Ralon v. Kaiser Permanente Hospital

Background

The court received Kaiser’s discovery letter. The court’s standing orders require parties to meet and confer—meaning they must communicate in good faith to try to resolve a discovery dispute—before bringing the dispute to the court. Kaiser represented that it could not complete that process because Ralon did not respond to its telephone messages and letters and had not provided an email address.

Kaiser asked the court to quash, or invalidate, a deposition subpoena that Ralon had noticed for December 16, 2024. Kaiser also represented that Ralon had confirmed that she would not respond to Kaiser’s discovery requests.

Orders Concerning Ralon’s Discovery Obligations

The court stated that a self-represented party’s filing must list the party’s name, address, telephone number, and email address under Civil Local Rule 3-4(a)(1). Because Ralon had not provided an email address to Kaiser or listed one in her filings, the court ordered her to provide an email address or submit an affidavit sworn under penalty of perjury stating that she does not have an email account or does not have access to email.

The court also ordered Ralon to respond by December 27, 2024, to Kaiser’s interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admission, collectively called Kaiser’s Set One Discovery. Kaiser served those requests on September 24, 2024. Ralon had stated that she rejected the requests because she believed they were unrelated to Kaiser medical records and because her information was located there. The court explained that Ralon’s verbal authorization for Kaiser’s counsel to obtain and review her Kaiser medical records did not satisfy her discovery obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the local rules, and the court’s standing order.

The court ordered Ralon to attend the deposition Kaiser had noticed for December 23, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. at 516 16th Street, Oakland, California. Kaiser set that date on November 20, 2023, more than 30 days before the deposition, after it was unable to meet and confer with Ralon about scheduling. The court noted that Ralon had acknowledged the date and time in an earlier filing and had not objected.

Ruling on Ralon’s Subpoena

The court quashed Ralon’s subpoena seeking to depose Kaiser and various Kaiser employees on December 16, 2024. The court identified several defects. Ralon did not meet and confer with Kaiser about scheduling and gave less than 30 days’ notice, contrary to the reasonable-notice requirement in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(1).

The subpoena also sought depositions of three doctors, three unnamed Kaiser employees whom Ralon believed appeared in security videos, and the two entity defendants, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. and Kaiser Foundation Hospitals. For depositions of organizations under Rule 30(b)(6), the subpoena must describe the subjects for examination with reasonable particularity, and the parties must confer in good faith about those subjects. The court found that Ralon had not met those requirements.

The court further found that the subpoena improperly stated that Kaiser would pay the recording costs and, to the extent applicable, the interpreter’s costs. Under Rule 30(b)(3)(A), the party requesting the deposition bears the recording costs. The court also stated that Ralon was responsible for her own litigation expenses, including the interpreter costs identified in the subpoena.

Opportunity to Renotice and Warning

The court stated that Ralon may renotice the deposition and document requests if she follows the court’s standing orders and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. She must meet and confer with Kaiser’s counsel, in person or through Zoom or a comparable remote platform, no later than December 20, 2024, concerning scheduling, recording, interpreting, and the scope of the organizational depositions. She may renotice the deposition for a date agreed upon by the parties or, if they cannot agree, for a date no sooner than 30 days after serving the new subpoena.

The court cautioned that failure to comply with Ralon’s discovery obligations under the rules and the court’s standing orders may result in dismissal of the case in its entirety, with prejudice. The order was entered on December 13, 2024.