Grapevine Emergency Physicians Medical Group, Inc. vs. Vu Huynh

Motion to Compel

Cal. Super. - 4th Dist.October 11, 2016

BUCHALTER 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BUCHALTER A Professional Corporation ANDREW H. SELESNICK (SBN: 160516) DAMARIS L. MEDINA (SBN: 262788) LOUISE TRUONG (SBN: 293811) 1000 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1500 Los Angeles, CA 90017-2457 Telephone: 213.891.0700 Fax: 213.896.0400 E-mail: dmedina@buchalter.com Attorneys for Plaintiff GRAPEVINE EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS MEDICAL GROUP, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE - CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER GRAPEVINE EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS CASE NO. 30-2016-00880437-CU-BC-CJC MEDICAL GROUP, INC., a California Professional Corporation, Judge: Honorable Martha K. Gooding Dept... C34 Plaintiff, Reservation No. 72692052 VS. PLAINTIFF GRAPEVINE EMERGENCY VU HUYNH, D.O.; GAGANDEEP GREWAL, PHYSICIANS MEDICAL GROUP, M.D.; IMRAM IMAM, M.D.; NGUYEN INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION, MOTION KHUU, M.D.; NGUYEN KHUU, M.D., INC; TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, SUBPOENA AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF Defendants. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF [Separate Statement, Declaration of Louise Truong and Proposed Order Concurrently Filed] Date: January §, 2018 Time: 1:30 p.m. Dept.: C34 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on January 8, 2018, at 1:30 p.m. in Department C34 ofthe above entitled Court, located at 700 West Civic Center Drive, Santa Ana, California, 92701,Plaintiff Grapevine Emergency Physicians Medical Group (“GEP”) will and hereby does move 1 MOTION TO COMPEL THIRD PARTY WESTERN MEDICAL CENTER-SANTA ANA’S COMPLIANCE WITH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BN 29862525V2 O o 0 3 D Y 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BUCHALTER A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Los ANGELES for an order compelling third party Western Medical Center — Santa Ana aka Orange County Global Medical Center, Inc. (“Western Medical”) to comply with GEP’s Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records (“Subpoena”.) Specifically GEP moves for an order compelling further responses and production of documents in response to Request Nos. 1-39. GEP further moves for an order awarding monetary sanctions in the amount of $5,250.00 against Western Medical and its counsel, jointly and severally, for its failure to respond to the Subpoena, thereby necessitating this motion. This Motion is made pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.420 et seq., and is based on Western Medical’s failure and refusal to produce responsive documents to the properly served Subpoena. This Motion is based upon this Notice of Motion, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Declaration of Louise Truong filed concurrently herewith, the pleading papers in this action, and such other matters as may properly come to the attention of the Court. DATED: November 2, 2017 BUCHALTER A Professional Corporation ye (JSjy ANDREW H. SELESNICK / DAMARIS L. MEDINA LOUISE TRUONG Attorneys for Plaintiff GRAPEVINE EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS MEDICAL GROUP, INC. 2 MOTION TO COMPEL THIRD PARTY WESTERN MEDICAL CENTER-SANTA ANA’S COMPLIANCE WITH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BN 29862525V2 O o 0 3 O N O n B A 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BUCHALTER A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Los ANGELES II. III. IV. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ...ooctiiieiieiriteiiiententeeeseeesesse eset estssse ste sntensessesstesesusessesseseseensenneneessonne 1 STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS ...cooiiotiiierteecececeresieeeeretenesansa 2 A. Background of Litigation ......cc.ecuevueeeveenerieenieiereeneneneeecerenreresesieneesiesnesssaesans 2 B. The Deposition Subpoena, GEP’s Attempts to Meet and Confer, and Western Medical’s Refusal to Comply With the Subpoena..........coccceviriinviencicienncncnnene 3 LEGAL ARGUMENT ....coutiiiteetenteteetteeteetceee netstat sete itessne sae ssn es bet esse san esas ssn sanes 7 A. The Court Should Order Western Medical to Comply with the Subpoena............. 7 B. Western Medical’s Objections to the Discovery Requests In the Subpoena Are IMLETIEIESS vv eveereeetie citer setteeteeserates reese e meee e eee e ema e ese r es sne srt sate sass sabe sarees 8 SANCTIONS ARE WARRANTED AGAINST WESTERN MEDICAL AND ITS COUNSELccoeiesete sree estes e see sae est esate sues ert esanease soba enesneenessesseeasesassansens 10 CONCLUSION .....ootiitieieteeetesieseeie ste steese este sae est estaba sae ssee bes bebesasensensesuessesestensenneneenns 10 i MOTION TO COMPEL THIRD PARTY WESTERN MEDICAL CENTER-SANTA ANA’S COMPLIANCE WITH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BN 29862525V2 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 Page 3|| Cases 4|| Pearson v. Farmers Ins. Group ofCos. (1997) 52 Cal.APP.Ath 813weenie10 S| Unzipped Apparel, LLC v. Bader 6 (2007) 156 Cal.APP.Ath 123oceans7 ; Statutes CCP § 1987.2(2) .veeveererieeienieniieresiteteseeere eter centers sts sass tease beans eben tesa sera est sane be sas sass be nese beens 10 BI[ CCP § 2020.010 .....ucveveeeeceieeeeieresteesesae ses sessesee sess sas sass ess sss esse sae ssssss sss sensesssssssessssnssasssssessessssncscincs 7 [| CCP § 2020.030 .....viiieeieriiiiiertieieiieetetsessb 10 10 CCP § 202301000) wvevvereeeiererririenerteneeieniteeteeresrt eter este ste sitet sa sears bs sas sb esas este sass b esas bent nt eterna 10 CCP § 20230100) .eevereeeeeereerreriiniietentinteseeresseesreeeeeenesresss ers sssssss sas sssssas sas sas esse sass tessessessensareasnas 10 LT{[ COP § 2023.010010) c.ouvovecerieereeeereeeeeeeeesestese terse senses testes esses asses sara s sess esas ssssssssassssssesensessessssnees 10 12] CCP § 2023.030(2).....c0uruerireririsinrieisissinisisistsetse10 3 CCP § 2024480 ...cneieierieeieeeiereeete settee satesstehtese b enacts besa sass a esses aes reerr snes b eter erat ees 10 CCP § 2025.480(D) .eeuveererueerenrenienienteerereeeere stasis sates eae senator sess beers eb bets eas eas abe eas eres beste ss ess ern assess 7 14 Other Authorities 15|| Weil, et al., California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial 8:609.3 16 (The Rutter Group 2015)...c..eciiviiriiiiiiriiiiiiiiicireninicsreesneersabesbese sens 7 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BUCHALTER il BeCoaaTen MOTION TO COMPEL THIRD PARTY WESTERN MEDICAL CENTER-SANTA ANA’S COMPLIANCE Los ANGELES WITH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BN 29862525V2 a N O 0 0 3 O N W n 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BUCHALTER MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION This Motion is made on the grounds that third party Western Medical Center — Santa Ana now known as Orange County Global Medical Center, Inc. (“Western Medical”) refuses to comply with a deposition subpoena for production of documents. This action centers around a dispute between Plaintiff Grapevine Emergency Physicians, Inc. (“GEP”) and its former independent contractors, Defendants Vu Huynh, D.O., Gagandeep Grewal, M.D., Imram Imam, M.D., and Nguyen Khuu, M.D.’s (collectively, “Defendants™) interference with GEP’s contract with Western Medical. Specifically, GEP had a contract to staff Western Medical’s emergency department and the Defendants were some of the doctors staffed at Western Medical. Defendants, however, began secretly meeting with Western Medical’s management regarding GEP’s contract. Defendants caused Western Medical to terminate its contract with GEP prematurely and replace GEP with a new emergency group, California Emergency Physicians (“CEP”). Because of Defendants’ interactions with Western Medical, Western Medical is an extremely vital and percipient third party witness to this matter. Therefore, Defendants served Western Medical with a Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records (“Subpoena”), seeking documents, communications, and agreements relating to the Defendants, their efforts to interfere with GEP’s contract with Western Medical and why CEP was broughtin to replace GEP. Despite GEP’s multiple meet and confer efforts, Western Medical has provided only minimal documents and empty promises that it would provide GEP with responsive documents “soon.” Months have gone by with Western Medical insisting that it was working on gathering responsive documents, but it was not even until the end of August (four months after the Subpoena was served) that Western Medical produced e-mails over to its own attorney for review. After Western Medical finally produced documents to GEP in October, however, it became clear that Western Medical was not making a reasonable and diligent effort to produce all responsive documents. Because Western Medical’s counsel recognized that there were still potentially missing documents, he finally convinced his client to hire a third party vendor to assist with the e-mail collection and document research. Despite hiring a third party vendor, GEP still has not received 1 MOTION TO COMPEL THIRD PARTY WESTERN MEDICAL CENTER-SANTA ANA’S COMPLIANCE WITH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BN 29862525V2 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BUCHALTER A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Los ANGELES the additional documentsit is entitled to. Although GEP hastried to work with Western Medical, it has been faced with nothing but excuses and delays. GEP can no longer continue to wait for Western Medical’s production. This case is scheduled for trial on March 5, 2018, and Judge Gooding has made it clear that she intends to move forward with that trial date as scheduled. It is evident that Western Medical has no sense of urgency or desire to comply with the Subpoena and that only an order by the Court will get Western Medical to finally produce all responsive documents to GEP. | Additionally, as a result of Western Medical’s dilatory actions, GEP has had to postpone the deposition of Western Medical’s Person Most Knowledgeable (“PMK”.) Accordingly, GEP respectfully requests that the Court grant GEP’s Motion to Compel Compliance, order Western Medical to produce all responsive documents within 10 days of the Order, and order that Western Medical’s PMK witness appear for her deposition 14 days after all responsive documents are produced. Finally, GEP requests that Western Medical and its counsel be sanctioned in the amount of $5,250.00 for their misuse of the discovery process. II. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS A. Background of Litigation On January 1, 2011, GEP assumed a contract to be the exclusive provider of emergency medical services at Western Medical. (Complaint, § 10.) In order to staff the facility, GEP entered into independent contractor agreements with individual Defendants, including Defendants Vu Huynh, D.O., Gagandeep Grewal, M.D., Imram Imam, M.D., Nguyen Khuu, M.D, and Nguyen Khuu, M.D. Inc. (collectively, “Defendants™) (Complaint, § 11). In their contracts, Defendants agreed not to participate in any discussions or negotiation with any hospital with whom GEP had contracted that would adversely affect the relationship between GEP and the Contracted Hospital. (Complaint, § 12.) They also agreed to keep GEP’s proprietary and trade secret information confidential. (Complaint, § 13.) The Defendants also agreed that they would not solicit any other physicians to terminate their contracts with GEP. (Complaint, § 14.) On July 1, 2013, GEP renewed the contract with Western Medical for a two year term through July 1, 2015. GEP was performing satisfactorily under the contract and Western Medical had not 2 MOTION TO COMPEL THIRD PARTY WESTERN MEDICAL CENTER-SANTA ANA’S COMPLIANCE WITH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BN 29862525V2 A PROFESSION. Los BUCHALTER A). CORPORATION ANGELES O O 0 0 ~ ~ O N n A 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 communicated any dissatisfaction with GEP ‘s performance or the contract. (Complaint, § 15.) While the transition of leadership was in process, GEP received information that Defendants were secretly meeting with Western Medical’s management regarding GEP’s contract with Western Medical. Defendants were participating in discussions with Western Medical’s Chief Executive Officer with the sole purpose of causing Western Medical to terminate GEP ‘s contract and replace GEP. Defendants allegedly considered forming their own group, and then decided that they would partner instead with a new emergency physician group, California Emergency Physicians (“CEP”.) Defendants intended on directing Western Medical to terminate its contract with GEP prematurely, have Western Medical contract with CEP, then sign partnership agreements with CEP. Central to Defendants’ scheme was to assure Western Medical that they would continue to work there, so no disruption would occur, and Western Medical would not have to pay and/or increase its stipend to cover the additional costs of any replacement emergency physicians. (Complaint, 9 16-17.) Moreover, during Defendants’ time with GEP they were advised of certain proprietary matters and affairs of the company, including trade secrets relating to the management of emergency departments. This information is not generally known to, or readily available to, the public. Defendants participated in discussions and negotiations between Western Medical and CEP and disclosed trade secret and other confidential proprietary information both to Western Medical and to CEP. (Complaint, § 18.) As a result of Defendants’ actions, on October 30, 2014, Western Medical provided a sixty day notice of its intent to terminate its contract with GEP. Western Medical then entered into a contract with CEP, pursuant to Defendants’ plan. (Complaint, q 18.) Accordingly, GEP filed its Complaint against Defendants on October 11, 2016 for the following causes of actions: (i) Breach of Contract; (ii) Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; and (iii) Economic Interference with Contractual Relationship. (Declaration of Louise Truong (“Truong Decl.”), 4 24.) Trial is presently set for March 5, 2018. (Truong Decl., § 25.) B. The Deposition Subpoena, GEP’s Attempts to Meet and Confer, and Western Medical’s Refusal to Comply With the Subpoena GEP served Western Medical with the Subpoena on April 25, 2017, requesting that documents be produced on or before May 18, 2017. Also on April 25, 2017, GEP served Western 3 MOTION TO COMPEL THIRD PARTY WESTERN MEDICAL CENTER-SANTA ANA’S COMPLIANCE WITH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BN 29862525V2 A ~ N O N W n 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BUCHALTER Medical with a separate subpoena calling for the personal appearance of Western Medical’s Person Most Knowledgeable (“PMK?”) at a deposition. The date set for the deposition of Western Medical’s PMK was June 6, 2017. The dates set forth in the subpoenas were intentionally set so that the production of documents would occur prior to the deposition. (Truong Decl., § 3.) On May 12, 2017, GEP’s counsel received a phone call from Western Medical’s counsel, Issa Mikel. Mr. Mikel indicated that he had just been retained by Western Medical in connection with the Subpoena and requested an extension to June 1, 2017 for the response to the Subpoena. GEP’s counsel granted the extension request. (Truong Decl., 94.) On May 22, 2017, GEP’s counsel e-mailed Mr. Mikel to inform him that GEP and the Defendants had met and conferred regarding the Subpoena sent to Western Medical. GEP informed Western Medical that it had agreed to limit the timeframe for some of the documents that are being requested from Western Medical and provided said limitations to Mr. Mikel. Mr. Mikel replied via e-mail stating that he was working with Western Medical to determine what, if any, responsive and discoverable documents were in its possession, custody or control and that he would provide GEP’s counsel with an update soon. (Truong Decl., 5.) On that same day, GEP also received objections to the Subpoena from Western Medical. (Truong Decl., 96.) On June 5, 2017, Mr. Mikel informed GEP’s counsel that he was following up with Western Medical on any responsive documents. On June 6, 2017, GEP’s counsel replied, asking for the date Western Medical expected to produce responsive documents. Mr. Mikel, however, did not respond to the question. (Truong Decl., 7.) On July 7, 2017, GEP’s counsel followed up with Mr. Mikel, asking about Western Medical’s outstanding document production. Mr. Mikel responded that he had been swamped with other work, but that he would attempt to get the documents from Western Medical over the next week. (Truong Decl., q 8.) On July 19, 2017, GEP’s counsel followed up again with Mr. Mikel about the responsive documents. Mr. Mikel responded that he was working on getting the documents from his client and would get back to GEP’s counsel. (Truong Decl., 99.) On July 27, 2017, Western Medical provided its first set of responsive documents. 4 MOTION TO COMPEL THIRD PARTY WESTERN MEDICAL CENTER-SANTA ANA’S COMPLIANCE WITH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BN 29862525V2 n n ~ ~ O O W n 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BUCHALTER Specifically, Western Medical produced only three documents: a contract, a termination letter, and one page of handwritten notes. Western Medical further provided that it was still searching for additional documents and would send a custodian of affidavit once all responsive documents had been produced. (Truong Decl., § 10.) On July 31, 2017, GEP’s counsel followed up with Mr. Mikel regarding the rest of his responsive documents. Mr. Mikel responded that he was still trying to get the documents to GEP; however, the person doing the document search at Western Medical was too busy to even provide Mr. Mikel with responsive documents. Mr. Mikel then informed GEP that it believed GEP’s document requests were too overbroad and burdensome and sought confidential and irrelevant information. GEP’s counsel responded, reminding Mr. Mikel that GEP had already agreed to new time limitations back in May 2017 and explained how all its requests are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and narrowly tailored to relate to the Complaint. GEP’s counsel also offered to discuss any specific request that Western Medical believed was too overbroad or irrelevant. (Truong Decl., 11.) On August 1, 2017, GEP’s counsel called Mr. Mikel to meet and confer on his objections and concerns relating to the discovery requests. Mr. Mikel admitted that his clients still had not provided him with any responsive documents and that he did not know the extent of documents Western Medical even had. On the same day, GEP’s counsel also sent Mr. Mikel a copy of the stipulated protective order entered into by the Court to mollify any concerns about the disclosure of confidential or private information. (Truong Decl., 12.) On August 2, 2017, Mr. Mikel e-mailed GEP’s counsel and informed GEP that he was trying to get ahold ofhis client to discuss the documents in response to the Subpoena. (Truong Decl., § 13.) On August 4, 2017, Mr. Mikel once again informed GEP’s counsel that he was still trying to get ahold of his client to get responsive documents. At that point, Mr. Mikelstill did not even know what documents Western Medical had in response to the Subpoena. (Truong Decl., q 14.) On August 7, 2017, Mr. Mikel informed GEP’s counsel that he still had not heard back from his client and that he would provide an update within a day or two. (Truong Decl., § 15.) By August 14, 2017, GEP still had not heard back from Western Medical. Accordingly, on 5 MOTION TO COMPEL THIRD PARTY WESTERN MEDICAL CENTER-SANTA ANA’S COMPLIANCE WITH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BN 29862525V2 A PROFESS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 crCommsC los ANGELES August 14, 2017, GEP’s counsel followed up with Mr. Mikel regarding the status of the documents. Mr. Mikel did not respond to GEP’s counsel’s e-mail. (Truong Decl., 16.) On August 15, 2017, Mr. Mikel called GEP’ counsel, telling GEP’s counsel that he was still working with his clients on getting responsive documents and that he was hoping to produce everything within a couple of days. (Truong Decl., § 17.) Based on GEP’s counsel’s multiple conversations with Mr. Mikel, it became clear that Western Medical was not taking the Subpoena seriously, was refusing to comply with the Subpoena, and was not even getting back to its own attorney regarding the Subpoena. (Truong Decl., § 18.) However, right before GEP filed its Motion to Compel, Mr. Mikel informed GEP’s counsel that he finally received his clients’ e-mails and could start running searches for Western Medical’s document production. Accordingly, GEP decided to hold off on filing its Motion to Compel. The parties then met and conferred on search terms and date limitations. (Truong Decl., J 18.) On October 13, 2017, Western Medical produced its supplemental document production. Although Western Medical produced 826 pages of documents, over 700 pages were redacted. In addition, GEP determined that a number of documents that should have been produced were not. For instance, no communications with CEP were produced, even though the parties had agreed on having “CEP”as a search term. (Truong Decl., 19.) Therefore, GEP’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter to Western Medical on October 17, 2017 demanding that Western Medical provide additional documents immediately and provide a redaction log to support their redacted documents. (Truong Decl., § 20.) In response, Western Medical agreed to hire a third party vendor to collect the e-mails and run the searches. It took Western Medical six months to finally agree to have a third party vendor involved in the searches. (Truong Decl., § 21.) By October 27, 2017, however, Mr. Mikel informed GEP that Western Medical was still working with its third party vendor to export the e-mails. In addition, Western Medical still had not produced a redaction log, despite promising it would do so. (Truong Decl., § 22.) Therefore, it was reconfirmed to GEP that Western Medical still did not have the sense of urgency required, despite this Subpoena being served six months prior. 6 MOTION TO COMPEL THIRD PARTY WESTERN MEDICAL CENTER-SANTA ANA’S COMPLIANCE WITH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BN 29862525V2 EA N ~ N O N W n 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BUCHALTER A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION L.os ANGELES GEP warned Western Medical that the Court represented at the parties’ ex parte hearing that the parties had already sufficiently exhausted its meet and confer efforts and that it was time to start filing Motions to Compel. (Truong Decl., 20.) Due to Western Medical’s failure to comply with the Subpoena and produce all responsive documents, GEP has had to postpone the deposition of Western Medical’s PMK. Therefore, GEP still has been unable to depose Western Medical’s PMK, despite serving its Subpoena for a deposition six months ago. (Truong Decl., 423.) Accordingly, it is now necessary for GEP to bring this Motion in order to get the documents it is entitled to in a timely manner. With trial set in March 2018, it can no longer afford to rely on Western Medical’s empty promises that documents will be forthcoming. III. LEGAL ARGUMENT A. The Court Should Order Western Medical to Comply with the Subpoena Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2020.010, a party may use a deposition subpoena to obtain discovery from a person or entity that is not a party to the action for which the discovery is sought. If a nonparty disobeys a subpoena, the subpoenaing party may seek a court order compelling the nonparty to comply with the subpoena after completing of the deposition record. CCP § 2025.480(b); Unzipped Apparel, LLC v. Bader (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 123, 127. Additionally, “[a] showing of ‘good cause’ is required on a motion to compel a party . . . . But there is apparently no such requirement on a motion to compel a nonparty to comply with a deposition subpoena for document production.” Weil, et al., California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial 8:609.3 (The Rutter Group 2015). Here, GEP served Western Medical with the Subpoena on April 25, 2017, requesting that documents be produced on or before May 18, 2017. After producing its initial production, Western Medical stated that it would continue searching and producing responsive documents to GEP. In reality, however, Western Medical was simply refusing to comply with its discovery obligations and stringing GEP along into believing that additional responsive documents would be produced. Indeed, Western Medical was even ignoring its own attorneys and refusing to get back to them about responsive documents. At one point, Western Medical’s counsel admitted 7 MOTION TO COMPEL THIRD PARTY WESTERN MEDICAL CENTER-SANTA ANA’S COMPLIANCE WITH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BN 29862525V2 N S ~ O N W n 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BUCHALTER A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION LoS ANGELES that he still did not even know what type of documents Western Medical had in response to the Subpoena because he still could not get ahold of his client. After Western Medical finally did produce some documents in October,it was evident that there were still responsive documents that Western Medical had not produced to GEP. When GEP confronted Western Medical about the 700 pages ofiredacted documents and the missing responsive documents, Western Medical finally decided to hire a third party vendor. Except, there is still delay in working with the vendor and getting documents to GEP, which GEP can no longer afford. Western Medical has had almost six months to look for documents. It should not be allowed to continue stalling and failing to produce documents. GEP has been more than patient with Western Medical and now requires court intervention to have these outstanding Subpoenas come to a close. Accordingly, Western Medical should be compelled to produce all responsive documents to GEP’s Subpoena. B. Western Medical’s Objections to the Discovery Requests In the Subpoena Are Meritless Western Medical provides the same boilerplate objections to each one of GEP’s document requests: OCGMC further objections to this matter on the following specific grounds: (1) defendants in the above-referenced action have objected to the production of records in response to the SUBPOENA and this request may implicate such parties’ rights, including but not limited to rights of privacy; (2) the request seeks documents and information concerning OCGMC’s legitimate competitive operations and is therefore, itself, an unfair business practice; (3) the request seeks documents and information protected by the right of privacy; 4) the request is an attempt to seek disclosure of OCGMC’s confidential, competitive business information, and as such is abusive and harassing; (5) the request seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; 8 MOTION TO COMPEL THIRD PARTY WESTERN MEDICAL CENTER-SANTA ANA’S COMPLIANCE WITH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BN 29862525V2 BUCHALTER 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Los ANGELES 6) as phrased, the request inherently seeks information covered by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine; 0) the request imposes an undue burden and expense and can be obtained more readily from another source or sources that are more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; ®) GEP has had ample opportunity to obtain the documents or information by discovery served upon parties to the action; ) the request imposes a burden upon OCGMC that outweighs the benefits to GEP; (10) the simultaneous use of the undefined term “you” and the defined term “YOU” makes the request vague and ambiguous, becauseit is unclear what documents or information fall within the terms of the request; (11) the request is not reasonably limited in time; (12) the terms “YOU” and “relating” in this context are, individually and collectively, so broad in scope as to make them inherently vague, ambiguous, and harassing, because it is unclear what documents or information fall within the terms of the request, because they improperly purport to impose upon OCGMC the obligation to produce documents outside its possession, custody, or control, and because they would require the wholesale disclosure of documents and information that are unrelated to this lawsuit and that would constitute confidential, proprietary, or privileged communications, and also cause the request to be unlimited in time; and (13) the request is improperly overbroad. Western Medical’s boilerplate objections, however, are meritless. First, any concerns about privacy and the disclosure of confidential information are remedied by the Stipulated Protective Order that has been entered into by the Court. Second, all of the document requests are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to GEP’s claim that Defendants had discussions with Western Medical to convince Western Medical to replace GEP with CEP. Specifically, the requests ask for documents that are narrowly tailored and relate only to the individual Defendants, GEP’s contract with Western Medical, and CEP’s and negotiations contract with Western Medical regarding the staffing of the emergency department. Indeed, the majority of the requests specifically relate to one of the individual Defendants, such as agreements with the Defendants or communications between Western Medical and the Defendants relating to specific 9 MOTION TO COMPEL THIRD PARTY WESTERN MEDICAL CENTER-SANTA ANA’S COMPLIANCE WITH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BN 29862525V2 N O C o 3 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BUCHALTER A ProFessioNAL CORPORATION Los ANGELES topics and allegations in the Complaint. Furthermore, GEP had already agreed to time limitations to a number of the requests. Thus, contrary to Western Medical’s objections, the document requests are not improperly overbroad and burdensome and they are all relevant to the claims in this action. Accordingly, Western Medical should be compelled to produce all responsive documents. IV. SANCTIONS ARE WARRANTED AGAINST WESTERN MEDICAL AND ITS COUNSEL A nonparty opposing a motion to compel compliance with a deposition subpoena without substantial justification is subject to sanctions. CCP §§ 1987.2(a), 2020.030, 2024.480; Pearson v. Farmers Ins. Group of Cos. (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 813, 818. Further, sections 2023.010 and 2023.030 authorize awarding sanctions against anyone who fails to submit an authorized method of discovery or who, without substantial justification, makes an unmeritorious objection to discovery. CCP §§ 2023.010(d), (e), (h); 2023.030(a). Western Medical and its counsel cannot establish any justification — let alone substantial justification — for objecting to the Subpoena. GEP made several good faith attempts to informally resolve this dispute, including multiple e-mail exchanges and phone calls. GEP has given Western Medical six months to provide GEP with all responsive documents. Despite GEP’s meet and confer efforts and Western Medical’s obligations to comply with a properly issued subpoena, Western Medical has refused to comply. As such, sanctions are warranted against Western Medical and its counsel in the total amount of $5,250.00 for the fees and costs incurred by GEP in bringing this motion. V. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, GEP respectfully requests that the Court grant GEP’s Motion to Compel Compliance, order Western Medical to produce all responsive documents within 10 days of the Order, order that Western Medical’s PMK witness appear for her deposition 14 days after 1 I" 11 1 10 MOTION TO COMPEL THIRD PARTY WESTERN MEDICAL CENTER-SANTA ANA’S COMPLIANCE WITH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BN 29862525V2 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BUCHALTER all responsive documents are produced, and award GEP $5,250.00 in sanctions against Western Medical and its counsel. DATED: November 2, 2017 BUCHALTER A Profession 1Corporation fos) ANDREW H. SELESNI DAMARIS L. MEDINA LOUISE TRUONG Attorneys for Plaintiff GRAPEVINE EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS MEDICAL GROUP, INC. By: (7 11 MOTION TO COMPEL THIRD PARTY WESTERN MEDICAL CENTER-SANTA ANA’S COMPLIANCE WITH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BN 29862525V2