27 “4”). Soon after the email was sent, Plaintiffs received a correspondence from ROCKPORT’s
28 counsel stating that responsive documents will be produced for RFPD No. 46 and that a

1
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE, FROM DEFENDANT, ROCKPORT
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC; REQUEST FOR MONTEARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT
OF $2,500.00; DECLARATION OF BRANDON S. KELLY, ESQ.
1 diligent search and reasonable inquiry is being made by ROCKPORT to obtain responsive
2 documents to the outstanding RFPD Nos. 14-15, 21, 49-50, and 54-62. (Kelly Decl. ¶ 10,
3 Exh. “5”). As of the writing of this motion, ROCKPORT has not provided any further
4 responses, necessitating the court’s intervention in obtaining the previously requested, and
5 more recently, court directed information. (Kelly Decl. ¶ 11).
6 2. DEFENDANT SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO PRODUCE THE
7 DOCUMENTS FORTHWITH
8 California Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.310(a) provides a party with the right to
9 seek an order from the court compelling a response to requests for production. In general, a
10 party may obtain discovery about any unprivileged matter that is relevant to the subject matter
11 of the action. This concept of liberal discovery is codified in the Civil Discovery Act
12 (California Code of Civil Procedure §§2016.010-2036.050), which states (California Code of
13 Civil Procedure §2017.010):
14 “Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this
title, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not
15 privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending
16 action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the
matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably
17 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”
18 Civil discovery is governed by the requirement of California Code of Civil Procedure
19 §2017.010 that the information sought must be “relevant” to the subject matter, and either in
20 itself be admissible, or appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
21 evidence. Without this information, Plaintiffs’ ability to proceed with this case will be
22 hindered and subject the Plaintiffs to prejudice as they will be unable to fully develop their
23 case and adequately prepare for trial. The information requested is necessary to prove
24 Plaintiffs’ claim of reckless elder neglect and meet the associated evidentiary and proof
25 burdens required to recover on their prayer for punitive damages. The specific facts showing
26 good cause for the requested records are set forth more fully in Plaintiffs’ Separate Statement
27 filed concurrently herewith.
28 ///

2
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE, FROM DEFENDANT, ROCKPORT
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC; REQUEST FOR MONTEARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT
OF $2,500.00; DECLARATION OF BRANDON S. KELLY, ESQ.
1 3. FACTUAL BACKGROUND RELATING TO THE PROTECTION OF
2 ELDER/DEPENDENT ADULTS
3 It is well known, and expressly noted by the California Legislature, that the elderly
4 population is acutely susceptible to various forms of abuse and neglect. To address this
5 problem, the California Legislature recognized this vulnerability in Welfare & Institutions
6 Code section 15600(a)-(d).
7 Specifically, the California Legislature promulgated the Elder Abuse and Dependent
8 Adult Civil Protection Act (EADACPA), codified in Welfare & Institutions Code sections
9 15657 through 15657.3. The purpose and intent of the inclusion of Welfare & Institutions
10 Code sections 15657 through 15657.3 in the EADACPA is made clear by the simultaneous
11 addition of subjections (h) and (j) to Welfare & Institutions Code section 15600. Pursuant to
12 Welfare & Institutions Code section 15600(h), the Legislature declared that infirm, elderly
13 and dependent adults are a disadvantaged class, and that few civil cases are brought in
14 connection with their a abuse due to problems with proof, delays and lack of incentives to
15 prosecute these suits. In short, the Legislature sought to encourage and promote legal actions
16 in cases of elder abuse and made the prosecution of elder abuse an explicit state priority.
17 (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15600; see also Sanders v. Lawson (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 434, 439
18 – purpose of Elder Abuse Act is “to encourage private enforcement of laws to protect a
19 particularly vulnerable sector of the population from abuse and custodial neglect.”
20 4. PLAINTIFFS HAVE GOOD CAUSE TO REQUEST THE SUBJECT
21 DOCUMENTS
22 The Plaintiffs have good cause to compel the subject documents as set forth n
23 Plaintiffs’ Separate Statement filed concurrently herewith. This is an elder abuse case
24 whereby the heightened burden of proof requires Plaintiffs to prove by clear and convincing
25 evidence that Defendant was guilty of recklessness, abandonment, fraud, oppression, and/or
26 malice, and that Defendant ratified or authorized such conduct. The documents requested
27 include exchanges between Defendant VERDUGO VALLEY SKILLED NURSING &
28 WELLNESS CENTRE, LLC DBA MONTROSE SPRINGS SKILLED NURSING &

3
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE, FROM DEFENDANT, ROCKPORT
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC; REQUEST FOR MONTEARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT
OF $2,500.00; DECLARATION OF BRANDON S. KELLY, ESQ.
1 WELLNESS CENTRE and ROCKPORT relating to any issues regarding neglect, elder
2 abuse, clostridium difficile during Plaintiff JEFFREY MOR’s residency at Defendants’
3 skilled nursing facility. Moreover, documents regarding consultations provided to
4 ROCKPORT referencing the Defendants’ skilled nursing facility, recommendations made by
5 ROCKPORT to the Defendants’ skilled nursing facility, ROCKPORT’s compliance with
6 infection control/prevention of infections at the Defendants’ skilled nursing facility, and a
7 table of contents for ROCKPORT’s employee handbook were also requested. (Kelly Decl. ¶
8 3, Exh. “1”). As such, these documents are pertinent to Plaintiffs proving their case against
9 Defendants.
10 5. PLAINTIFFS HAVE MADE A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO RESOLVE THE
11 SUBJECT DISCOVERY DISPUTE
12 Code Civ. Proc. §2030.300(b) provides that the motion “shall be accompanied by a
13 meet and confer declaration under § 2016.40.” Under Code Civ. Proc. §2016.40, “[a] meet
14 and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good
15 faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.”
16 As set forth in the Declaration of Brandon S. Kelly, Esq., Plaintiffs over the course of
17 several months and prior informal court intervention have attempted to resolve this
18 discovery dispute in an effort to avoid further consumption of this Court’s scarce resources.
19 The parties conducted further discussions via written correspondence and email in an attempt
20 to resolve this continued dispute. Unfortunately, Defendant, ROCKPORT has not complied
21 with the court’s IDC directive, as well as Plaintiffs’ further attempts to resolve these issues,
22 which has necessitated the instant motion.
23 6. MONETARY SANCTIONS MUST BE IMPOSED AGAINST THE
24 DEFENDANT AND ITS COUNSEL OF RECORDS
25 California Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.310(h) makes sanctions mandatory against
26 any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel.
27 California Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.310(h) states,
28 “The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7
(commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or
4
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE, FROM DEFENDANT, ROCKPORT
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC; REQUEST FOR MONTEARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT
OF $2,500.00; DECLARATION OF BRANDON S. KELLY, ESQ.
1 attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel
further response to a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the
2 sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances
3 makes the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Emphasis added.)

4 Monetary sanctions must also be imposed for “misuse of the discovery process”. It
5 is a “misuse of the discovery process” to “fail to respond or submit to an authorized method
6 of discovery,” make “unmeritorious objections without substantial justification to discovery,”
7 and to make “evasive responses to discovery.” Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.010(d-f).
8 California Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030(a) provides, in pertinent part:
9 “The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging
in the misuse of the discovery process or any attorney advising that
10 conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorneys' fees,
11 incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. . . . If a monetary
sanction is authorized by any provision of this article, the court shall
12 impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanctions
acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the
13
imposition of the monetary sanction unjust.”
14
The Court of Appeal has ruled that California Code of Civil Procedure § 2023 does
15
not require the misuse of discovery be willful in order to justify an award of monetary
16
sanctions:
17
“We too must conclude § 2023, subdivision (b)(1) does not require a
18 misuse of the discovery process to be willful before monetary sanctions
may be imposed. The language of the statute simply does not allow the
19
imposition of such a requirement. . . . Inasmuch as plaintiff does not
20 contend that the trial court abused its discretion on failing to find
substantial justification for their misuse of the discovery process, the order
21 imposing sanctions must be affirmed.” Kohan v. Cohan (1991) 229
Cal.App.3d 967, 971-72.
22
23
Plaintiffs will incur and seek sanctions in the amount of $2,500.00 for attorney fees
24
and costs incurred in obtaining this order (the amount of sanctions sought here is less than the
25
actual cost of preparing this motion, which is approximately $3,210.00). This amount
26
comprises of 7 hours of attorney time, which includes an hour (1) of combined meet and
27
confer efforts to obtain complete responses, four (4) hours for preparing the motion,
28
declaration, and separate statement, with an additional two (2) hours anticipated for drafting
5
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE, FROM DEFENDANT, ROCKPORT
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC; REQUEST FOR MONTEARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT
OF $2,500.00; DECLARATION OF BRANDON S. KELLY, ESQ.
1 a Reply to Defendant’s Opposition, and for appearance at the hearing at an hourly rate of
2 $450.00, and court filing fees of $60. (Kelly Decl. ¶ 12).
3 7. CONCLUSION
4 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully requests that the Court grant the
5 Motion to Compel further responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and
6 issue an order directing Defendant ROCKPORT to serve further responses and responsive
7 documents within 5 days of the Court’s order. Plaintiffs additionally request the Court
8 impose monetary sanctions against Defendant, ROCKPORT, and its attorneys of records,
9 Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP. in particular, jointly and severally, in the sum
10 $2,500.00.
11
12 DATED: November 12, 2020 MORAN LAW
13
14
15 Lisa Trinh Flint
Brandon S. Kelly
16 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, JEFFREY MOR, in
and through his Successor-in-Interest,
17
Jeffrey S. Reisbeck, and MARIE MOR, an
18 individual

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

6
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE, FROM DEFENDANT, ROCKPORT
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC; REQUEST FOR MONTEARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT
OF $2,500.00; DECLARATION OF BRANDON S. KELLY, ESQ.
1 DECLARATION OF BRANDON S. KELLY, ESQ.
2 I, Brandon S. Kelly, declare and state the following under penalty of perjury:
3 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice in all the Courts of the State of
4 California. I am an Associate at Moran Law, counsel of record for the Plaintiffs, JEFFREY
5 MOR, in and through his Successor-in-Interest, Jeffrey S. Reisbeck, and MARIE MOR, an
6 individual. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration, and if were
7 called upon to do so, could and would competently testify thereto.
8 2. On March 30, 2020, MARIE MOR (“Ms. MOR”) filed a wrongful death action
9 against Defendants, MONTROSE SPRINGS SKILLED NURSING & WELLNESS
10 CENTER; VERDUGO VALLEY SKILLED NURSING & WELLNESS CENTRE, LLC dba
11 MONTROSE SPRINGS SKILLED NURSING & WELLNESS CENTRE; BRIUS
12 MANAGEMENT CO., INC.; ROCKPORT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC; and
13 SHLOMO RECHNITZ (collectively referred to as “DEFENDANTS”), for the neglect of her
14 son, JEFFREY MOR, while he resided at Defendants’ skilled nursing facility.
15 3. On June 19, 2020, Plaintiff served Defendant ROCKPORT
16 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC (“ROCKPORT”) with Requests for Production of
17 Documents, Set One. (“RFPD”) (Attached as Exhibit “1” is a true and correct copy of
18 Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production, Set One, to Defendant Rockport Administrative Services,
19 LLC).
20 4. On August 24, 2020, ROCKPORT provided its responses to these requests.
21 5. Plaintiffs’ counsel met and conferred with ROCKPORT’s counsel about
22 ROCKPORT’s initial responses and on October 13, 2020, ROCKPORT provided unverified,
23 supplemental responses to RFPD. However, RFPD Nos. 14-15, 21, 46, 49-50, and 54-62
24 were not supplemented. (Attached as Exhibit “2” is a true and correct copy of Defendant
25 Rockport Administrative Services, LLC’s supplemental responses to Plaintiffs’ Requests for
26 Production, Set One).
27 6. Plaintiffs’ counsel met and conferred with ROCKPORT counsel about
28 supplementing the insufficient responses and it was agreed that this issue was to be

1
DECLARATION OF BRANDON S. KELLY, ESQ.
1 determined at the Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”), which was held on November 2,
2 2020. (Attached as Exhibit “3” is a true and correct copy of the Minute Order).
3 7. At the IDC, Judge Court substantiated that ROCKPORT was to provide
4 sufficient, further responses to RFPD Nos. 14-15, 21, 46, 49-50, and 54-62.
5 8. Plaintiffs and Defendants agreed that said responses would be provided by
6 November 6, 2020.
7 9. On November 10, 2020, Plaintiffs’ counsel emailed ROCKPORT’s counsel
8 and requested that further responses be provided by no later than 5:00 p.m. (Attached as
9 Exhibit “4” is a true and correct copy of the November 10, 2020 email sent to Defendants’
10 counsel).
11 10. Soon after the email was sent, Plaintiffs received a correspondence from
12 ROCKPORT’s counsel stating that responsive documents will be produced for RFPD No. 46
13 and that a diligent search and reasonable inquiry is being made by ROCKPORT to obtain
14 responsive documents to the outstanding RFPD Nos. 14-15, 21, 49-50, and 54-62. (Attached
15 as Exhibit “5” is a true and correct copy of the November 10, 2020 correspondence received
16 from Defendants’ counsel).
17 11. As of the writing of this motion, ROCKPORT has not provided any further
18 responses, necessitating the court’s intervention in obtaining the previously requested, and
19 more recently, court directed information.
20 12. Plaintiffs will incur and seek sanctions in the amount of $2,500.00 for attorney
21 fees and costs incurred in obtaining this order (the amount of sanctions sought here is less
22 than the actual cost of preparing this motion, which is approximately $3,210.00). This amount
23 comprises of 7 hours of attorney time, which includes an hour (1) of combined meet and
24 confer efforts to obtain complete responses, four (4) hours for preparing the motion,
25 declaration, and separate statement, with an additional two (2) hours anticipated for drafting a
26 Reply to Defendant’s Opposition, and for appearance at the hearing at an hourly rate of
27 $450.00, and court filing fees of $60.
28

2
DECLARATION OF BRANDON S. KELLY, ESQ.
1 I declare under penalty of perjury under the State of California that the foregoing is
2 true and correct. Executed this 12th day of November 2020, in Santa Ana, California.
3
______________________________
4 Brandon S. Kelly, Esq.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3
DECLARATION OF BRANDON S. KELLY, ESQ.
EXHIBIT 1
1 MORANLAW
Michael F. Moran SB# 121665
2 Lisa Trinh Flint SB# 243468
5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 1050
3 Santa Ana, CA 92707
Telephone: (714) 549-0333
4 Facsimile: (714) 549-0444

5
Attorneys for Plaintiffs, JEFFREY MOR, in and through his Successor-in-Interest, Jeffrey S.
6 Reisbeck, and MARIE MOR, an individual

7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES [CENTRAL DISTRICT]

~
10 JEFFREY MOR, in and through his Successor- CASE NO.:20STCV12538
in-Interest, Jeffrey S. Reisbeck, and MARIE [Assigned for all purposes to the Hon.
~
11 MOR, an individual, Michelle Williams Court, Dept. 74]
12 )
Plaintiffs, ~ PLAINTIFF, JEFFREY MOR, IN AND
13 THROUGH HIS SUCCESSOR-IN-
vs. ) INTEREST, JEFFREYS.
14
15
16
~~~~~~~:~~Jii~~:;~igRSING
VALLEY SKILLED NURSING & WELLNESS
l
)
REISBECK'S REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS,
SET ONE, TO DEFENDANT,
ROCKPORT ADMINISTRATIVE
CENTRE, LLC dba VERDUGO VALLEY ) SERVICES, LLC
17
SKILLED NURSING & WELLNESS CENTRE;~
18 BRIUS MANAGEMENT CO., INC.; ) Complaint filed: March 30, 2020
ROCKPORT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, ) Trial Date: None
19 LLC; SHLOMO RECHNITZ; and DOES 1 )
20
through 60, inclusive. ~
Defendants. )
21 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _)

22 PROPOUNDING PARTY : Plaintiff, JEFFREY MOR, in and through his Successor-

23 in-Interest, Jeffrey S. Reisbeck

24 RESPONDING PARTY Defendant, ROCKPORT ADMINISTRATIVE

25 SERVICES, LLC

26 SETNO. ONE

27 Ill
28 Ill

1
PLAINTIFF, JEFFREY MOR, IN AND THROUGH HIS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST, JEFFREYS.
REISBECK'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE, TO DEFENDANT,
ROCKPORT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC
1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10:
2 Produce any and all written agreements and/or contracts between YOU and YTR
3 Capital, LLC that were in effect during PLAINTIFF's ADMISSION at the FACILITY.
4 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11:
5 Please produce all DOCUMENTS which sets forth a description of all SERVICES
6 YTR Capital, LLC provided to YOU during the relevant time period of PLAINTIFF's
7 ADMISSION.
8 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12:
9 Produce any and all written agreements and/or contracts between YOU and SR
10 Capital, LLC that were in effect during PLAINTIFF's ADMISSION at the FACILITY.
11 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13:
12 Please produce all DOCUMENTS which sets forth a description of all SERVICES SR
13 Capital, LLC provided to YOU during the relevant time period of PLAINTIFF's
14 ADMISSION.
15 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14:
16 Produce any and all DOCUMENTS to include coffespondence, memorandums, and/or
17 e-mails exchanged between YOU and Defendant, Verdugo Valley Skilled Nursing &
18 Wellness Centre, LLC dba Montrose Springs Skilled Nursing & Wellness Centre relating to
19 any issues regarding neglect at the FACILITY from Octa ber 1, 2018 through July 31, 2019.
20 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15:
21 Produce any and all DOCUMENTS to include coffespondence, memorandums, and/or
22 e-mails exchanged between YOU and Defendant, Verdugo Valley Skilled Nursing &
23 Wellness Centre, LLC dba Montrose Springs Skilled Nursing & Wellness Centre relating to
24 any issues regarding elder abuse at the FACILITY from October 1, 2018 through July 31,

25 2019.
26 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16:
27 Produce any and all DOCUMENTS to include correspondence, memorandums, and/or
28 e-mails exchanged between YOU and Defendant, Verdugo Valley Skilled Nursing &

7
PLAINTIFF, JEFFREY MOR, IN AND THROUGH HIS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST, JEFFREYS.
REISBECK'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE, TO DEFENDANT,
ROCKPORT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC
1 Wellness Centre, LLC dba Montrose Springs Skilled Nursing & Wellness Centre referring to,
2 relating to, or regarding the CARE provided to PLAINTIFF at the FACILITY.
3 REQUEST FORPRODUCTIONNO.17:
4 Produce any and all DOCUMENTS to include correspondence, memorandums, and/or
5 e-mails exchanged between YOU and Defendant, Brius Management Co., Inc. relating to any
6 issues regarding neglect at the FACILITY from October 1, 2018 through July 31, 2019.
7 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18:
8 Produce any and all DOCUMENTS to include correspondence, memorandums, and/or
9 e-mails exchanged between YOU and Defendant, Brius Management Co., Inc. relating to any
10 issues regarding elder abuse at the FACILITY from October 1, 2018 through July 31, 2019.
11 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19:
12 Produce any and all DOCUMENTS to include correspondence, memorandums, and/or
13 e-mails exchanged between YOU and Defendant, Brius Management Co., Inc. referring to,
14 relating to, or regarding the CARE provided to PLAINTIFF at the FACILITY.
15 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20:
16 Produce any and all DOCUMENTS to include correspondence, memorandums, and/or
17 e-mails exchanged between YOU and Defendant, Verdugo Valley Skilled Nursing &
18 Wellness Centre, LLC dba Montrose Springs Skilled Nursing & Wellness Centre relating to
19 any issues regarding insufficient staffing at the FACILITY from October 1, 2018 through July
20 31, 2019.
21 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21:
22 Produce any and all DOCUMENTS to include correspondence, memorandums, and/or
23 e-mails exchanged between YOU and Defendant, Verdugo Valley Skilled Nursing &
24 Wellness Centre, LLC dba Montrose Springs Skilled Nursing & Wellness Centre relating to
25 any issues regarding clostridium difficile ("C. Diff') at the FACILITY from October 1, 2018
26 through July 31, 2019.
27
28

8
PLAINTIFF, JEFFREY MOR, IN AND THROUGH HIS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST, JEFFREYS.
REISBECK'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE, TO DEFENDANT,
ROCKPORT ADMINISTRATNE SERVICES, LLC
1 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 44:
2 Produce all DOCUMENTS which identify YOUR managers during the relevant time
3 period of PLAITNIFF's ADMISSION.
4 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 45:
5 Produce all DOCUMENTS which identify YOUR members during the relevant time
6 period of PLAITNIFF's ADMISSION.
7 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 46:
8 Produce YOUR Employee Handbook that was in effect during the relevant time
9 period of PLAINTIFF's ADMISSION.
10 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 47:
11 Produce YOUR Organizational chaii illustrating the structure of YOUR officers, and
12 positions of employees/officers during the relevant time period of PLAINTIFF's
13 ADMISSION.
14 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 48:
15 Produce all DOCUMENTS prepared by any CONSULTANT hired by YOU that
16 references the PLAINTIFF.
17 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 49:
18 Produce all DOCUMENTS prepared by any CONSUL TANT hired by YOU that
19 references the FACILITY from October 1, 2018 through July 31, 2019.
20 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 50:
21 Produce all DOCUMENTS which reflect recommendations made by YOU to the
22 FACILITY from October 1, 2018 through July 31, 2019.
23 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 51:
24 Produce all DOCUMENTS regarding YOUR compliance with infectioµ control at the
25 FACILITY from October 1, 2018 through July 31, 2019.
26 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 52:
27 Produce all DOCUMENTS regarding YOUR prevention of t

Case Info

Judge

Michelle Williams Court Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

November 12, 2020

Case Filing Date

March 30, 2020

County

Parties

BRIUS MANAGEMENT CO. INC. Respondent
BROOMAND I. HOOSHIE Attorney For Respondent
FLINT LISA TRINH Attorneys for Plaintiffs
JEFFREY MOR IN AND THROUGH HIS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST JEFFREY S.REISBECK Petitioner
MONTROSE SPRINGS SKILLED NURSING & WELLNESS CENTER Respondent
MOR MARIE Petitioner
RECHNITZ SHLOMO Respondent
ROCKPORT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES LLC Respondent
VERDUGO VALLEY SKILLED NURSING & WELLNESS CENTRE LLC DBA VERDUGO VALLEY SKILLED NURSING & WELLNESS CENTRE Respondent
YOUNG HEATHER-ANN Attorneys for Defendants
Lisa Trinh Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Michael Moran Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Brandon Kelly Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Heather Young Attorneys for Defendants
Stephen Ronk Attorneys for Defendants
Philip Spinazze Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Alessandra Horii Attorneys for Plaintiffs

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Hearing: JEFFREY MOR, IN AND THROUGH HIS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST, JEFFREY S.REISBECK, ET AL. VS MONTROSE SPRINGS SKILLED NURSING & WELLNESS CENTER, ET AL.

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties