arrow left
arrow right
  • CONTRERAS, MARCOS ARMENTA vs CENTRAL VALLEY SPECIALTY HOSPITAL INCOther Personal Injury: Unlimited document preview
  • CONTRERAS, MARCOS ARMENTA vs CENTRAL VALLEY SPECIALTY HOSPITAL INCOther Personal Injury: Unlimited document preview
  • CONTRERAS, MARCOS ARMENTA vs CENTRAL VALLEY SPECIALTY HOSPITAL INCOther Personal Injury: Unlimited document preview
  • CONTRERAS, MARCOS ARMENTA vs CENTRAL VALLEY SPECIALTY HOSPITAL INCOther Personal Injury: Unlimited document preview
  • CONTRERAS, MARCOS ARMENTA vs CENTRAL VALLEY SPECIALTY HOSPITAL INCOther Personal Injury: Unlimited document preview
  • CONTRERAS, MARCOS ARMENTA vs CENTRAL VALLEY SPECIALTY HOSPITAL INCOther Personal Injury: Unlimited document preview
  • CONTRERAS, MARCOS ARMENTA vs CENTRAL VALLEY SPECIALTY HOSPITAL INCOther Personal Injury: Unlimited document preview
  • CONTRERAS, MARCOS ARMENTA vs CENTRAL VALLEY SPECIALTY HOSPITAL INCOther Personal Injury: Unlimited document preview
						
                                

Preview

1 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP Electronically Filed KIM M. WELLS, SB# 232279 4/8/2021 4:33 PM 2 E-Mail: Kim.Wells@lewisbrisbois.com Superior Court of California CHRISTOPHER T. CHOI, SB# 308507 County of Stanislaus 3 E-Mail: Christopher.Choi@lewisbrisbois.com Clerk of the Court 2020 West El Camino Avenue, Suite 700 By: Kimberly Mean, Deputy 4 Sacramento, California 95833 Telephone: 916.564.5400 5 Facsimile: 916.564.5444 6 Attorneys for CENTRAL VALLEY SPECIALTY HOSPITAL, INC., dba CENTRAL 7 VALLEY SPECIALTY HOSPITAL AND GURPREET SINGH 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF STANISLAUS 11 MARCOS ARMENTA CONTRERAS, by and CASE NO.: CV-19-002728 through his Successor-in-Interest, LAURIE K. 12 SMITH and LAURIE K. SMITH, LEANDRA DEFENDANT CENTRAL VALLEY CONTRERAS, and MARCOS ANTONIO SPECIALTY HOSPITAL’S 13 CONTRERAS, Individually, MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL 14 Plaintiffs, FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, 15 vs. ONE; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS 16 CENTRAL VALLEY SPECIALTY HOSPITAL, INC., dba CENTRAL VALLEY Judge: Hon. Stacy P. Speiller 17 SPECIALTY HOSPITAL and GURPREET Date: April 21, 2021 SINGH, Time: 8:30 a.m. 18 and DOES 1 - 100, Dept.: 22 19 Defendants. Trial Date: October 13, 2021 20 21 I. INTRODUCTION 22 Defendant Central Valley Specialty Hospital, Inc. dba Central Valley Specialty Hospital 23 (hereinafter “CVSH”) hereby opposes Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses and responsive 24 documents in response to Plaintiff Laurie K. Smith’s Request for Production of Documents, Set 25 One. Defendant opposes this motion on the basis that several of Plaintiff’s document requests are 26 impermissibly vague and overbroad; seek private, identifying health information; violate 27 Defendant’s right to privacy; violate third parties’ privacy rights; and do not comply with basic Code 28 of Civil Procedure requirements. Each of these issues will be addressed below. LEWIS 4830-4964-7076.1 BRISBOIS 1 BISGAARD DEFENDANT CENTRAL VALLEY SPECIALTY HOSPITAL’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO & SMITH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL AS TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE 1 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 2 This matter involves the Decedent Marcos A. Contreras’ two hospitalizations at Central 3 Valley Specialty Hospital from January 26, 2018 until February 25, 2018 and April 5, 2018 until 4 May 22, 2018, respectively. During his hospitalizations, Plaintiffs contend that due to insufficient 5 staffing and inadequate care, Mr. Contreras developed pressure wounds, weight loss, nutritional 6 decline, opiate overdose all of which ultimately culminated in his death on July 12, 2018. 7 Defendants deny each and every one of Plaintiffs’ allegations against CVSH and contend that Mr. 8 Contreras was a clinically complex patient who subsided to his conditions, not the allegedly 9 negligent care and services provided by CVSH. 10 III. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 11 On July 11, 2019 Plaintiff Laurie K. Smith claims to have served Request for Production of 12 Documents, Set One on Defendant Central Valley Specialty Hospital. (Declaration of Christopher 13 T. Choi (“Choi Decl.”), ¶ 2, Ex. A.) On September 3, 2019 Plaintiffs’ counsel sent an e-mail about 14 the responses, stating that no responses had been received and granting an extension until October 15 3, 2019 to provide responses. (Choi Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. B.) A subsequent extension was granted and 16 Defendant served objections and responses to this set of discovery on October 24, 2019. (Choi Decl., 17 ¶4, Ex. C.) 18 On November 17, 2020, more than one year after receipt of the responses, Plaintiffs’ counsel 19 sent a correspondence regarding the allegedly deficient responses and objections. (Choi Decl., ¶ 5, 20 Ex. D.) On November 30, 2020, Defendant sent a responsive meet and confer correspondence 21 outlining its position on several of the interrogatories at issue here. (Choi Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. E.) That 22 same day, Plaintiffs’ counsel sent a responsive meet and confer letter requesting further responses 23 to the discovery, but not addressing the substance of Defendant’s correspondence. (Choi Decl., ¶ 7, 24 Ex. F.) 25 On or around December 16, 2020 counsel for the Parties met and conferred about document 26 requests. (Choi Decl., ¶ 8.) On March 3, 2021, Plaintiffs’ counsel sent an e-mail regarding 27 discovery, including the interrogatories. (Choi Decl., ¶ 9, Ex. G.) 28 LEWIS 4830-4964-7076.1 BRISBOIS 2 BISGAARD DEFENDANT CENTRAL VALLEY SPECIALTY HOSPITAL’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO & SMITH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL AS TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE 1 IV. LEGAL ARGUMENT 2 A. Plaintiffs Have Failed to Make a Showing of Good Cause for Many of the Requested Documents 3 4 Allegations set forth in an unverified complaint should not be considered as evidence. 5 (Hotels Nevada v. L.A. Pacific Center, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 754, 762; see also In re. 6 Automobile Antitrust Cases I and II (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 100, 110) (a plaintiff must provide 7 competent evidence and cannot rely on allegations in an unverified complaint.) Aside from their 8 Complaint, the only other ‘evidence’ relied on in support of Plaintiffs’ motion is an unauthenticated 9 OSHPD cost report from 2018, which without foundation and clarification is unpersuasive. 10 Given that with the exception of references to the operative complaint and an 11 unauthenticated OSHPD report Plaintiffs have failed to set forth any admissible showing of good 12 cause in support of their motion. Thus, in relation to the requests discussed below, the Court should 13 deny Plaintiffs’ motion for failing to set forth adequate grounds to compel production of the 14 documents. 15 B. Many of the Requests are Impermissibly Overbroad and Vague 16 Generally, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is 17 relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion 18 made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably 19 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Cal Code Civ Proc § 2017.010.) 20 Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to 21 the action. (Id.) 22 Although the scope of civil discovery is broad, it is not limitless. (Calcor Space Facility v. 23 Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 223.) The burden rests upon the party seeking the 24 discovery to provide evidence from which the court may determine these conditions are met. (Id.) 25 RFPD No. 6 seeks all documents which were, “provided to YOU by any named Defendant 26 in this action referencing the PLAINTIFF.” (Choi Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. A.) RFPD No. 22 seeks all 27 documents which evidence any “patient complaints” relating to CVSH in any wing, unity or station 28 where the Plaintiff resided.” (Id.) RFPD Nos. 27 and 28 are identical and seek any documents LEWIS 4830-4964-7076.1 BRISBOIS 3 BISGAARD DEFENDANT CENTRAL VALLEY SPECIALTY HOSPITAL’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO & SMITH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL AS TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE 1 provided to CVSH by any management, administrative services and/or consulting company during 2 Mr. Contreras’ hospitalization. (Id.) RFPD Nos. 29 and 30 seek the same in relation to census levels. 3 (Id.) 4 These requests are impermissibly overbroad and vague. RFPD Nos. 6 and 7 take a shotgun 5 approach asking for every document which references Plaintiff. (Choi Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. A, RFPD Nos. 6 6, 7.) This is a blatant violation of Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.030 (c)(1) which requires that 7 documents or categories of documents be propounded in a manner where they are specifically 8 described or reasonably particularized. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.030 (c)(1).) As phrased, this 9 document could in theory include anything with Mr. Contreras’ name on it, relevant or not. 10 RFPD No. 8 broadly seeks documents evidencing every statement from anyone which 11 concerns Plaintiff. (Choi Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. A, RFPD No. 8.) RFPD No. 11 seeks every document 12 received from former employees of CVSH which reference Plaintiff in any manner. Again, the scope 13 of this request is so broad that it will make it extremely difficult for Defendant to comply with as it 14 is practically impossible to know what Plaintiffs are requesting through this document request. 15 RFPD No. 12 is similar to the extent that it seeks every document which in any way references 16 staffing in the wing/unit Mr. Contreras was hospitalized in. Again, like many of the other requests, 17 this request is capable of different interpretations and potentially an enormous scope. 18 On a similar note, RFPD No. 22 just broadly seeks every document which references “patient 19 complaints.” (Choi Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. A, RFPD No. 22.) Plaintiff did not adequately clarify the term 20 ‘complaints’ so this request can be interpreted as any kind of complaint (e.g. that a light in a room 21 is too bright, that water is too cold, etc.). (Id.) To force Defendant to find documents evidencing 22 every complaint conceivable would be a blatant overreach. Thus, Plaintiffs’ motion should be 23 denied and Plaintiff should be required to propound a more narrowly tailored request specifying the 24 specific types of complaints Plaintiffs are seeking. 25 Last, as noted above RFPD Nos. 27-30 seek every document which was provided to CVSH 26 by any, “management, administrative services, and/or consulting company during Mr. Contreras’ 27 hospitalizations related to staffing levels or census. (Choi Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. A, RFPD Nos. 27-30.) 28 Again, these requests seek what can be interpreted as nearly an infinite amount of documents as LEWIS 4830-4964-7076.1 BRISBOIS 4 BISGAARD DEFENDANT CENTRAL VALLEY SPECIALTY HOSPITAL’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO & SMITH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL AS TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE 1 documents related to ‘census’ or ‘staffing’ could include anything including but not limited to 2 documents discussing a discharge or admission or other patients, etc. Again, to force Defendant to 3 guess what Plaintiff is seeking through these requests would be improper as once again the requests 4 fail to adequately identify what they are seeking. Plaintiffs seems to suggest that the requests are 5 tailored to reports sent from the hospital to some parent entity, but the issue is that this does not 6 reflect the current scope of the requests. 7 C. Documents Evidencing Complaints Related to Central Valley Specialty Hospital 8 9 RFPD Nos. 22, 25 and 46 seek documents evidencing “complaints” related to operations, 10 related to patient care and related to Dr. Reddy. (Choi Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. A.) In addition to the term 11 “complaints” being impermissibly vague, these requests are also improper on substantive grounds 12 as well for the reasons set forth below. 13 1. Welfare & Institutions Code §§ 15633 and 15633.5 14 Notably, Plaintiffs ignore Defendant’s objections to these requests in both the memorandum 15 and their separate statement. In failing to discuss the objections, Plaintiffs’ motion should be denied 16 because Plaintiffs are essentially conceding its merit. 17 Notwithstanding, to the extent that these requests are interpreted to include complaints of 18 abuse, the requested documents are not discoverable. Even if they are directly relevant, the 19 legislature has made the decision that the confidentiality of the reports, reporters and subsequent 20 investigations is more important. Plaintiffs cite to certain appellate decisions regarding relevancy, 21 but none of them deal directly with the statutory rubric at issue. The relevant statutory authority 22 unequivocally states that reports of elder abuse and reports or records relevant to the reports of elder 23 abuse, including neglect which is a category of elder abuse, are confidential and may be disclosed 24 only to a select group of individuals. (Cal Welf. & Inst Code §§ 15633, 15610.57, 15657.) It does 25 not matter whether the reports are made by mandated or non-mandated reporters, they are still 26 completely confidential. (Id.) Those individuals who this information may be disclosed to are 27 limited to the following: (1) certain persons or agencies identified in Welfare & Institutions Code 28 §15633.5; (2) persons who are trained and qualified to serve on multidisciplinary personnel teams LEWIS 4830-4964-7076.1 BRISBOIS 5 BISGAARD DEFENDANT CENTRAL VALLEY SPECIALTY HOSPITAL’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO & SMITH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL AS TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE 1 may disclose to one another information and records that are relevant to the prevention, 2 identification, or treatment of abuse of elderly or dependent persons; and/or (3) a trusted contact 3 person as specified in Welfare & Institutions Code §15630.2 (h). Plaintiffs do not fall under any of 4 the exceptions set forth in Welfare & Institutions Code § 15633.5. 5 The statutes’ confidentiality provisions are so serious that disclosing the identities and 6 reports (or substance of reports) is a misdemeanor punishable by not more than six months in county 7 jail, a fine of $500, or both. (Welf. & Inst. Code § 15633 (a).) There is no flexibility to this set of 8 statutes—they are absolute—thus, the authority which Plaintiffs attempt to apply is irrelevant 9 because there is no authority holding that this category of documents is discoverable. 10 The necessity of this objection goes hand-in-hand with Plaintiffs’ failure to identify what 11 types of complaints they are seeking. Given that the term “complaints” is undefined and 12 impermissibly vague, it is open to subjective interpretation. Thus, to the extent that this request can 13 be interpreted to include reports of potential abuse, it must be denied. 14 2. The Quality Assurance Privilege (Evidence Code § 1157) 15 Evidence Code § 1157 states that the proceedings and records of organized committees of 16 medical committees and peer review bodies are absolutely privileged. (Evid. Cod. § 1157.) Federal 17 law also holds that these documents are privileged. (42 U.S.C. § 1396r.) As studies which fall under 18 the quality assurance privilege are not subject to disclosure, Defendant should not be required to 19 produce any responsive documents. (See also Fox v. Kramer (2000) 22 Cal.4th 531) (holding 20 generally that records of a peer review committee, including investigations, are privileged from 21 discovery.) 22 The Quality Assurance Privilege was put into place to give medical providers a way to 23 constantly improve the care they provide by essentially evaluating themselves. The legislative intent 24 behind this section of the Code was transparency without repercussions, the mindset being that this 25 would ultimately result in steady improvements in care. Here, many of the categories of documents 26 (e.g. investigations, reviews, surveys, etc.) are subject to the Quality Assurance privilege. Again, it 27 is unclear what exactly Plaintiffs are seeking through these requests, thus to the extent that they call 28 for privileged documents, Defendant should have the opportunity to produce a privilege log. LEWIS 4830-4964-7076.1 BRISBOIS 6 BISGAARD DEFENDANT CENTRAL VALLEY SPECIALTY HOSPITAL’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO & SMITH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL AS TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE 1 D. Third Party Privacy Rights 2 “A party to an action may assert the privacy rights of third parties. (See Valley Bank of 3 Nevada v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 652, 657.) It is indisputable that skilled nursing facility 4 residents have a legally protected privacy interest in their private health information. (Cal. Const., 5 art. I, § 1; See also Rains v. Belshe (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 157, 171) (“[W]e conclude patients in 6 nursing homes, like all other persons, certainly have a legally protected privacy interest in their own 7 personal bodily autonomy and medical treatment, under the rubric of " ‘autonomy privacy.’”) “The 8 diverse and somewhat amorphous character of the privacy right necessarily requires that privacy 9 interests be specifically identified and carefully compared with competing or countervailing privacy 10 and non-privacy interests in a ‘balancing test.’ The comparison and balancing of diverse interests 11 is central to the privacy jurisprudence of both common and constitutional law.” (Rains, supra, citing 12 Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 37.) 13 “Invasion of a privacy interest is not a violation of the state constitutional right to privacy if 14 the invasion is justified by a competing interest. Legitimate interests derive from the legally 15 authorized and socially beneficial activities of government and private entities. Their relative 16 importance is determined by their proximity to the central functions of a particular public or private 17 enterprise. Conduct alleged to be an invasion of privacy is to be evaluated based on the extent to 18 which it furthers legitimate and important competing interests.” (Id.) 19 Here, many of the requests at issue very clearly violate privacy rights. As discussed above, 20 RFPD No. 22 seeks all documents which evidence any “patient complaints” relating to CVSH in 21 any wing, unity or station where the Plaintiff resided; RFPD Nos. 23 and 24 seek employee and 22 resident satisfaction surveys; RFPD No. 25 seeks any and all complaints received by CVSH from 23 resident, family members, employees or third parties regarding the “adequacy of services” provided 24 by CVSH during any time the Decedent was a patient at the hospital; RFPD No. 26 seeks employee 25 exit interviews; RFPD No. 37 seeks any documents which, “the responding party relied during the 26 time period during which the PLAINTIFF was a patient in the HOSPITAL to ensure that any 27 HOSPITAL employee who provided care to the PLAINTIFF was fit to perform his or her job duties 28 at the HOSPITAL”; RFPD No. 38 seeks job performance evaluations for every employee who LEWIS 4830-4964-7076.1 BRISBOIS 7 BISGAARD DEFENDANT CENTRAL VALLEY SPECIALTY HOSPITAL’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO & SMITH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL AS TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE 1 provided care to Mr. Contreras; RFPD No. 39 seeks all documents disciplining those employees 2 who provided care to Mr. Contreras; RFPD Nos. 45, 47 and 48 seek documents which CVSH relied 3 on to ensure certain employees were fitto perform her job duties; and RFPD No. 46 seeks any 4 “complaints” against Manjula Reddy, M.D. (Choi Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. A.) 5 Several of these categories of documents (RFPD Nos. 22-23, 25), whether redacted or not, 6 run the risk of identifying private and private health related information of third parties. (Choi Decl., 7 ¶ 2, Ex. A.) Furthermore, many of the other categories of documents (e.g. RFPD Nos. 26, 37, 38, 8 39 and 45-48) seek what is functionally personnel files of current and/or former employees. (Id.) 9 These are obviously protected by privacy rights and Plaintiffs have failed to set forth adequate 10 grounds to justify production. This is especially so where here, Plaintiffs are seeking personnel file 11 information for every employee who provided care to Mr. Contreras, without specificity and without 12 setting forth adequate grounds for the requests. 13 The issue at hand is whether or not Defendants acted within the applicable standard of care 14 when providing care to Mr. Contreras, it is unclear how documents evidencing the requested 15 subjects apply. What is more, Plaintiffs did not provide notice to consumer as required pursuant to 16 Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1985.3 and 1985.6, which is mandatory and gives these individuals the 17 right to object to the production of documents contained within their personnel files. The Court 18 should deny Plaintiffs’ motion for failing to set forth adequate grounds to tip the balance in favor of 19 production, but italso must deny Plaintiffs’ motion for failing to comply with consumer notice 20 requirements. 21 E. The Requested Documents Violate Defendant’s Right to Corporate Privacy 22 While corporate entities may not have the same level of privacy rights as individuals, they 23 still have a right to privacy. (SCC Acquisitions, Inc. v. Superior Court (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 741, 24 756.) Although it is arguable whether a corporation or other artificial entity may have the necessary 25 standing to assert a constitutional right to privacy, some privacy rights even for such an artificial 26 entity are recognized by the law: “ ‘Although corporations have a lesser right to privacy than human 27 beings and are not entitled to claim a right to privacy in terms of a fundamental right, some right to 28 privacy exists. Privacy rights accorded artificial entities are not stagnant, but depend on the LEWIS 4830-4964-7076.1 BRISBOIS 8 BISGAARD DEFENDANT CENTRAL VALLEY SPECIALTY HOSPITAL’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO & SMITH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL AS TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE 1 circumstances. [citation] … (Hecht, Solberg, Robinson, Goldberg & Bagley LLP v. Superior Court 2 (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 579, 594.) “However, we think one cannot draw a bright line at the 3 corporate structure. The public attributes of corporations may indeed reduce pro tanto the 4 reasonability of their expectation of privacy, but the nature and purposes of the corporate entity and 5 the nature of the interest sought to be protected will determine the question whether under given 6 facts the corporation per se has a protectible privacy interest. …” [Citation.] (Id. at p. 594.) 7 As stated by the court in SSC Acquisitions, Inc., “It is clear to us that the law is developing 8 in the direction that the strength of the privacy right being asserted by a nonhuman entity depends 9 on the circumstances.” (Id.) Two critical factors are the strength of the nexus between the artificial 10 entity and human beings and the context in which the controversy arises.’ (Id.) When discovery is 11 at issue, the discovery’s relevance to the subject matter of the pending dispute and whether the 12 discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence should be 13 balanced against the corporate right of privacy. (SCC Acquisitions, Inc. v. Superior Court (2015) 14 243 Cal.App.4th 741, 756.) 15 Even though itis a corporate entity, Defendant stillhas a right to privacy which must be 16 balanced. Here, Plaintiffs’ demand for every “complaint” relating to the hospital, satisfaction 17 surveys, exit interviews, documents exchanged with other third parties and management agreements 18 all violate both Defendant’s right to privacy and in the instance of management agreements, third 19 party entity privacy rights. Plaintiffs have taken no depositions yet rely on their complaint as their 20 foundation for good cause. This is wholly improper as the allegations set forth in an unverified 21 complaint should not be considered as evidence. (Hotels Nevada v. L.A. Pacific Center, Inc. (2006) 22 144 Cal.App.4th 754, 762; see also In re. Automobile Antitrust Cases I and II (2005) 135 23 Cal.App.4th 100, 110) (a plaintiff must provide competent evidence and cannot rely on allegations 24 in an unverified complaint.) The only other ‘evidence’ relied on in support of Plaintiffs’ motion is 25 an unauthenticated OSHPD cost report from 2018, which without foundation and clarification is 26 unpersuasive. 27 Given that Plaintiffs have failed to establish good cause to violate Defendant’s privacy, 28 Plaintiffs’ motion should be denied in toto. LEWIS 4830-4964-7076.1 BRISBOIS 9 BISGAARD DEFENDANT CENTRAL VALLEY SPECIALTY HOSPITAL’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO & SMITH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL AS TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE 1 F. Plaintiffs’ Document Requests are an Invasion of the Attorney-Client Privilege 2 The attorney-client privilege attaches to a confidential communication between the attorney 3 and the client and bars discovery of the communication irrespective of whether it includes 4 unprivileged material. (Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 725, 734; See 5 also Cal. Evid. Code § 954.) 6 Given the breadth of the requests at issue, it is possible that if the Court compels production, 7 the responsive documents will more than likely include privileged documents. To that extent 8 Defendant requests that if the Court is inclined to grant this motion, that it be permitted to submit a 9 privilege log. 10 V. SANCTIONS ARE NOT WARRANTED 11 If the Court is inclined to grant this motion, it should not issue sanctions against Defendant 12 CVSH or its counsel. As evidenced above, many of the requests are impermissibly overbroad and 13 many seek documents which are subject to HIPAA and CMIA privacy rights, whether they are 14 redacted or not. Given that Defendant has an obligation to oppose document requests such as the 15 ones discussed above and is substantially justified in opposing this motion, the Court should decline 16 to award sanctions. 17 VI. CONCLUSION 18 Based on the foregoing, Defendant CVSH respectfully requests that its objections to 19 Plaintiffs’ motion to compel be sustained and that Plaintiffs’ motion be denied as to those requests 20 discussed above. 21 DATED: April 8, 2021 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 22 By: 23 KIM M. WELLS 24 CHRISTOPHER T. CHOI Attorneys for Defendants, CENTRAL VALLEY 25 SPECIALTY HOSPITAL, INC., dba CENTRAL VALLEY SPECIALTY HOSPITAL AND 26 GURPREET SINGH 27 28 LEWIS 4830-4964-7076.1 BRISBOIS 10 BISGAARD DEFENDANT CENTRAL VALLEY SPECIALTY HOSPITAL’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO & SMITH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL AS TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE