Preview
Electronically Filed
10/26/2020 4:04 PM
Superior Court of California
1 Lawrance A. Bohm (SBN: 208716) County of Stanislaus
Kelsey K. Ciarimboli (SBN: 302611) Clerk of the Court
2 Kyle A. Pruner (SBN: 314874) By: Sabrina Bouldt, Deputy
3 Daniel T. Newman (SBN: 314937)
BOHM LAW GROUP, INC.
4 4600 Northgate Boulevard, Suite 210
Sacramento, California 95834
5 Telephone: 866.920.1292
6 Facsimile: 916.927.2046
7 Attorneys for Plaintiff,
8 CYNDI BAILEY
9 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
10 COUNTY OF STANISLAUS
11 CYNDI BAILEY Case No: 2026940
4600 NORTHGATE BOULEVARD, SUITE 210
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95834
12
Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF
BOHM LAW GROUP, INC.
13 POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
v. SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
14 TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
15 SUTTER VALLEY HOSPITALS dba FROM SUTTER VALLEY HOSPITALS
MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER; dba MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER
16 RAYMOND OVRAHIM, an individual; and TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET
17 THREE AND SET TWO
18 Defendants.
Date: November 24, 2020
19 Time: 8:30 a.m.
Dept.: 21
20
21 Action Filed: November 22, 2017
22 Plaintiff Cindy Bailey respectfully submits the following Memorandum of Points and
23 Authorities in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses from Defendant Sutter
24 Valley Hospitals dba Memorial Medical Center to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of
25 Documents, set two and set three.
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
1
MPA iso Plaintiff’s MTC SVH Responses to RPD, Set Two and Set Three Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq.
Bailey v. Sutter Valley Hospitals, et al. Kelsey K. Ciarimboli, Esq.
Case No.: 2026940 Kyle A. Pruner, Esq.
Daniel T. Newman, Esq.
1 I. INTRODUCTION
2 Plaintiff waited a full year for responses to some of her responses to Plaintiff’s Requests
3 for Production of Documents. Finally, Defendants supplied verified responses on September 4,
4 2020, but those responses contain voluminous unmeritorious objections and a statement that
5 Defendants “will meet and confer with Plaintiff regarding the relevant scope of documents to be
6 produced.” This is not allowed under the Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff is entitled to
7 straightforward answers to her Requests for Documents: either the documents exist, and must be
8 produced, or Defendant is unable to comply, and must state why they are unable to comply.
9 Objections must “identify with particularity” what documents the objections are being made to.
10 Further, in addition to numerous technical deficiencies, Defendant SVH produced a grand
11 total of seven (7) pages of new responsive documents, and Defendant Ovrahim has produced zero
4600 NORTHGATE BOULEVARD, SUITE 210
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95834
12 (0) responsive documents to date. Plaintiff attempted to meet and confer with Defendants in good
BOHM LAW GROUP, INC.
13 faith, but Defendants continue to withhold producing basic responsive documents and code
14 compliant responses.
15 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
16 On October 2, 2019, Plaintiff propounded written discovery to Defendant Sutter Valley
17 Hospitals (“SVH”) that included Requests for Production of Documents, set two. (Newman Decl.
18 ¶ 3.) On January 10, 2020, after receiving an extension of their time to respond, SVH responded
19 with unverified objections only. (Id. ¶ 4.)
20 On April 15, 2020, counsel for Defendants requested an informal stay of discovery due to
21 the COVID-19 pandemic. (Id. ¶ 5.) Counsel for Defendants represented that SVH was unable to
22 participate in litigation temporarily because staff priorities needed to be shifted from litigation to
23 treating critical coronavirus cases. (Id.) Plaintiff agreed to the 60 day informal discovery stay.
24 (Id.)
25 On June 16, 2020, Plaintiff propounded Requests for Production of Documents, set three,
26 to Defendant SVH, and Requests for Production of Documents, set two, to individual Defendant
27 Raymon Ovrahim (“Ovrahim”). (Id. ¶ 6.) Counsel for Plaintiff sent a letter to counsel for
28 Defendants demanding that Sutter supply verified supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s discovery
2
MPA iso Plaintiff’s MTC SVH Responses to RPD, Set Two and Set Three Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq.
Bailey v. Sutter Valley Hospitals, et al. Kelsey K. Ciarimboli, Esq.
Case No.: 2026940 Kyle A. Pruner, Esq.
Daniel T. Newman, Esq.
1 propounded on October 2, 2019. (Id. ¶ 7.)
2 Between June 20 and June 29, 2020, the Parties met and conferred regarding Defendants’
3 ability to respond to discovery. (Id. ¶ 7.) Counsel for Defendants agreed to provide supplemental
4 verified responses by July 24, 2020, or at the very least, provide a substantive written update on
5 Defendants’ efforts to comply with Plaintiff’s discovery requests. (Id. ¶ 8.)
6 On July 23, 2020, counsel for Defendants called counsel for Plaintiff to request a
7 continued informal stay of discovery. (Id. ¶ 9.) Counsel for Plaintiff asked specific questions
8 regarding why Defendants were unable to participate in discovery, and Defendants responded
9 with generic and generalized explanations that Sutter was very busy dealing with the pandemic
10 and could not search for documents. (Id.) Counsel for Plaintiff explained that this did not make
11 any sense since Sutter had a large litigation department, thousands of employees, searching for
4600 NORTHGATE BOULEVARD, SUITE 210
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95834
12 Electronically Stored Information (“ESI”) did not require in person contact, and that Plaintiff had
BOHM LAW GROUP, INC.
13 given, and was willing to continue to give, plenty of time to conduct ESI searches. (Id. ¶¶ 9-10.)
14 On August 11, 2020, counsel for Defendants responded that Defendants could do some
15 limited searches, but that Defendant Ovrahim and other key defense witnesses were
16 “inaccessible”, and could not be bothered to search for documents during the pandemic. (Id. ¶
17 11.) Counsel for Defendants also sent Plaintiff a draft proposal for a stipulated protective order.
18 (Id. ¶ 13.) Plaintiff was willing to stipulate that responsive documents containing patient health
19 information (“PHI”) be covered under a protective order. (Id. ¶ 12.) However, Defendants’
20 proposed stipulated protective order was over twenty pages long, contained multiple
21 confidentiality tiers,some of which would require in camera review of documents, shifted the
22 burden of challenging designations to the non-designating party, i.e., Plaintiff, and was overall
23 very complicated and cumbersome. (Id. ¶ 13.)
24 On August 13, 2020, counsel for Plaintiff emailed counsel for Defendants to reiterate
25 questions why Defendant Ovrahim and other defense witnesses were “inaccessible.” (Id. ¶ 14.)
26 Counsel for Defendants responded two weeks later. (Id. ¶ 16.)
27 On August 26, 2020, counsel for Plaintiff emailed counsel for Defendants a heavily
28 redlined re-draft of the proposed stipulated protective order. (Id. ¶ 15.) As an alternative, Plaintiff
3
MPA iso Plaintiff’s MTC SVH Responses to RPD, Set Two and Set Three Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq.
Bailey v. Sutter Valley Hospitals, et al. Kelsey K. Ciarimboli, Esq.
Case No.: 2026940 Kyle A. Pruner, Esq.
Daniel T. Newman, Esq.
1 was also willing to sign a version of the Los Angeles County Model Protective Order. (Id.)
2 On August 28, 2020, counsel for the Parties conferred over a phone call, and suddenly,
3 now the Defense witnesses including Defendant Ovrahim, were available and able to participate
4 in discovery. (Id. ¶ 16.) Counsel for Defendants explained that Defendants would, finally, produce
5 verified discovery responses by September 4, 2020, with document production to follow on
6 September 18, 2020. (Id.)
7 On September 4, 2020, Defendants produced verified responses to Plaintiff’s discovery
8 requests, including responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents to SVH, sets
9 three and two, and Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents to Ovrahim, set two. (Id., ¶
10 17; Exhibits 1-3.) These responses contain numerous non-compliances with the Code of Civil
11 Procedure. (See Plaintiff’s Separate Statements in Support of her Motion to Compel Further
4600 NORTHGATE BOULEVARD, SUITE 210
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95834
12 Responses.) For example, in SVH’s responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of
BOHM LAW GROUP, INC.
13 Documents, numbers 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 76, 77, 80, 81, SVH responded after voluminous
14 unmeritorious objections that “Defendant will meet and confer with Plaintiff regarding the
15 relevant scope of emails to be produced.” (Exhibit 1 & 2.) Defendant Ovrahim similarly
16 responded with voluminous unmeritorious objections, followed by non-code compliant
17 responses, such as: “Defendant cannot comply with the Request as currently worded.
18 Accordingly, Defendant will continue to meet and confer with Plaintiff regarding the relevant
19 scope of documents to be produced.” (Exhibit 3, Defendant Ovrahim’s responses to Plaintiff’s
20 Request for Production nos. 16, 17, 18, and 21.)
21 On September 18, 2020, Defendant SVH produced seven (7) pages of new documents,
22 and re-produced eight pages that it had previously produced with substantial redactions. (Newman
23 Decl. ¶ 18.)
24 On September 30, 2020, counsel for Plaintiff sent Defendants a meet and confer letter
25 requesting that Defendants produce amended responses. (Newman Decl. ¶ 19, Exhibit 4.)
26 Plaintiff pointed out that Defendants failed to comply with the Code of Civil Procedure in
27 numerous responses, failed to produce any emails or other responsive documents other than seven
28 (7) pages, and appeared to stonewall by not agreeing to Plaintiff’s proposal for a stipulated
4
MPA iso Plaintiff’s MTC SVH Responses to RPD, Set Two and Set Three Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq.
Bailey v. Sutter Valley Hospitals, et al. Kelsey K. Ciarimboli, Esq.
Case No.: 2026940 Kyle A. Pruner, Esq.
Daniel T. Newman, Esq.
1 protective order, or in the alternative, make a motion for the protective order they prefer. (Id.)
2 On October 5, 2020, counsel for Defendants emailed counsel for Plaintiff regarding the
3 proposed stipulated protective order. (Newman Decl. ¶ 20, Exhibit 5.) Counsel for Defendants
4 agreed that Plaintiff’s proposal for a protective order was agreeable—except for the
5 confidentiality designation challenge procedure. (Id.) Defendants insisted that a protective order
6 must contain a designation challenge procedure that would force the non-designating party to file
7 a motion seeking to overturn any confidentiality designation. (Id.) In other words, Sutter wants a
8 protective order whereby it can designate documents as confidential at its discretion, and
9 Plaintiff’s only recourse would be to file a motion with the Court. (Id.) Plaintiff’s counsel
10 explained in a response the same day that this proposal is the opposite of Plaintiff’s preferred
11 procedure, taken from the LA County Model Protective Order, which streamlines the process by
4600 NORTHGATE BOULEVARD, SUITE 210
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95834
12 allowing designating and de-designation without court involvement or the necessity of motion
BOHM LAW GROUP, INC.
13 practice. (Id.) Plaintiff explained that in order to stipulate, the protective order must include the
14 challenge procedure from the LA County Model Protective Order, and the alternative was for
15 Defendants to file a motion seeking a protective order of their preference. (Id.)
16 On October 19, 2020, this Court granted in full a Motion to Compel Further Responses
17 and Production of Documents that Plaintiff’s counsel had to file in the similar case, Kristy Wright
18 vs. Sutter Valley Hospitals et al. (Id. ¶ 21.) That motion is similar to this motion because the same
19 Defendants in both cases supplied evasive non-code compliant discovery responses and provided
20 substantially incomplete production of responsive documents. (Id.)
21 On October 20, 2020, counsel for Plaintiff requested an update as to whether Defendants
22 would amend their responses and if they were still willing to stipulate to a variation of the LA
23 County Model Protective Order. (Id. ¶ 22, Exh. 5.) Three days later, on October 23, 2020, counsel
24 for Defendants in the Wright case called counsel for Plaintiff and explained that the Defendants’
25 position in both the Wright case and in this case is that Defendants will only stipulate to a
26 protective order that contains their preferred confidentiality designation challenge procedure, and
27 the Defendants will not agree to use the challenge procedure offered by Plaintiff from the LA
28 Model Protective Order. (Id. ¶ 23.)
5
MPA iso Plaintiff’s MTC SVH Responses to RPD, Set Two and Set Three Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq.
Bailey v. Sutter Valley Hospitals, et al. Kelsey K. Ciarimboli, Esq.
Case No.: 2026940 Kyle A. Pruner, Esq.
Daniel T. Newman, Esq.
1 To date, in this matter, Defendant SVH has produced 1,302 pages of documents, zero of
2 which are emails or text messages. (Id. ¶ 24.) To date, Defendant Ovrahim has produced exactly
3 zero (0) responsive documents. (Id. ¶ 25.)
4 III. STANDARD
5 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, a party may move for an order
6 compelling further response to a request for production of documents if: (1) A statement of
7 compliance with the demand is incomplete; (2) A representation of inability to comply is
8 inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; and/or (3) An objection in the response is without merit or
9 too general.
10 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subsection (b), the motion to
11 compel shall contain (1) specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the
4600 NORTHGATE BOULEVARD, SUITE 210
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95834
12 demand, and (2) a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040. A movant satisfies good
BOHM LAW GROUP, INC.
13 cause “simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.” (Kirkland v. Super. Ct. (2002) 95
14 Cal.App.4th 92, 99.) “[D]isclosure is a matter of right unless statutory or public policy
15 considerations clearly prohibit it. Even in those instances wherein the statute requires a showing
16 of good cause, that showing must be liberally construed.” (Greyhound Corp. v. Super. Ct. (1961)
17 56 Cal.2d 355, 378.) (emphasis added.) The Court should consider the relationship of the
18 information sought to the issues framed in the pleadings, and the likelihood that disclosure will
19 be of practical benefit to the party seeking discovery. (Columbia Broadcasting Systems Inc. v.
20 Super. Ct. (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 19.) Relevance is broadly construed and discovery must be
21 allowed where it may aid a party’s case. (Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft v. Super. Ct. (1981) 123
22 Cal.App.3d 840, 850.)
23 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subsection (c), the moving party
24 has 45 days to notice its motion to compel, after receipt of the responding party’s verified
25 responses to any request for production of documents.
26 IV. ARGUMENT
27 Plaintiff requested basic discovery from Defendants that is routinely exchanged without
28 issue in every employment case, including emails and text messages between defense witnesses
6
MPA iso Plaintiff’s MTC SVH Responses to RPD, Set Two and Set Three Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq.
Bailey v. Sutter Valley Hospitals, et al. Kelsey K. Ciarimboli, Esq.
Case No.: 2026940 Kyle A. Pruner, Esq.
Daniel T. Newman, Esq.
1 and with Plaintiff during her employment. To date, Defendants have produced exactly zero text
2 messages and emails in response to Plaintiff’s requests.
3 A. Plaintiff satisfied the procedural requirements to bring this motion to compel.
4 Plaintiff’s counsel exhaustively met and conferred with counsel for Defendants. (See
5 Newman Decl.; Exhibits 4 & 5.) Once Defendants finally supplied responses, they contained
6 substantial non-compliances with the Code of Civil Procedure, and numerous verified responses
7 that Defendants “will meet and confer with Plaintiff regarding the relevant scope of documents
8 to be produced.” (Exhibits 1-3; see also Plaintiff’s Separate Statements in Support of Plaintiff’s
9 Motion to Compel Further Responses and Production of Documents.) Despite their attestation,
10 Defendants have not met and conferred with Plaintiff regarding the “relevant scope of documents
11 to be produced.” Plaintiff waited patiently for one year for some of the responses, but Defendants
4600 NORTHGATE BOULEVARD, SUITE 210
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95834
12 asserted shifting rationales for delay, and now refuse to produce all documents, or code compliant
BOHM LAW GROUP, INC.
13 responses. Hence, forcing Plaintiff to have no choice but to file this motion. (Newman Decl. ¶
14 26.)
15 Further, Plaintiff timely brings this motion. Plaintiff has 45 days of service of the verified
16 response to respond, plus 5 days for responses by mail, and dates that fall on a weekend are
17 extended until the next court day closer to trial. (Code Civ. Pro. § 2031.310(c); § 1013; §
18 2016.060.) Defendants served their verified responses on September 4, 2020. (Exhibits 1-3.) Fifty
19 days later was October 24, 2020, a Saturday, which extended Plaintiff’s last day to file this motion
20 to Monday, October 26, 2020.
21
B. Good Cause exists for the discovery sought because (1) Defendants continue
22 to withhold responsive documents that are important to resolution of
Plaintiff’s claims, and (2) Defendants’ inadequate responses and voluminous
23 objections obfuscate the withholding of documents.
24 Pursuant to Code of Civ. Pro. § 2031.310(a), on receipt of a response to a Request for
25 Production of Documents, a “party may move for an order compelling further response” if any of
26 the following apply:
27 (1) “A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete.
28 (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.
7
MPA iso Plaintiff’s MTC SVH Responses to RPD, Set Two and Set Three Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq.
Bailey v. Sutter Valley Hospitals, et al. Kelsey K. Ciarimboli, Esq.
Case No.: 2026940 Kyle A. Pruner, Esq.
Daniel T. Newman, Esq.
1 (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.”
2 Code of Civil Procedure instructs parties on how to respond to requests for the production
3 of documents, outlining three options: (1) a statement of compliance, (2)
4 a representation of inability to comply, or (3) objections. (Code. Civ. Proc., § 2031.210.) Any
5 objections must “[i]dentify with particularity any document… or electronically stored
6 information… to which an objection is being made. (Code. Civ. Proc., § 2031.240.)
7 Plaintiff’s requests for production of documents are highly relevant to her claims because
8 they seek Electronically Stored Information (“ESI”) between the main defense witnesses and with
9 Plaintiff. Plaintiff is plainly entitled to discover communications between witnesses and with her,
10 to the extent they are in Defendant’s custody, possession, or control. Plaintiff is further entitled
11 to a straightforward response under the Code of Civil Procedure as to whether “all” responsive
4600 NORTHGATE BOULEVARD, SUITE 210
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95834
12 documents will be produced, or if Defendant is unable to comply, a statement of why they are
BOHM LAW GROUP, INC.
13 unable to comply, and Plaintiff is entitled to objections that plainly “identify with particularity”
14 what documents are being withheld on the bases of Defendants’ objections.
15 Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant SVH includes defamation, retaliation, whistleblower
16 retaliation, and failure to prevent harassment and retaliation. Plaintiff is entitled to discover
17 communications about Plaintiff to find out what Defendant’s employees said about her. Plaintiff
18 also needs requested communications to advance her claims that Defendant SVH retaliated
19 against her for engaging in protected activities. Communications are essential to discovering
20 Defendant’s motives for removing her from the charge nurse position and rationale for reporting
21 her to the Board of Nursing are at issue. Similarly, Plaintiff has a claim for sexual harassment
22 against Defendant Ovrahim. Ovrahim’s communications with other witnesses and with Plaintiff
23 are directly relevant to proving that Ovrahim’s harassment was severe or pervasive, and that the
24 harassment was linked and/or motivated Defendants’ retaliatory actions against Plaintiff.
25 Despite the obvious relevance to Plaintiff’s claims, Defendants continue to withhold
26 responsive documents. Defendants have produced zero emails or text messages to date. (Newman
27 Decl. ¶¶ 24-25.) After waiting one year for verified responses, Defendant swore it “will meet and
28 confer with Plaintiff regarding the relevant scope of documents to be produced”, and has not done
8
MPA iso Plaintiff’s MTC SVH Responses to RPD, Set Two and Set Three Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq.
Bailey v. Sutter Valley Hospitals, et al. Kelsey K. Ciarimboli, Esq.
Case No.: 2026940 Kyle A. Pruner, Esq.
Daniel T. Newman, Esq.
1 so. Instead, Defendants withhold documents while professing the need for a protective order with
2 a procedure that would hinder Plaintiff’s ability to challenge frivolous or overbroad
3 confidentiality designations.
4 Plaintiff’s motion is further necessitated because the Defendants produced non-compliant
5 responses, and have not responded to Plaintiff’s requests that Defendants amend their responses.
6 Defendants’ responses contain numerous incomplete, inadequate, evasive responses, and
7 voluminous unmeritorious objections. Plaintiff is entitled to code compliant responses that
8 affirmatively state that “all” responsive documents will be produced, or, that Defendant is unable
9 to comply, and a statement of why Defendants are unable to comply. This is not rocket science,
10 the language is laid out verbatim in the Code of Civil Procedure. Instead, Defendants’ reticence
11 to provide code compliant responses disguises their withholding of responsive documents.
4600 NORTHGATE BOULEVARD, SUITE 210
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95834
12 C. Defendant’s Meritless Objections Undermine The Discovery Process
BOHM LAW GROUP, INC.
13 The responses Plaintiff seeks are well within Plaintiff’s rights under the Civil Discovery
14 Act, which authorizes discovery “as a matter of right and without prior court order.” (Greyhound
15 Corp. v. Super. Ct. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 388. “‘[D]isclosure is a matter of right unless statutory
16 or public policy considerations clearly prohibit it.’” [(Williams v. Super. Ct. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531,
17 541 (quoting and citing Greyhound Corp. v. Super. Ct. (1961) 56 Cal.2d. at 378)]. Under the Civil
18 Discovery Act, Plaintiff is entitled to discovery including: “… the existence, description, nature,
19 custody, condition, and location of any document, [and] electronically stored information.” (Code
20 Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.) In furtherance of that right to discovery, the Code of Civil Procedure
21 instructs parties on how to respond to requests for the production of documents, outlining three
22 options: 1) a statement of compliance, 2) a representation of inability to comply, or 3) objections.
23 (Code. Civ. Proc., § 2031.210.) As a cudgel for the enforcement of the right to discovery, the
24 Code also includes a threat of monetary sanctions against a party “engaging in the misuse of the
25 discovery process.” (Code. Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).)
26 Defendants go to great lengths to avoid and delay substantive responses to these critical
27 requests. Defendant’s meritless objections to Plaintiff’s requests for documents are intended to
28 obfuscate and impede Plaintiff’s rights to discovery in this matter. Defendant’s refusal to provide
9
MPA iso Plaintiff’s MTC SVH Responses to RPD, Set Two and Set Three Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq.
Bailey v. Sutter Valley Hospitals, et al. Kelsey K. Ciarimboli, Esq.
Case No.: 2026940 Kyle A. Pruner, Esq.
Daniel T. Newman, Esq.
1 substantive answers has thwarted Plaintiff’s ability to determine whether or not they have all
2 documents and information to which Plaintiff is entitled. Thus, Defendants’ conduct frustrates
3 the purpose of discovery, and this Court should compel substantive responses that comply with
4 Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.210 and consider monetary sanctions for misuse of the
5 discovery process.
6
V. CONCLUSION
7
Based on the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Cindy Bailey respectfully requests that this Court
8
grant her Motion to Compel Defendant Sutter Valley Hospitals dba Memorial Medical Center’s
9
responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two and Set Three.
10
11
4600 NORTHGATE BOULEVARD, SUITE 210
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95834
12
BOHM LAW GROUP, INC.
13
Date: October 26, 2020 By:
14 LAWRANCE A. BOHM, ESQ.
KELSEY K. CIARIMBOLI, ESQ.
15 KYLE A. PRUNER, ESQ.
16 DANIEL T. NEWMAN, ESQ.
17 Attorneys for Plaintiff,
CYNDI BAILEY
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
MPA iso Plaintiff’s MTC SVH Responses to RPD, Set Two and Set Three Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq.
Bailey v. Sutter Valley Hospitals, et al. Kelsey K. Ciarimboli, Esq.
Case No.: 2026940 Kyle A. Pruner, Esq.
Daniel T. Newman, Esq.
Preview
Electronically Filed 10/26/2020 4:04 PM Superior Court of California 1 Lawrance A. Bohm (SBN: 208716) County of Stanislaus Kelsey K. Ciarimboli (SBN: 302611) Clerk of the Court 2 Kyle A. Pruner (SBN: 314874) By: Sabrina Bouldt, Deputy 3 Daniel T. Newman (SBN: 314937) BOHM LAW GROUP, INC. 4 4600 Northgate Boulevard, Suite 210 Sacramento, California 95834 5 Telephone: 866.920.1292 6 Facsimile: 916.927.2046 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff, 8 CYNDI BAILEY 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF STANISLAUS 11 CYNDI BAILEY Case No: 2026940 4600 NORTHGATE BOULEVARD, SUITE 210 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95834 12 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF BOHM LAW GROUP, INC. 13 POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN v. SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 14 TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES 15 SUTTER VALLEY HOSPITALS dba FROM SUTTER VALLEY HOSPITALS MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER; dba MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER 16 RAYMOND OVRAHIM, an individual; and TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET 17 THREE AND SET TWO 18 Defendants. Date: November 24, 2020 19 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept.: 21 20 21 Action Filed: November 22, 2017 22 Plaintiff Cindy Bailey respectfully submits the following Memorandum of Points and 23 Authorities in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses from Defendant Sutter 24 Valley Hospitals dba Memorial Medical Center to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of 25 Documents, set two and set three. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 MPA iso Plaintiff’s MTC SVH Responses to RPD, Set Two and Set Three Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq. Bailey v. Sutter Valley Hospitals, et al. Kelsey K. Ciarimboli, Esq. Case No.: 2026940 Kyle A. Pruner, Esq. Daniel T. Newman, Esq. 1 I. INTRODUCTION 2 Plaintiff waited a full year for responses to some of her responses to Plaintiff’s Requests 3 for Production of Documents. Finally, Defendants supplied verified responses on September 4, 4 2020, but those responses contain voluminous unmeritorious objections and a statement that 5 Defendants “will meet and confer with Plaintiff regarding the relevant scope of documents to be 6 produced.” This is not allowed under the Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff is entitled to 7 straightforward answers to her Requests for Documents: either the documents exist, and must be 8 produced, or Defendant is unable to comply, and must state why they are unable to comply. 9 Objections must “identify with particularity” what documents the objections are being made to. 10 Further, in addition to numerous technical deficiencies, Defendant SVH produced a grand 11 total of seven (7) pages of new responsive documents, and Defendant Ovrahim has produced zero 4600 NORTHGATE BOULEVARD, SUITE 210 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95834 12 (0) responsive documents to date. Plaintiff attempted to meet and confer with Defendants in good BOHM LAW GROUP, INC. 13 faith, but Defendants continue to withhold producing basic responsive documents and code 14 compliant responses. 15 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 16 On October 2, 2019, Plaintiff propounded written discovery to Defendant Sutter Valley 17 Hospitals (“SVH”) that included Requests for Production of Documents, set two. (Newman Decl. 18 ¶ 3.) On January 10, 2020, after receiving an extension of their time to respond, SVH responded 19 with unverified objections only. (Id. ¶ 4.) 20 On April 15, 2020, counsel for Defendants requested an informal stay of discovery due to 21 the COVID-19 pandemic. (Id. ¶ 5.) Counsel for Defendants represented that SVH was unable to 22 participate in litigation temporarily because staff priorities needed to be shifted from litigation to 23 treating critical coronavirus cases. (Id.) Plaintiff agreed to the 60 day informal discovery stay. 24 (Id.) 25 On June 16, 2020, Plaintiff propounded Requests for Production of Documents, set three, 26 to Defendant SVH, and Requests for Production of Documents, set two, to individual Defendant 27 Raymon Ovrahim (“Ovrahim”). (Id. ¶ 6.) Counsel for Plaintiff sent a letter to counsel for 28 Defendants demanding that Sutter supply verified supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s discovery 2 MPA iso Plaintiff’s MTC SVH Responses to RPD, Set Two and Set Three Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq. Bailey v. Sutter Valley Hospitals, et al. Kelsey K. Ciarimboli, Esq. Case No.: 2026940 Kyle A. Pruner, Esq. Daniel T. Newman, Esq. 1 propounded on October 2, 2019. (Id. ¶ 7.) 2 Between June 20 and June 29, 2020, the Parties met and conferred regarding Defendants’ 3 ability to respond to discovery. (Id. ¶ 7.) Counsel for Defendants agreed to provide supplemental 4 verified responses by July 24, 2020, or at the very least, provide a substantive written update on 5 Defendants’ efforts to comply with Plaintiff’s discovery requests. (Id. ¶ 8.) 6 On July 23, 2020, counsel for Defendants called counsel for Plaintiff to request a 7 continued informal stay of discovery. (Id. ¶ 9.) Counsel for Plaintiff asked specific questions 8 regarding why Defendants were unable to participate in discovery, and Defendants responded 9 with generic and generalized explanations that Sutter was very busy dealing with the pandemic 10 and could not search for documents. (Id.) Counsel for Plaintiff explained that this did not make 11 any sense since Sutter had a large litigation department, thousands of employees, searching for 4600 NORTHGATE BOULEVARD, SUITE 210 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95834 12 Electronically Stored Information (“ESI”) did not require in person contact, and that Plaintiff had BOHM LAW GROUP, INC. 13 given, and was willing to continue to give, plenty of time to conduct ESI searches. (Id. ¶¶ 9-10.) 14 On August 11, 2020, counsel for Defendants responded that Defendants could do some 15 limited searches, but that Defendant Ovrahim and other key defense witnesses were 16 “inaccessible”, and could not be bothered to search for documents during the pandemic. (Id. ¶ 17 11.) Counsel for Defendants also sent Plaintiff a draft proposal for a stipulated protective order. 18 (Id. ¶ 13.) Plaintiff was willing to stipulate that responsive documents containing patient health 19 information (“PHI”) be covered under a protective order. (Id. ¶ 12.) However, Defendants’ 20 proposed stipulated protective order was over twenty pages long, contained multiple 21 confidentiality tiers,some of which would require in camera review of documents, shifted the 22 burden of challenging designations to the non-designating party, i.e., Plaintiff, and was overall 23 very complicated and cumbersome. (Id. ¶ 13.) 24 On August 13, 2020, counsel for Plaintiff emailed counsel for Defendants to reiterate 25 questions why Defendant Ovrahim and other defense witnesses were “inaccessible.” (Id. ¶ 14.) 26 Counsel for Defendants responded two weeks later. (Id. ¶ 16.) 27 On August 26, 2020, counsel for Plaintiff emailed counsel for Defendants a heavily 28 redlined re-draft of the proposed stipulated protective order. (Id. ¶ 15.) As an alternative, Plaintiff 3 MPA iso Plaintiff’s MTC SVH Responses to RPD, Set Two and Set Three Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq. Bailey v. Sutter Valley Hospitals, et al. Kelsey K. Ciarimboli, Esq. Case No.: 2026940 Kyle A. Pruner, Esq. Daniel T. Newman, Esq. 1 was also willing to sign a version of the Los Angeles County Model Protective Order. (Id.) 2 On August 28, 2020, counsel for the Parties conferred over a phone call, and suddenly, 3 now the Defense witnesses including Defendant Ovrahim, were available and able to participate 4 in discovery. (Id. ¶ 16.) Counsel for Defendants explained that Defendants would, finally, produce 5 verified discovery responses by September 4, 2020, with document production to follow on 6 September 18, 2020. (Id.) 7 On September 4, 2020, Defendants produced verified responses to Plaintiff’s discovery 8 requests, including responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents to SVH, sets 9 three and two, and Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents to Ovrahim, set two. (Id., ¶ 10 17; Exhibits 1-3.) These responses contain numerous non-compliances with the Code of Civil 11 Procedure. (See Plaintiff’s Separate Statements in Support of her Motion to Compel Further 4600 NORTHGATE BOULEVARD, SUITE 210 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95834 12 Responses.) For example, in SVH’s responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of BOHM LAW GROUP, INC. 13 Documents, numbers 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 76, 77, 80, 81, SVH responded after voluminous 14 unmeritorious objections that “Defendant will meet and confer with Plaintiff regarding the 15 relevant scope of emails to be produced.” (Exhibit 1 & 2.) Defendant Ovrahim similarly 16 responded with voluminous unmeritorious objections, followed by non-code compliant 17 responses, such as: “Defendant cannot comply with the Request as currently worded. 18 Accordingly, Defendant will continue to meet and confer with Plaintiff regarding the relevant 19 scope of documents to be produced.” (Exhibit 3, Defendant Ovrahim’s responses to Plaintiff’s 20 Request for Production nos. 16, 17, 18, and 21.) 21 On September 18, 2020, Defendant SVH produced seven (7) pages of new documents, 22 and re-produced eight pages that it had previously produced with substantial redactions. (Newman 23 Decl. ¶ 18.) 24 On September 30, 2020, counsel for Plaintiff sent Defendants a meet and confer letter 25 requesting that Defendants produce amended responses. (Newman Decl. ¶ 19, Exhibit 4.) 26 Plaintiff pointed out that Defendants failed to comply with the Code of Civil Procedure in 27 numerous responses, failed to produce any emails or other responsive documents other than seven 28 (7) pages, and appeared to stonewall by not agreeing to Plaintiff’s proposal for a stipulated 4 MPA iso Plaintiff’s MTC SVH Responses to RPD, Set Two and Set Three Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq. Bailey v. Sutter Valley Hospitals, et al. Kelsey K. Ciarimboli, Esq. Case No.: 2026940 Kyle A. Pruner, Esq. Daniel T. Newman, Esq. 1 protective order, or in the alternative, make a motion for the protective order they prefer. (Id.) 2 On October 5, 2020, counsel for Defendants emailed counsel for Plaintiff regarding the 3 proposed stipulated protective order. (Newman Decl. ¶ 20, Exhibit 5.) Counsel for Defendants 4 agreed that Plaintiff’s proposal for a protective order was agreeable—except for the 5 confidentiality designation challenge procedure. (Id.) Defendants insisted that a protective order 6 must contain a designation challenge procedure that would force the non-designating party to file 7 a motion seeking to overturn any confidentiality designation. (Id.) In other words, Sutter wants a 8 protective order whereby it can designate documents as confidential at its discretion, and 9 Plaintiff’s only recourse would be to file a motion with the Court. (Id.) Plaintiff’s counsel 10 explained in a response the same day that this proposal is the opposite of Plaintiff’s preferred 11 procedure, taken from the LA County Model Protective Order, which streamlines the process by 4600 NORTHGATE BOULEVARD, SUITE 210 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95834 12 allowing designating and de-designation without court involvement or the necessity of motion BOHM LAW GROUP, INC. 13 practice. (Id.) Plaintiff explained that in order to stipulate, the protective order must include the 14 challenge procedure from the LA County Model Protective Order, and the alternative was for 15 Defendants to file a motion seeking a protective order of their preference. (Id.) 16 On October 19, 2020, this Court granted in full a Motion to Compel Further Responses 17 and Production of Documents that Plaintiff’s counsel had to file in the similar case, Kristy Wright 18 vs. Sutter Valley Hospitals et al. (Id. ¶ 21.) That motion is similar to this motion because the same 19 Defendants in both cases supplied evasive non-code compliant discovery responses and provided 20 substantially incomplete production of responsive documents. (Id.) 21 On October 20, 2020, counsel for Plaintiff requested an update as to whether Defendants 22 would amend their responses and if they were still willing to stipulate to a variation of the LA 23 County Model Protective Order. (Id. ¶ 22, Exh. 5.) Three days later, on October 23, 2020, counsel 24 for Defendants in the Wright case called counsel for Plaintiff and explained that the Defendants’ 25 position in both the Wright case and in this case is that Defendants will only stipulate to a 26 protective order that contains their preferred confidentiality designation challenge procedure, and 27 the Defendants will not agree to use the challenge procedure offered by Plaintiff from the LA 28 Model Protective Order. (Id. ¶ 23.) 5 MPA iso Plaintiff’s MTC SVH Responses to RPD, Set Two and Set Three Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq. Bailey v. Sutter Valley Hospitals, et al. Kelsey K. Ciarimboli, Esq. Case No.: 2026940 Kyle A. Pruner, Esq. Daniel T. Newman, Esq. 1 To date, in this matter, Defendant SVH has produced 1,302 pages of documents, zero of 2 which are emails or text messages. (Id. ¶ 24.) To date, Defendant Ovrahim has produced exactly 3 zero (0) responsive documents. (Id. ¶ 25.) 4 III. STANDARD 5 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, a party may move for an order 6 compelling further response to a request for production of documents if: (1) A statement of 7 compliance with the demand is incomplete; (2) A representation of inability to comply is 8 inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; and/or (3) An objection in the response is without merit or 9 too general. 10 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subsection (b), the motion to 11 compel shall contain (1) specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the 4600 NORTHGATE BOULEVARD, SUITE 210 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95834 12 demand, and (2) a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040. A movant satisfies good BOHM LAW GROUP, INC. 13 cause “simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.” (Kirkland v. Super. Ct. (2002) 95 14 Cal.App.4th 92, 99.) “[D]isclosure is a matter of right unless statutory or public policy 15 considerations clearly prohibit it. Even in those instances wherein the statute requires a showing 16 of good cause, that showing must be liberally construed.” (Greyhound Corp. v. Super. Ct. (1961) 17 56 Cal.2d 355, 378.) (emphasis added.) The Court should consider the relationship of the 18 information sought to the issues framed in the pleadings, and the likelihood that disclosure will 19 be of practical benefit to the party seeking discovery. (Columbia Broadcasting Systems Inc. v. 20 Super. Ct. (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 19.) Relevance is broadly construed and discovery must be 21 allowed where it may aid a party’s case. (Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft v. Super. Ct. (1981) 123 22 Cal.App.3d 840, 850.) 23 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subsection (c), the moving party 24 has 45 days to notice its motion to compel, after receipt of the responding party’s verified 25 responses to any request for production of documents. 26 IV. ARGUMENT 27 Plaintiff requested basic discovery from Defendants that is routinely exchanged without 28 issue in every employment case, including emails and text messages between defense witnesses 6 MPA iso Plaintiff’s MTC SVH Responses to RPD, Set Two and Set Three Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq. Bailey v. Sutter Valley Hospitals, et al. Kelsey K. Ciarimboli, Esq. Case No.: 2026940 Kyle A. Pruner, Esq. Daniel T. Newman, Esq. 1 and with Plaintiff during her employment. To date, Defendants have produced exactly zero text 2 messages and emails in response to Plaintiff’s requests. 3 A. Plaintiff satisfied the procedural requirements to bring this motion to compel. 4 Plaintiff’s counsel exhaustively met and conferred with counsel for Defendants. (See 5 Newman Decl.; Exhibits 4 & 5.) Once Defendants finally supplied responses, they contained 6 substantial non-compliances with the Code of Civil Procedure, and numerous verified responses 7 that Defendants “will meet and confer with Plaintiff regarding the relevant scope of documents 8 to be produced.” (Exhibits 1-3; see also Plaintiff’s Separate Statements in Support of Plaintiff’s 9 Motion to Compel Further Responses and Production of Documents.) Despite their attestation, 10 Defendants have not met and conferred with Plaintiff regarding the “relevant scope of documents 11 to be produced.” Plaintiff waited patiently for one year for some of the responses, but Defendants 4600 NORTHGATE BOULEVARD, SUITE 210 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95834 12 asserted shifting rationales for delay, and now refuse to produce all documents, or code compliant BOHM LAW GROUP, INC. 13 responses. Hence, forcing Plaintiff to have no choice but to file this motion. (Newman Decl. ¶ 14 26.) 15 Further, Plaintiff timely brings this motion. Plaintiff has 45 days of service of the verified 16 response to respond, plus 5 days for responses by mail, and dates that fall on a weekend are 17 extended until the next court day closer to trial. (Code Civ. Pro. § 2031.310(c); § 1013; § 18 2016.060.) Defendants served their verified responses on September 4, 2020. (Exhibits 1-3.) Fifty 19 days later was October 24, 2020, a Saturday, which extended Plaintiff’s last day to file this motion 20 to Monday, October 26, 2020. 21 B. Good Cause exists for the discovery sought because (1) Defendants continue 22 to withhold responsive documents that are important to resolution of Plaintiff’s claims, and (2) Defendants’ inadequate responses and voluminous 23 objections obfuscate the withholding of documents. 24 Pursuant to Code of Civ. Pro. § 2031.310(a), on receipt of a response to a Request for 25 Production of Documents, a “party may move for an order compelling further response” if any of 26 the following apply: 27 (1) “A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete. 28 (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive. 7 MPA iso Plaintiff’s MTC SVH Responses to RPD, Set Two and Set Three Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq. Bailey v. Sutter Valley Hospitals, et al. Kelsey K. Ciarimboli, Esq. Case No.: 2026940 Kyle A. Pruner, Esq. Daniel T. Newman, Esq. 1 (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.” 2 Code of Civil Procedure instructs parties on how to respond to requests for the production 3 of documents, outlining three options: (1) a statement of compliance, (2) 4 a representation of inability to comply, or (3) objections. (Code. Civ. Proc., § 2031.210.) Any 5 objections must “[i]dentify with particularity any document… or electronically stored 6 information… to which an objection is being made. (Code. Civ. Proc., § 2031.240.) 7 Plaintiff’s requests for production of documents are highly relevant to her claims because 8 they seek Electronically Stored Information (“ESI”) between the main defense witnesses and with 9 Plaintiff. Plaintiff is plainly entitled to discover communications between witnesses and with her, 10 to the extent they are in Defendant’s custody, possession, or control. Plaintiff is further entitled 11 to a straightforward response under the Code of Civil Procedure as to whether “all” responsive 4600 NORTHGATE BOULEVARD, SUITE 210 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95834 12 documents will be produced, or if Defendant is unable to comply, a statement of why they are BOHM LAW GROUP, INC. 13 unable to comply, and Plaintiff is entitled to objections that plainly “identify with particularity” 14 what documents are being withheld on the bases of Defendants’ objections. 15 Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant SVH includes defamation, retaliation, whistleblower 16 retaliation, and failure to prevent harassment and retaliation. Plaintiff is entitled to discover 17 communications about Plaintiff to find out what Defendant’s employees said about her. Plaintiff 18 also needs requested communications to advance her claims that Defendant SVH retaliated 19 against her for engaging in protected activities. Communications are essential to discovering 20 Defendant’s motives for removing her from the charge nurse position and rationale for reporting 21 her to the Board of Nursing are at issue. Similarly, Plaintiff has a claim for sexual harassment 22 against Defendant Ovrahim. Ovrahim’s communications with other witnesses and with Plaintiff 23 are directly relevant to proving that Ovrahim’s harassment was severe or pervasive, and that the 24 harassment was linked and/or motivated Defendants’ retaliatory actions against Plaintiff. 25 Despite the obvious relevance to Plaintiff’s claims, Defendants continue to withhold 26 responsive documents. Defendants have produced zero emails or text messages to date. (Newman 27 Decl. ¶¶ 24-25.) After waiting one year for verified responses, Defendant swore it “will meet and 28 confer with Plaintiff regarding the relevant scope of documents to be produced”, and has not done 8 MPA iso Plaintiff’s MTC SVH Responses to RPD, Set Two and Set Three Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq. Bailey v. Sutter Valley Hospitals, et al. Kelsey K. Ciarimboli, Esq. Case No.: 2026940 Kyle A. Pruner, Esq. Daniel T. Newman, Esq. 1 so. Instead, Defendants withhold documents while professing the need for a protective order with 2 a procedure that would hinder Plaintiff’s ability to challenge frivolous or overbroad 3 confidentiality designations. 4 Plaintiff’s motion is further necessitated because the Defendants produced non-compliant 5 responses, and have not responded to Plaintiff’s requests that Defendants amend their responses. 6 Defendants’ responses contain numerous incomplete, inadequate, evasive responses, and 7 voluminous unmeritorious objections. Plaintiff is entitled to code compliant responses that 8 affirmatively state that “all” responsive documents will be produced, or, that Defendant is unable 9 to comply, and a statement of why Defendants are unable to comply. This is not rocket science, 10 the language is laid out verbatim in the Code of Civil Procedure. Instead, Defendants’ reticence 11 to provide code compliant responses disguises their withholding of responsive documents. 4600 NORTHGATE BOULEVARD, SUITE 210 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95834 12 C. Defendant’s Meritless Objections Undermine The Discovery Process BOHM LAW GROUP, INC. 13 The responses Plaintiff seeks are well within Plaintiff’s rights under the Civil Discovery 14 Act, which authorizes discovery “as a matter of right and without prior court order.” (Greyhound 15 Corp. v. Super. Ct. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 388. “‘[D]isclosure is a matter of right unless statutory 16 or public policy considerations clearly prohibit it.’” [(Williams v. Super. Ct. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 17 541 (quoting and citing Greyhound Corp. v. Super. Ct. (1961) 56 Cal.2d. at 378)]. Under the Civil 18 Discovery Act, Plaintiff is entitled to discovery including: “… the existence, description, nature, 19 custody, condition, and location of any document, [and] electronically stored information.” (Code 20 Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.) In furtherance of that right to discovery, the Code of Civil Procedure 21 instructs parties on how to respond to requests for the production of documents, outlining three 22 options: 1) a statement of compliance, 2) a representation of inability to comply, or 3) objections. 23 (Code. Civ. Proc., § 2031.210.) As a cudgel for the enforcement of the right to discovery, the 24 Code also includes a threat of monetary sanctions against a party “engaging in the misuse of the 25 discovery process.” (Code. Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).) 26 Defendants go to great lengths to avoid and delay substantive responses to these critical 27 requests. Defendant’s meritless objections to Plaintiff’s requests for documents are intended to 28 obfuscate and impede Plaintiff’s rights to discovery in this matter. Defendant’s refusal to provide 9 MPA iso Plaintiff’s MTC SVH Responses to RPD, Set Two and Set Three Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq. Bailey v. Sutter Valley Hospitals, et al. Kelsey K. Ciarimboli, Esq. Case No.: 2026940 Kyle A. Pruner, Esq. Daniel T. Newman, Esq. 1 substantive answers has thwarted Plaintiff’s ability to determine whether or not they have all 2 documents and information to which Plaintiff is entitled. Thus, Defendants’ conduct frustrates 3 the purpose of discovery, and this Court should compel substantive responses that comply with 4 Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.210 and consider monetary sanctions for misuse of the 5 discovery process. 6 V. CONCLUSION 7 Based on the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Cindy Bailey respectfully requests that this Court 8 grant her Motion to Compel Defendant Sutter Valley Hospitals dba Memorial Medical Center’s 9 responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two and Set Three. 10 11 4600 NORTHGATE BOULEVARD, SUITE 210 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95834 12 BOHM LAW GROUP, INC. 13 Date: October 26, 2020 By: 14 LAWRANCE A. BOHM, ESQ. KELSEY K. CIARIMBOLI, ESQ. 15 KYLE A. PRUNER, ESQ. 16 DANIEL T. NEWMAN, ESQ. 17 Attorneys for Plaintiff, CYNDI BAILEY 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10 MPA iso Plaintiff’s MTC SVH Responses to RPD, Set Two and Set Three Lawrance A. Bohm, Esq. Bailey v. Sutter Valley Hospitals, et al. Kelsey K. Ciarimboli, Esq. Case No.: 2026940 Kyle A. Pruner, Esq. Daniel T. Newman, Esq.