Oasis Tarzana, LLC v. Premera Blue Cross of Alaska, et al Case No. CV 24-05847-CV (ASx) United States District Court, C.D. California Filed March 06, 2025 Counsel Attorney Present for Plaintiff: Mario Ashraf Iskander Attorneys Present for Defendants: Jessica Marie Pettit, Gabriel Richard Ulman Sagar, Alka, United States Magistrate Judge Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES (DKT. NO. 53) *1 On February 11, 2025, Defendant and Counterclaimant Premera Blue Cross of Alaska (“Defendant”) filed a Motion to Compel Plaintiff Oasis Tarzana, LLC's to produce initial disclosures and responses to Defendant's first set of Requests for Production of Documents (“RFP”) and Interrogatories and requested sanctions based on Plaintiff's failures to comply with its discovery obligations. (“Motion”) (Dkt. No. 53). On February 17, 2025, Plaintiff and Counterdefendant Oasis Tarzana, LLC (“Plaintiff”) served its initial disclosures and supplemental responses to Defendant's RFP and Interrogatories. (Dkt. No. 60-1 at 11–37). On February 25, 2025, five days after Plaintiff's opposition was due, see Local Rule 7-9, Plaintiff filed its Opposition to the Motion. (Dkt. No. 58). On February 27, 2025, Defendant filed its Reply, indicating that Plaintiff's supplemental responses were still deficient. (Dkt. No. 60). A hearing was held, via teleconference, on March 6, 2025.[1] via video teleconference. In addition to counsel, Plaintiff's CEO, Dona Dillon was present. The Court, having considered the parties' submissions, arguments from counsel, and the statements from Ms. Dillon, issued the following Order: 1. The Motion was properly filed under Local Rules 6-1 and 37-2.4. Defendant's counsel attached a declaration and supporting documents confirming that Plaintiff's counsel failed to meet and confer in a timely manner. (Dkt. No. 53; Declaration of Jessica Pettit, ¶¶ 8–10; Exhs. F, G). 2. While the Court acknowledges that Plaintiff's Opposition was untimely, it exercises its discretion to accept the late filing and consider it in deciding the Motion. 3. Plaintiff's boilerplate objections to Defendant's RFPs and Interrogatories are OVERRULED. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2), 33(b)(4); Duran v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 258 F.R.D. 375, 379 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (“[U]nexplained and unsupported boilerplate objections are improper.”). Plaintiff's objections based on Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) violations lack merit. See Hutton v. City of Martinez, 219 F.R.D. 164, 167 (N.D. Cal. 2003) (no prohibition on disclosure of information for judicial and administrative proceedings subject to an adequate protective order). Plaintiff's assertions of patient privacy and physician-patient privilege are not well-taken given the protective order issued in this case. See, e.g., Medina v. Cnty. of San Diego, 2014 WL 4793026, at *7 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2014) (“A protective order and the redaction of any highly personal information ... will amply protect privacy interests.”); Cal. Civ. Code § 56.10(b)(3) (“A provider of health care ... shall disclose medical information if the disclosure is compelled by ... [a] party to a proceeding before a court or administrative agency pursuant to ... any provision authorizing discovery in a proceeding before a court or administrative agency.”). Plaintiff's contention that Defendant already possesses the requested documents is not a valid objection, either. See Radical Invs., Ltd. v. Good Vibrations Ent. LLC, 2022 WL 19569539, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2022) (finding that “some of the requested documents may already be in the possession of the requesting party” is “not a valid objection”). Plaintiff has failed to provide any support for its objections to Defendant's requests for certain financial information on the basis that they are “fishing” or “burdensome.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, 33(b)(4), 34(b)(2)(B) (a party objecting to a request must explain the particular reasons the request is unduly burdensome); Lee v. Mike's Novelties, Inc., 2011 WL 13177623, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2011) (conclusory objections of burden are improper). As stated at the hearing, Defendant's RFPs and Interrogatories seek information that is relevant and narrowly tailored to, and proportional to the issues in this case. *2 4. Plaintiff is ORDERED to provide further supplemental responses—without objection— to all outstanding RFPs and Interrogatories no later than March 17, 2025. Interrogatory responses must be accurate, complete, and verified by Ms. Dillon and/or any other individual responsible for such attestation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(5). 5. During the hearing, Plaintiff's representative, Ms. Dillon, stated that she alone reviewed Plaintiff's electronic records for documents responsive to Defendant's RFPs. Plaintiff is ORDERED to provide—no later than March 17, 2025—a declaration from Ms. Dillon, under penalty of perjury, that (1) identifies, by Bates numbers, the documents that Plaintiff has produced relating to patient J.P., (2) describes in detail the manner in which Plaintiff searched for records responsive to Defendant's requests, including a description of the portal or depository of records that were accessed and reviewed, and (3) includes a statement that Plaintiff has produced all responsive documents in its possession, custody, or control and, if applicable, that Plaintiff is not in possession, custody, or control of responsive documents. 6. The parties are ORDERED to meet and confer regarding the adequacy of Plaintiff's initial disclosures submitted on February 17, 2025. 7. The Court DEFERS consideration of Defendant's request for sanctions against Plaintiff for their abuse of the discovery process and failure to meet and confer, which necessitated the filing of the motion, to take Plaintiff's compliance with this Order into account. Accordingly, the Motion to Compel (Dkt. No. 53) is GRANTED. The Court encourages the parties to avail themselves of the Court's informal discovery conference procedure to resolve any further discovery issues. See Judge Sagar's procedures. IT IS SO ORDERED. Footnotes [1] The Court advanced the hearing previously noticed for March 13, 2025, and ordered Plaintiff's representative to appear at the hearing. (Dkt. No. 62).