Collins vs. Mission Hospital Regional Medical Center

Response

Cal. Super. - 4th Dist.October 1, 2014

O O 0 3 O N W n k e W N D o D N N N N N N N ) m m e m e d e d e e e d be d e k e d fe ed C 0 ~ ~ O N h h W N = C 0 N Y B W e s O O SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional Corporations DEREK R. HAVEL, Cal. Bar No. 193464 DANIEL J. McQUEEN,Cal. Bar No. 217498 MATTHEW A. TOBIAS, Cal. Bar No. 271291 333 South Hope Street, 43™ Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-1448 Telephone: 213-620-1780 Facsimile: 213-620-1398 Attorneys for Defendant MISSION HOSPITAL REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER KELLI COLLINS, Vv. MISSION HOSPITAL REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE Plaintiff, Defendants. Case No. 30-2014-00748253-CU-OE-CJC Assigned to: Honorable William Claster Dept.: CX-102 DEFENDANT MISSION HOSPITAL REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION [SET ONE], REQUEST NO. 9 [Filed concurrently with Declaration of Matthew A. Tobias; Opposition; and Request for Judicial Notice] Date: March 25, 2016 Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept.: CX-102 [Complaint Filed: October 1. 20141 SMRH:475907528.1 DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO SEPARATE STATEMENT RE MOTION TO COMPEL RFA O 0 0 1 O Y n n l m W N e e N O N N N N N N N N r m e m e m e m p e e a e a e d e d pe d 0 0 ~ ~ N N U n pb k W N e s D O N n s W N = O Defendant Mission Hospital Regional Medical Center (“Mission”) submits the following Response to Plaintiff Kelli Collins” ("Plaintiff") Separate Statementin support of Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Admission, Set One, Number 9: GENERAL OBJECTION Defendant objects to Plaintiff's Separate Statementin its entirety on the grounds that it does not comply with California Rule of Court 3.1345(c). Specifically, a separate statement “must be full and complete so that no person is required to review any other document.” (CRC 3.1345(c).) Further, a separate statement must also include “[a] statement ofthe factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses.” (1d.) Here, Plaintiff's first through fifth bases have no factual basis for compelling a further response. Instead, they are just conclusory statements of the law and must be ignored. Moreover, Plaintiff’s additional bases reference deposition testimony and meet and confer efforts that are not contained within Plaintiff's stated reasoning. Thus,this fails to comply with the mandatory provisions of the Rules of Court. As such, Plaintiff's separate statementis defective,as is her underlying motion to compel, which should be denied. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.9: Admit that YOU never COMMUNICATED to COLLINS that YOU would not take any DISCIPLINARY ACTION against her if she failed to complete all of her work because she was unable to do so within her scheduled hours. The terms YOU and YOURrefer to respondent or any of YOURagents,representatives,affiliated entities or anyone acting or whom YOU know or believe is purporting to act on YOUR behalf or who as acted or whom YOU know or believe is purporting to act on YOUR behalf. COMMUNICATION means any conveyance of information, oral, written, or via gesture, and regardless of whether the information was received or acknowledged. The term COLLINS refersto plaintiff Kelli Collins. The term DISCIPLINARY ACTION means an action including but not limited to, a warning or admonishment, whether oral or written; any reduction in rank, seniority, job duties,title, benefits, or pay; suspension; or termination. 1- SMRH:475907528.1 DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO SEPARATE STATEMENT RE MOTION TO COMPEL RFA © 0 a Wn BR W R ) D N N D N N N N N N r R e e p e ee d e d p e e d e d p e d c o ~ ~ O N h k W N = O y W N = O RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9: Defendant objectsto this Request on the following grounds: it seeks information not relevantto the subject matter of this litigation nor reasonably calculated orlikelyto lead to the discovery of admissible evidence;it is overbroad in time and scope;it is unduly burdensome, and excessively oppressive and harassing; it is vague and ambiguous as to the phrase “YOU never COMMUNICATED to COLLINS that YOU would not take DISCIPLINARY ACTION against her if she failed to complete all of her work because she was unable to do so within her scheduled hours,” as the circumstances under which Plaintiff would be “unable” to complete her “work” have not been specified and the specific “work” that Plaintiff would have hypothetically been “unable” to complete has not been identified; it calls for speculation; and it is duplicative prior requests. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Defendant respondsas follows: A reasonable inquiry concerning this matter has been made, and Defendant lacks sufficient information and knowledge to either admit or deny this Request due to Defendant’s inability to obtain such information based on the language and format of the Request as indicated in the aforementioned objections. Factual and Legal Bases for Compelling Response 1. The Discovery Act is intended to "do away 'with the sporting theory of litigation- namely, surprise at trial." (Emerson Electric Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1101, 1107.) 2. "The requests for admission mechanism is ... a dispute-resolution device that eliminates the time and expense of formal proofat tidal." (City of Glen Chile v. Marcus Cable Associates. LLC(2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 344, 353-54.) 3. "The purpose of requests for admission is to narrow the issues for trial by identifying and eliminating those matters on which the parties agree." (K.C.R. v. County ofLos Angeles (2014) 2014 WL 3433925, at *3.) 4. Discovery rules are to be "construed liberally" in favor of disclosure and "only strong public policies weigh against disclosure." (Greyhound v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 365.) 2. SMRH:475907528.1 DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO SEPARATE STATEMENT RE MOTION TO COMPEL RFA N o o 1 O n B W D N ) N O N B R Y N N N R Y N r e be e pe ed p m fe d pe d pe ed e d ee d e d o w ~ ~ O N n n b k W N e m D N D Y W N e O 5. "The fact that the requestis for the admission of a controversial matter, or one involving complex facts, or calls for an opinion, is of no moment. If the litigant is able to make the admission, the time for making it is during discovery procedures, and not at the trial." (Cembrook v. Superior Court In and For City and County ofSan Francisco (1961) 56 Cal.2d 423, 429.) 6. Collins alleges, and testified at her deposition, that she missed breaks and was forced to work off-the-clock because Mission assigned her an unreasonable amount of work and she would have been subject to discipline had she failed to complete it. Collins testified that she didn't remember anyone from Mission notifying her to the contrary, i.e. she wouldn't be subject to discipline if she failed to complete all her work within her shift. But, if Mission can produce a someone at trial to testify that they did notify her to the contrary, it may dramatically affect the value of her case. In order to prepare her case for settlement, mediation, or trial, Collins needs to know if such evidence exists and depose Mission's witness, during discovery, not at trial, when it's too late to depose the witness. 7. Mission's plan to refuse to divulge this information during discovery, then produceit at trial is in derogation of the Discovery Act, which is intended to "do away 'with the sporting theory of litigation-namely, surprise at trial." RESPONSE TO REASONS TO FACTUAL AND LEGAL BASES TO COMPEL: Plaintiff fails to understand that requests for admission are not intended to uncover factual information butto set issues at rest by compelling admission of issues that cannot reasonably be controverted. See Murillo v. Sup. Ct. (People), 143 Cal.App.4th 730, 735 (2006) (requests for admission "differ fundamentally from other forms of discovery ... [r]ather than seeking to uncover information, they seek to eliminate the need for proof" and "serve a function similar to pleadings"); Shepard & Morgan v. Lee & Daniel, Inc., 31 Cal.3d 256, 261 (1982) (the purpose of requests for admission is to limit triable issues). Indeed, requests for admissions are "not a discovery device." See Fredericks v. Kontos Industries, Inc., 189 Cal. App. 3d 272, 276 (1987) (citing 2 Witkin, Cal. Evidence (3d ed. 1986) Discovery and Production ofEvidence, § 1553). Because the potential adverse consequence of an incorrect admission is great, the trial judge may disregard an admission when the Request is 3- SMRH:475907528.1 DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO SEPARATE STATEMENT RE MOTION TO COMPEL RFA O 0 0 = I O n t n R B W N e e D o N Y N N N R N D e m e m h e e m e m ee d e d e d e d pe d 0 0 3 O N n n b s W O N = e o y W Y e e O O susceptible to different meanings. Id. at 276-77 (owner admitted he "agreed" to make certain progress payments to Contractor; but, court found Owner's "agreement" was dependent upon work being done by Contractor). Due to the special binding nature of requests for admission, requests are to be read literally. See Burch v. Gombos, 82 Cal.App.4th 352, 358-359 (2000). Here, Plaintiff cannot seriously argue that her Request pertains to “uncontroverted facts” or is not “susceptible to different meanings” as is required for an appropriate request for admission. Based on the broadly worded nature of the Request,it is subject to interpretation as to whether Mission “communicated” to Plaintiff that she would be subject to a “disciplinary action”ifshe failed to complete her “work” within her scheduled hours. There are clearly different interpretations of the terms communicate, disciplinary action, and work, all of which may affect Mission’s investigation into the request. For instance, does a policy which states that employees may be subjectto disciplinary action forfailure to perform their job duties fall under this Request? Would an offhand comment from a supervisor asking Plaintiff to make sure to complete her tasks be considered a “disciplinary action?” Or would such an ofthand comment be considered a “communication” pursuant to the request? It is entirely unclear. Thus, whether or not Mission “communicated” to Plaintiffthat she would be subject to discipline for failure to complete all of her “work”is not uncontroverted nor does it have a single interpretation. As such, it is improper to serve as a request for admission. Regardless of Plaintiff’s improper method of discovery, Mission provided a response that complies with its legal obligation. Due to the potential significance of responses to requests for admission, the Code of Civil Procedure recognizes and explicitly permits a litigant to state that it is unable to provide an unqualified admission or denial due to a lack ofsufficient knowledge or information. See Code Civ Proc. § 2033.220(c) ("Each answershall... [s]pecify so much of the matter involved in the requestas to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge.) This is exactly how Mission fashioned its supplemental response here. Mission understands that determining whether a “representative, agent, affiliated entity or anyone” acting on behalf of Mission ever “communicated” to Plaintiff that he or she would not take disciplinary against herif she failed to complete all of her work-related tasks on any given -4- SMRH:475907528.1 DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO SEPARATE STATEMENT RE MOTION TO COMPEL RFA N O 0 ~ ~ N n B s W N e e N O N N N N N N N N e m e m he m e m e m e m pe e pe d pe d pe d c o N O N n n b h W N em , O N O O Y W N e e O O day necessitates a searching, fact-intensive examination of (among other things) who at Mission ever “communicated” anything to Plaintiff, what constitutes a “communication,” what constitutes a “disciplinary action,” and what Plaintiff's “work” entailed. It is practically impossible for Mission to determine who did not communicate something to Plaintiff in the fabricated scenario that the Request provides. In order to even start this inquiry, Mission would have to interview literally every supervisor, manager, and other agent of Mission who worked there since October1, 2010 to determine whether or not they “communicated” anything to Plaintiff-and the inquiry does not stop there. Moreover, Plaintiff’s Request fails to provide any context for the communication. There are literally hundreds of scenarios in which Plaintiff could not complete her work tasks. For instance, she could go home sick, she could leave work on her own volition, there could be extenuating circumstances present on any given shift that did not allow Plaintiff the ability to complete her assigned tasks, the managementstyle of her supervisor for that day, and so on. Moreover, each of Mission’s objections is well-founded. Even limiting the time period at issue by the Request to October 1, 2010 - the longest statutory period for any ofPlaintiff's claims - it is still overbroad as to time. Indeed, Plaintiff fails to acknowledge that this includes every workday fora five year timespan and the varioustasks and circumstances for each day worked. There cannot be any uniform answer for such an expansive period. Instead, each day must be analyzed under the aforementioned factual examination to determine whether anyone at Mission “communicated” to Plaintiff that she would not be subject to disciplined if she failed to complete certain tasks. To respond to this Request, Mission would be required to speak to all of Plaintiff's supervisors, managers, and other employees of Mission since October 1, 2010 and review the types of assignments that Plaintiff would have been assigned each day to determine whether she was evertold that she may have been subjected to “disciplinary action” had she not completed her work on any particular day and whether anyone at Mission recalls having a conversation with Plaintiff regarding these vast circumstances and scenarios. Moreover, depending on the nature and urgency of the work assigned to Plaintiff, any communicated consequences that Plaintiff 5- SMRH:475907528.1 DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO SEPARATE STATEMENT RE MOTION TO COMPEL RFA O e 3 O y n n B s W N e e N O N N N N N N N N e m m m e m m m e m be m pe d ee d pe d pe ed 0 3 O N n n B W = O Y N I N A W N e o might have faced forfailing to finish her work would have varied. Further, each of Plaintiff's multiple supervisors and managers in the past five years may have had different reasons for communicating with Plaintiff that they would potentially choose to discipline Plaintiff or choose notto discipline her. Contacting each of these individuals and questioning them regarding various conversations and interactions with Plaintiff would be a great undertaking that is extremely unreasonable and burdensome in light of the little probative value of this Request. The Request is also inherently vague and ambiguous. For instance, although Plaintiff defines the term “disciplinary action,” she defines it as including “a warning or admonishment, whether oral or written; any reduction in rank, seniority, job duties,title, benefits or pay; suspension; or termination.” (Tobias Decl., 19, Ex. E.) Thus, even the definition of “disciplinary action” that Plaintiff provides is vague and ambiguous, and it does not even limit the “disciplinary actions” to the termslisted. This essentially leaves Mission to determine what Plaintiff means by this term. Procedure §2033.060(d) requires that “[e]ach request for admission shall be full and complete in and of itself." Thus, Mission cannot be forced to guess as to what Plaintiff means by this Request. The vague definition of “Communication” given by Plaintiffis also confusing. Thisis defined as “any conveyance of information ... regardless of whether the information was received or acknowledged” by Plaintiff. It is unclear how any such conversation would take place and what Plaintiffs failure to receive the information or acknowledge it might mean. Moreover, Plaintiff does not define Plaintiff's “work” in the Requesteither. Are these the tasks assigned for the day? The duties associated with her job description? Any other responsibilities that come up throughout the day? Each ofthese terms is vague, and the objection is proper. The generalized nature of the Request presents an incomplete hypothetical that is impossible to answer and is highly speculative. First, the Request refers to a hypothetical communication that may or may not have occurred. In addition, the Request does not specify the “work” Plaintiff would purportedly have to complete. Further, the Request does not specify the conditions under which Plaintiff would have “failed to complete all of her work™or the circumstances under which a conversation pertaining to this topic would have arisen. These are all -6- SMRH:475907528.1 DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO SEPARATE STATEMENT RE MOTION TO COMPEL RFA t o o e 9 O Y n n B s Ww W 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 factors that must be considered in order to accurately respond to Plaintiff's Request. For instance, a conversation with Plaintiff for her simply choosing not to complete an assigned task might be a very different scenario than a conversation regarding Plaintiff’s inability to complete a task because of an evacuation for a fire drill or her leaving early because she fell ill as previously discussed. Indeed, countless scenarios could arise on an hour-by-hour, shift-by-shift and week-by- week basis that would have to be analyzed to determine the reasons for Plaintiff not completing the phantom tasks at issue by the Request in order to determine any unmentioned reason for this failure to completeit and the circumstances surrounding any conversation that Plaintiff might have had with anyone at Mission aboutthis failure. The Request is also speculative because it vaguely asks Mission to admit that it never communicated to Plaintiff that it “would not take” any disciplinary action “if” she failed to finish the work assigned to her. Plaintiff does not specify whether there indeed were occasions where Plaintiff failed to finish the work assigned to her, nor does Plaintiff specify whether she is asking Mission to admit that she was in fact subjected to discipline for failing to finish any particular task on any particular shift worked. As explained previously, the fact that Plaintiff has not identified a particular type of “work,” makes Plaintiff's Request highly speculative and a variety offactors could potentially play a role in whether or not she completed any particular task and whether or not Plaintiff may have been disciplined, let alone whether any such potential for discipline was ever communicated to her. Finally, it bears mention that there is a fundamental flaw with the Request as it asks Mission to admit that a conversation never occurred about something not happening if Plaintiff did not do something. The triple negative nature of the Request and the variables at play within it (as further discussed herein) make it impossible to answer this Request regarding an essentially “made up” communication. Tellingly, while Plaintiff’s opposition mocks the intelligence of Plaintiffs counsel who “passed the toughest bar exam in the nation” and should be able to answer this request, and includes quotes from completely inapplicable cases, she does notcite any authority to show that a convoluted Request for Admission that utilizes a triple negative is proper. (Opposition 8:10-28.) For these reasons, Plaintiff's Motion must be denied. - SMRH:475907528.1 DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO SEPARATE STATEMENT RE MOTION TO COMPEL RFA O W o e ~ 1 N n n n B h W N N N N N N O N D N D N DN ) e m e k e d e m e d e e e d e d e e pe d C 0 ~ ~ A N n n R k W N = O N D N y B R Ww W N e O Dated: March 14, 2016 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP SMRH:475907528.1 [NadheoFelaBy DEREK R. HAVEL MATTHEW A. TOBIAS Attorneys for Defendant MISSION HOSPITAL REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER -8- DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO SEPARATE STATEMENT RE MOTION TO COMPEL RFA b o 4 s Ww e t y o o o ~ 1 D h PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES At the time ofservice, [ was over 18 years of age and not a partyto this action. | am employed in the Countyof Los Angeles, State of California. Mybusiness address is 333 South HopeStreet, 43rd Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071-1422. On March 14, 2016, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as DEFENDANT MISSION HOSPITAL REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT RE MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION [SET ONE], REQUEST NO. 9on the interested parties in this action as follows: Jeffrey M. Schwartz, Esq. Schwartz Law, P.C. 647 Camino De Los Mares, Suite 225 San Clemente, CA 92673 Telephone: 888-730-0529 Facsimile: 949-481-8836 Email: ieftraieffschwartzlaw.com BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: I served the document(s) on the personlisted in the Service List by submitting an electronic version ofthe document(s) to One Legal, LLC, through the user interface at www.onelegal.com. BY FEDEX: I enclosed said document(s) in an envelopeor package provided by FedEx and addressed to the persons at the addresseslisted in the Service List. I placed the envelope or package for collection and overnightdeliveryat an office or a regularly utilized drop box of FedEx or delivered such document(s) to a courier or driver authorized by FedEx to receive documents. I declare under penalty ofperjury under the laws ofthe State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on March 14, 2016, at Los Angeles, California. SMRH:475938091.1 -1-