*1 Hon. Andrew J. Guilford, Ret. Judicate West 1851 East First Street Suite 1600 Santa Ana, CA 92705 Phone: (714) 834-1340 Special Master

In July 2020, the Court entered an Order Appointing Special Master that authorized this Special Master “to hear and issue reports and recommendations regarding Discovery Disputes.” (Dkt. 179 at 5 ¶¶ 1, 2.)

Two motions are currently pending before the Special Master: (1) Plaintiffs' Motion Regarding Lay Witness Depositions and (2) Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Further Discovery. After discussion between the parties and the Special Master, each motion was filed on December 14, 2021, with proposed redacted and sealed versions. On December 20, 2021, each party filed a supplemental brief regarding each motion, also with proposed redacted and sealed versions. The parties provided copies of the unredacted briefs to the Special Master, and the Special Master refers to the parties' various briefs by docket numbers provided to him.

The parties previously submitted “placeholder” discovery motions in spring 2021. The parties report that these motions were submitted to meet the Court's Scheduling Order deadline for discovery motions. The Special Master understands from the parties that the two December 2021 motions represent all remaining discovery disputes from those original motions, with updates to narrow the disputed issues, address further meet and confer efforts between the parties, and acknowledge changes in circumstances in the case.

Importantly concerning changed case circumstances, the Court issued an order granting Plaintiffs' amended motion for class certification on November 16, 2021. (Dkt. No. 504.) Plaintiffs state that the Court “certified a class of all persons who resided at a Sunrise California Facility from June 27, 2013, through present (‘Class Period’), contracted with and paid money to Defendants pursuant to a Residency Agreement, and whose claims are not subject to arbitration.” (Dkt. No. 510-1 at 3.)

The Special Master held a hearing on the two pending motions on January 7, 2021.

Present at the hearing for Plaintiffs were Christopher J. Healey of the law firm Dentons US, LLP and Brian S. Umpierre of the law firm Stebner Gertler Guadagni & Kawamoto. Present at the hearing for Defendants were Michele L. Maryott and Joseph A. Gorman of the law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.

The parties were emailed a tentative Report and Recommendation before the hearing. Based on discussion at the hearing, the parties agreed to conduct further meet and confer before submitting a status report regarding the tentative ruling. The parties filed their joint status report on January 18, 2022. The Special Master commends the parties on their further meet and confer efforts, which resulted in resolution of many of the original issues presented and discussed at the hearing.

The Special Master has considered all the parties' arguments, including those presented at the hearing and in the January 18 joint status report, and now RECOMMENDS that each motion be DENIED-IN-PART and GRANTED-IN-PART as explained in greater detail in Sections 1 and 2 of this Report.

1. LAY WITNESS DISPUTE

*2 In the parties' January 18 joint status report, they submitted on the tentative ruling as to this issue but made two proposed suggestions. Both of those suggestions have been substantively incorporated into the final recommendation on this issue.

The parties do not appear to dispute the following. Plaintiffs timely served deposition notices for three individuals before the discovery cutoff: Shayne Ginder (former Sunrise employee), Tiffany Nobbee (current Sunrise employee), and Mark Gunlicks (an outside consultant for Sunrise who was never a Sunrise employee). But Defendants refused to make these three individuals available for deposition on the ground that Plaintiffs had already taken depositions of eleven witnesses, and thus already met and surpassed the 10-deposition limit provided by the Federal Rules. These eleven witness depositions included depositions of four expert witnesses who offered reports on narrow issues in support of Defendants' opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

Besides depositions of Ginder, Nobbee, and Gunlicks, Plaintiffs also seek through their pending motion to take depositions of three other individuals: Jeff Slichta (former Sunrise employee who previously testified as a Rule 30(b)(6) witness in this case and offered a declaration in support of Sunrise's opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification), Susan Coppola (current Sunrise employee), and Mike Belforte (an outside consultant for Sunrise who was never a Sunrise employee). Plaintiffs do not dispute that they did not notice depositions for these three individuals before the discovery cutoff. After filing this motion with the Special Master and receiving the Special Master's tentative ruling, Plaintiffs asked Judge Staton for a modification to her scheduling order in this case to accommodate depositions noticed after that cutoff. Yesterday, February 15, 2022, Plaintiffs' counsel informed the Special Master that “Judge Staton directed Plaintiffs to refile their motion with the Special Master to obtain a recommendation as to whether the fact discovery cutoff should be extended.”

As the most critical piece of background information, both parties agree that Sunrise offered a compromise to this motion. Specifically, Sunrise offered to produce Ginder and Nobbee for deposition. (See, e.g., Dkt. No. 512-1 at 4.) As Defendants state, “Plaintiffs should be required to first depose these two witnesses, then evaluate whether they have good cause to seek leave” for Gunlicks' deposition. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiffs assert that they rejected this proposed compromise because Defendants asked for a time limit of four hours for Nobbee's deposition, although they do not explain why more than four hours would be required for the information they seek. (Dkt. No. 523-1 at 3 n.3.) Counsel for Defendants previously worked with Nobbee directly in conducting a two-hour CLM software code inspection in May 2021. (Dkt. No. 519 at 3.)

Defendants present extensive legal authority to support their argument that the Special Master does not have the power to modify Judge Staton's Scheduling Order, and thus does not have the power to permit the three depositions that were not noticed before the discovery cutoff. (Dkt. No. 512-1 at 20–21.) In response, Plaintiffs note that “in March 2021, Sunrise shut down all deposition discovery based on its (incorrect) position that the depositions of Sunrise's class certification experts put Plaintiffs over the ten-deposition limit.” (Dkt. No. 523-1 at 2 (emphasis in original).) Plaintiffs argue that Defendants went so far as to argue that “Plaintiffs were required to obtain leave of Court before even noticing any further depositions.” (Id.)

*3 Aside from this dispute, the parties also disagree about whether the four depositions of Sunrise experts should be counted towards Plaintiffs' 10-deposition limit. Whether or not those expert depositions counted towards the 10-deposition is relevant to whether Plaintiffs were required to seek leave of Court and meet a higher standard for taking the depositions of Ginder, Nobee, and Gunlicks. Both sides present competing arguments and legal authority to support their positions. Plaintiffs suggest that counting experts in the 10-deposition limit could lead to fairness issues, but Defendants observe that expert discovery in this case has not technically even begun yet, as the depositions were taken as part of class certification motion practice.

Both sides present valid concerns on both issues. But the Special Master finds it unnecessary to address these issues now. Defendants have presented a reasonable compromise offer related to additional depositions, and at this point in time Plaintiffs have not shown what proportional, non-cumulative testimony they would additionally expect to obtain from the remaining four witnesses, or from more time with these two witnesses. The Special Master RECOMMENDS GRANTING-IN-PART Plaintiffs' motion in that Plaintiffs be permitted at this time to proceed with a 7-hour deposition of Ginder and a 5-hour deposition of Nobbee, at a date and time mutually agreeable to those witnesses and both parties, but ideally within 14 days of Sunrise's production of the discovery required by the final order on this motion. The Special Master RECOMMENDS OTHERWISE DENYING Plaintiffs' motion without prejudice to Plaintiffs renewing appropriate arguments after the depositions of Ginder and Nobbee are complete and for good cause shown.

2. FURTHER DISCOVERY DISPUTE

Plaintiffs' motion for further discovery covers many topics, including certain requests for production (“RFP”), an interrogatory response, and privilege logs. The parties' supplemental briefs suggested that the parties had not adequately met and conferred on all issues, and it was not always clear where the parties had reached agreement or had a dispute that remained. This problem persisted at the January 7 hearing and provided some of the basis for directing the parties to file their January 18 joint status report. Based on all the arguments and positions presented, the Special Master attempts to resolve all the parties' remaining disputes regarding Plaintiffs' motion for further discovery.

Classwide Assessment Data (RFP No. 229)

Defendants argue that the dispute relating to classwide assessment data “should be moot” because “Sunrise has produced a large amount of assessments (over 700) at great expense and effort.” (Dkt. No. 521-1 at 2.) Plaintiffs argue that this previously-produced sample size is insufficient, in part because Defendants have declined to “stipulate that a random selection of some subset of facility-wide assessment data is representative of total workload for all facilities.” (Dkt. No. 525-1 at 2.) Plaintiffs also challenge Defendants' undue burden arguments, stating that “in connection with the ‘sample’ data set previously produced, the parties agreed on the specific non-privileged assessment information required for production, and Sunrise's vendor created a script to pull that data in the agreed-upon .csv format.” (Id. at 1.) Plaintiffs argue this information is relevant to a shortfall analysis being conducted by Plaintiffs' expert, which would be skewed if 80-85% of data (i.e., from non-class members) is missing. They state, “all residents—whether or not they agreed to arbitration—are served by the same limited pool of care providers within a facility. If 80-85% of the assessment data is missing, that will preclude a calculation of the total facility workload and effectively bar Plaintiffs' simulation analysis.” (Id.)

*4 Defendants have not adequately supported their argument of undue burden in collecting and providing this information, particularly considering the work already performed (including the creation of custom scripts) to collect the sample set, and Plaintiffs have adequately explained why the information is relevant to this case absent a stipulation between the parties regarding a sample set of data.

The Special Master RECOMMENDS that Plaintiffs' motion be GRANTED as to this issue.

In their January 18 joint status report, the parties stated that they “submit on the tentative, subject to continued meet and confer about the possibility of a representative sample in lieu of a production of all assessments” and an additional clarification. The Special Master adds all the parties' suggested additional language to this Report, finding it appropriate in the circumstances. The Special Master has also incorporated some additional language.

The parties agree to meet and confer about the possibility of a representative sample in lieu of a production of all assessments. If the parties cannot reach an agreement on the production of a representative sample within 15 days of the issuance of a final order on this motion, Sunrise shall produce assessments available through Point Click Care in place for every resident of a Sunrise facility during the Class Period. Sunrise reserves the right to seek relief from the Special Master if Point Click Care is unable to write a script for the production. Any such request for relief should be accompanied by evidence, for example in the form of a witness declaration, to support any claim of undue burden or lack of proportionality. Plaintiffs reserve all rights to oppose Sunrise's request for relief in that regard, but will agree to meet and confer with Sunrise before Sunrise seeking such relief in such an event. Any opposition to the request for relief could benefit from evidence, for example in the form of an expert witness declaration, to support the necessity of the full scope of information continued to be sought.

Staffing Data (RFP No. 230)

The parties' January 18 joint status report states that the parties submit on the tentative as to this issue.

Defendants argue that “Sunrise already produced [staffing data] information through August 2019, and has offered to refresh actual staffing data (Kronos data) and reasonably available target staffing data.” (Dkt. No. 521-1 at 2.) Plaintiffs state that they “will accept Sunrise's offer to update its production of actual staffing and target staffing for all facilities, provided the updated production extends through the date of class certification (November 16, 2021).” (Dkt. No. 525-1 at 2.)

Based on these statements and the current record, the Special Master RECOMMENDS that Plaintiffs' motion be DENIED AS MOOT AS AGREED on this issue.

Billing and Census Data (RFP Nos. 228)

Regarding billing data, Defendants argue that they have “already produced substantial billing records [and] offered to refresh electronic records showing services for which class members were billed after the opt-out time period.” (Dkt. No. 521-1 at 2.) This aspect of the parties' dispute is further discussed under the “class member resident files” topic, infra.

Plaintiffs argue that “Sunrise can easily update its production of [daily census records for all Sunrise residents] for the full class period. Sunrise's proposal to provide updated information for class members only is deficient.” (Dkt. No. 525-1 at 2.) Plaintiffs argue this information is relevant to the same shortfall analysis being conducted by Plaintiffs' expert. (Id. at 1, 2.)

*5 Defendants have not stated that they face an undue burden in collecting and providing this updated census data.

In the parties' January 18 joint status report, the parties state that they submit on the tentative, with a suggestion. That suggestion has been incorporated into this Report.

Sunrise agrees to refresh SUN0017869. The Special Master RECOMMENDS that Plaintiffs' motion be DENIED AS MOOT AS AGREED as to this issue.

Class List (RFP Nos. 209, 216)

Defendants state that they will disclose the names of class members on January 10, 2022, the Monday after the Friday hearing in this case. (Dkt. No. 521-1 at 3.) Plaintiffs acknowledge as much in their supplemental brief, but still request relief. (Dkt. No. 525-1 at 2.)

The Special Master RECOMMENDS that Plaintiffs' motion be DENIED as premature on this issue, without prejudice to its renewal if Defendants failed to provide a class list by January 10, 2022.

The parties' January 18 joint status report (submitted 8 days after the January 10, 2022, deadline for a class list) states that the parties submit on the tentative as to this issue.

Class Member Resident Files (RFP Nos. 209–214)

Plaintiffs group these requests together, stating that they “seek resident files for class members, which should include assessments, service plans, complaints and billing records.” (Dkt. No. 525-1 at 3.) In the original briefing, Defendants appear to agree that (1) after the opt-out period, they will produce assessments and (2) they have already produced “complaint documents, along with DSS complaints and citations.” (Dkt. No. 521-1 at 3.)

At the hearing, Defendants also agreed to refresh the billing information (including resident billing service history) and complaint documentation that they had previously produced in this case. Defendants further agreed that they could produce residency assessments and service plans that are electronically available, and would then return to evaluate the burden for circumstances where those documents were not already stored in electronic format. After further argument, Defendants also appeared to agree that they could produce information showing amounts billed to class members on an individual basis, but would need to consult and possibly confer further regarding individual amounts paid. Defendants also stated that they would be open to producing class member correspondence so long as it appeared in a class members' resident file, not just through a search of class member email.

But in the parties' January 18 joint report, Defendants present a different, much narrower proposal. Defendants state that they are agreeable to producing “complete resident files (including service plans, complaints, and residency agreements in those files) for confirmed trial witnesses.” (Joint Report, 4–5 (emphasis in original).) Compared to the proposal that Defendants made during the hearing, this narrowed proposal puts Plaintiffs at a severe disadvantage in their case preparation.

The January 18 joint report also includes the parties' competing views on including language in class settlement notices that would allow class members to opt out of having their resident files released in full, unredacted version to the Plaintiffs. The Special Master does not find that such an approach for a release would be appropriate.

*6 Although Defendants argue in the January 18 joint report that redacting confidential information in the resident files will be burdensome, they have not adequately shown how proportionality supports withholding these materials, which are central to this case. This is particularly true given the compromise offers that they made at the hearing itself.

On the current record, the Special Master RECOMMENDS that Plaintiffs' motion be DENIED-IN-PART as MOOT AS AGREED and otherwise DENIED, with the understanding that Defendants will be held to the positions that they took at the hearing regarding the information they are able to produce.

Residency Agreements (Non-Class Members) (RFP Nos. 215–216)

In their supplemental brief, Defendants state, “Sunrise has offered a reasonable compromise position—producing a random sampling of 500 residency agreements (with the option of producing more if necessary).” (Dkt. No. 521-1 at 4.) In the parties' January 18 joint status report, the parties state that they will meet and confer regarding how the random sample will be selected, and have further reached agreement that “authority to bind documentation” will not be produced and are not part of the parties' compromise agreement.

Based on these statements, the Special Master RECOMMENDS that Plaintiffs' motion be DENIED AS MOOT AS AGREED on this issue.

MedSummit Documents and Related TCB Documents (RFP Nos. 12, 14, 128, 130, 133, 136, 140, 218–220, 222–223, 225–226)

Defendants state, “Sunrise already produced the responsive documents in its possession relating to TCB and CLM, including communications with MedSummit. There should not be any additional documents that MedSummit has that Sunrise does not also have (and has not produced).” (Dkt. No. 521-1 at 1.) Plaintiffs dispute this, stating, “[d]iscovery shows Sunrise has not produced MedSummit documentation directly bearing on these issues.” (Dkt. No. 525-1 at 3.) Plaintiffs specifically state that “missing documents include, but are not limited to, ‘workbooks’ containing workload and deferrable time calculations, ‘workbooks’ containing the formulas/logic used to create time standards, documentation that ‘explicitly describes any assumptions/decisions made throughout the process,’ and the ‘methodology used to turn ‘observation data’ into ‘standards’ and therefore ‘workload’.’ ” (Suppl. Umpierre Decl., Dkt. No. 525-2 ¶ 7.)

The parties otherwise dispute whether Defendants have “control” over MedSummit, such that they have a “legal right” to obtain responsive documents from MedSummit. To support their position, Plaintiffs cite Judge Early's decision in Centerline. But in that case, Judge Early found:

Centerline Hous. P'ship v. Palm Cmtys., No. 8:21-cv-00107-JVS (JDEx), 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204226, at *21 (C.D. Cal. Sep. 2, 2021). The same problem exists with the current record in this case.

*7 The Special Master finds Defendants' generalized arguments regarding undue burden in the context of these requests unpersuasive, and reaches the same recommendation that Judge Early ordered in Centerline.

Id. at *21–22. The Special Master RECOMMENDS Plaintiffs' motion be accordingly GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART consistent with Judge Early's reasoning quoted here from Centerline. The parties' January 18 joint status report states that the parties submit on the tentative ruling as to this issue, except as it relates to Care Labor Management (“CLM”) software code. The Special Master has broken out the CLM code dispute into a separate topic, and it is addressed in the next section.

Care Labor Management Software Code

Although not necessarily addressed at length in the parties' briefs (and after not being raised at all in Plaintiffs' supplemental brief), at the hearing and in the parties' January 18 joint report, the parties presented a dispute regarding production of the CLM code.

The parties previously raised a dispute regarding the CLM code with the Special Master in November 2020. At that time, Defendants explained that given the nature of the code, it cannot simply be produced like a document or other thing. Defendants reiterate this point in the January 18 joint report. Plaintiffs, meanwhile, provide no proposal for how they would seek to have “reasonable access” to the CLM code under the circumstances. They do not state, for example, whether they seek printouts of the code, or further access to the code via additional inspections, or some other system for reviewing the code given Defendants' stated position regarding limitations on its production.

After considering the arguments presented and the circumstances surrounding this case, the Special Master thus RECOMMENDS that Plaintiffs' motion be DENIED on this issue.

Pendant Response Data (RFP No. 105)

RFP No. 105 seeks “DOCUMENTS (in electronic data format, if available) sufficient to show the pendant response times at all FACILITIES during the CLASS PERIOD.”

Plaintiffs request “all ‘pendant response time’ reports, which Plaintiffs understand exist in electronic format at all facilities.” (Dkt. No. 525-1 at 4.) Plaintiffs suggest that Defendants have offered to produce “electronic pendant data from seven facilities” (id. (citing Dkt. No. 510-1 at 59)), but that does not appear to actually be so. Defendants instead state generally that the request is not proportional to the needs of the case. They write, “[t]he documents are stored at each individual community and total over a million pages. They also contain extensive personally identifiable information and healthcare information that must be reviewed and redacted. At 36 of 43 communities, they are stored in PDF, non-searchable format. Over 85% of the material is also completely irrelevant, given that 85% of residents are not included in the class.” (Dkt. No. 521-1 at 3 (emphasis in original).)

*8 The Special Master RECOMMENDS that Plaintiffs' motion be DENIED-IN-PART and GRANTED-IN-PART on this issue, and that the parties be ORDERED TO MEET AND CONFER to reach agreement on the production of a sample dataset from the seven facilities with reports stored in searchable format, covering sample timeframes that are less than the entire class period.

The parties' January 18 joint status report states that the parties submit on the tentative on this issue.

Operations Manuals (RFP Nos. 232–233)

In their supplemental brief, Defendants state that “[t]his issue is resolved.” (Dkt. No. 521-1 at 3.) Plaintiffs dedicate one sentence to this dispute in their supplemental brief: “Sunrise should be required to produce the ‘Getting Started 1’ documentation, the online version of the Operations Manual for Executive Directors.” (Dkt. No. 525-1 at 4 (citation omitted).)

The Special Master RECOMMENDS finding that Plaintiffs' motion on this issue be DENIED-IN-PART as MOOT AS AGREED and GRANTED-IN-PART as to “Getting Started 1” documentation only.

The parties' January 18 joint status report states that the parties submit on the tentative on this issue.

CEO Correspondence (RFP No. 231)

RFP No. 231 requests: “All email correspondence to, from or copying Chris Winkle concerning PROMISED SERVICES STAFFING, the Taking Care of Business Project, Care Labor Management, budget compliance and/or variance, facility occupancy and/or census, labor hours including target hours or actual hours worked, marketing of PROMISED SERVICES, RESIDENT SERVICE LEVELS, quality of CARE SERVICES, or risk management.” (Dkt. No. 510-1 at 32.)

The Special Master finds that Plaintiff adequately met and conferred on this issue (see Supp. Umpierre Decl., Dkt. No. 525-2, Ex. A.), which was Sunrise's primary objection in its briefs to agreeing to production. At the hearing, Sunrise's concerns with the overbreadth of this request were discussed. The parties' January 18 joint status report states that the parties submit on the tentative, subject to suggested changes to the ruling. The Special Master finds those suggested changes appropriate, and has incorporated them into this Report.

The Special Master RECOMMENDS that Plaintiffs' motion be GRANTED as to this issue, provided that the parties shall meet and confer on appropriate search terms. If no agreement is reached within twenty-one days of the issuance of a final order on this motion, the parties shall submit their respective proposals on search terms to the Special Master for resolution.

Third-Party Communications (RFP Nos. 102–104)

The parties' January 18 joint status report states that the parties submit on the tentative on this issue.

Plaintiffs state that RFPs 102 through 104 “seek documents concerning Sunrise's relationships and communications with third party investors, lenders, or owners, including but not limited to Ventas and WellTower, concerning topics including financial performance, census, and regulatory compliance.” (Dkt. No. 510-1 at 46.) Plaintiffs argue that “[t]hese documents bear on contractual incentives Sunrise has to meet financial covenants with its capital partners” and that “Sunrise's relationships with third party owners and investors have a direct bearing on the operation of Sunrise's individual facilities.” (Id.) Defendants insist this issue was already addressed by the Special Master in a previous ruling, and states that “[p]ursuant to the parties' compromise, Sunrise produced variance reports and related custodial communications from six communities.” (Dkt. No. 521-1 at 5.)

*9 RFP No. 102 requests “All EMAIL sent by YOU to any THIRD PARTY INVESTOR, THIRD PARTY LENDER, or THIRD PARTY OWNER that CONCERNS financial performance, census and/or regulatory compliance at the FACILITIES (or any of them) during the CLASS PERIOD.” (See Dkt. No. 510-1 at 33.)

RFP Nos. 103 and 104 seek “The ‘Ventas Notices’ ” or “The ‘Well Tower Group’ ” “EMAIL sent or received during the CLASS PERIOD regarding the FACILITIES.” (Id. at 33, 34.)

The Special Master finds that, as written, the requests are overbroad and disproportionate to the needs of this case. The Special Master agrees that Plaintiffs have not adequately shown how the relevance of material sought by this request would outweigh the burden to collect and produce it. This is particularly the case given that Defendants have already produced, among other things, budget variance reports for six communities in response to the parties' earlier compromise and as discussed in Special Master's previous order.

The Special Master RECOMMENDS that Plaintiffs' motion be DENIED as to this issue.

Former Employees (Interrogatory No. 4)

The parties' January 18 joint status report states that the parties submit on the tentative on this issue.

In a ruling in October 2019, Judge Early stated as follows.

(Dkt. No. 98 at 3–4.)

In their supplemental brief, Plaintiffs argue that they have “narrowed this interrogatory to names and contact information for the [six] categories of former staff personnel who, according to Sunrise, provide direct resident care.” (Dkt. No. 525-1 at 5 (emphasis in original).) It appears that Plaintiffs didn't first make this offer to narrow their request to former employees with particular job titles until filing this motion itself, and only while also “renew[ing]” their request for a complete list of former employee contact information. (Dkt. No. 510-1 at 47.) Defendants argue, among other things, that Plaintiffs' new proposal and list of six positions does not meaningfully narrow the scope of this interrogatory. (Dkt. No. 521-1 at 5.)

Judge Early provided a clear ruling in October 2019 regarding Plaintiffs' Interrogatory No. 4. But rather than propound a new, narrower interrogatory before the discovery cutoff as he suggested, Plaintiffs re-raise the exact issue now, and for the first time state that they have “narrowed this interrogatory.” (Dkt. No. 525-1 at 5.) Plaintiffs' argument is unpersuasive. Even if Plaintiffs newly-narrowed version of this interrogatory was properly considered, the Special Master would find that the determinations reached by Judge Early would still apply. The Special Master RECOMMENDS that Plaintiffs' motion be DENIED as to this issue.

Defendants' Privilege Logs

*10 The parties' January 18 joint status report states that the parties submit on the tentative on this issue.

The Special Master has reviewed the parties' competing arguments regarding the sufficiency of Defendants' privilege logs, as well as the privilege logs themselves. (See, e.g., Dkt. No. 512-2, Exs. D–G.) The Special Master finds the privilege logs are sufficiently detailed, including as they relate to correspondence involving in-house counsel. The Special Master RECOMMENDS that Plaintiffs' motion be DENIED as to this issue.

3. CONCLUSION

The Special Master RECOMMENDS that each motion be DENIED-IN-PART and GRANTED-IN-PART as explained in greater detail in Sections 1 and 2 of this Report.

THUS IT IS RECOMMENDED.

Audrey Heredia, et al. vs. Sunrise Senior Living, LLC, et al. A269261

I, the undersigned, an employee of Judicate West, located at 1851 E. First Street, Suite 1600, Santa Ana, CA 92705 declare under penalty of perjury that I am over the age of eighteen (18) and not a party to this matter or proceeding.

On February 17, 2022, I served the foregoing documents, described as:

to the following parties:

(X) BY E-MAIL I caused the above-referenced document to be transmitted via electronic mail (e-mail) to the parties as listed on this Proof of Service

( ) BY ELECTRONIC FILING I caused such document to be sent via electronic service by submitting an electronic version of the document(s) to One Legal, LLC, through the user interface at www.onelegal.com.

( ) BY FASCIMILE I caused the above-referenced document to be transmitted via facsimile to the parties as listed on this Proof of Service. The document was transmitted by facsimile transmission and the transmission was reported as complete and without error.

( ) BY PERSONAL SERVICE I personally delivered the documents to the persons at the address (es): by leaving the documents at the person (s) office, in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the person(s) being served, with a receptionist or an individual in charge of the office.

( ) BY UNITED STATES PARCEL SERVICE I am readily familiar with the business' practice for collection and processing of correspondence and mailing with the United States Postal Service; such correspondence would be deposited with the United States Postal Service the same day of deposit with postage thereon fully prepaid at Santa Ana, California in the ordinary course of business

( ) STATE I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

( ) FEDERAL I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made.

Executed on February 17, 2022, at Santa Ana, California

Case Contact List as of Thursday, February 17, 2022 JW Case #: A269261 Case Caption: Audrey Heredia, et al. vs. Sunrise Senior Living, LLC, et al.

Christopher J. Healey, Esq.

Suite 700

San Diego, CA 92121

Phone: (619) 236-1414 Fax: (619) 232-8311

Email: christopher.healey@dentons.com

Representing Audrey Heredia; as Successor in Interest to the; Estate of Carlos Heredia; Amy Fearn; as Successor in Interest to the; Estate of Edith Zack; Helen Ganz; GAL Elise Ganz; Elise Ganz, et al.

Mark T. Johnson, Esq.

Schneider, Wallace, Cottrell, Konecky & Wotkyns, LLP

2000 Powell St.

Suite 1400

Emeryville, CA 94608

Phone: (415) 421-7100 Fax: (415) 421-7105

Email: mjohnson@schneiderwallace.com

Representing Audrey Heredia; as Successor in Interest to the; Estate of Carlos Heredia; Amy Fearn; as Successor in Interest to the; Estate of Edith Zack; Helen Ganz; GAL Elise Ganz; Elise Ganz, et al.

Guy B. Wallace, Esq.

Schneider, Wallace, Cottrell, Konecky & Wotkyns, LLP

2000 Powell St.

Suite 1400

Emeryville, CA 94608

Phone: (415) 421-7100 Fax: (415) 421-7105

Email: gwallace@schneiderwallace.com

Representing Audrey Heredia; as Successor in Interest to the; Estate of Carlos Heredia; Amy Fearn; as Successor in Interest to the; Estate of Edith Zack; Helen Ganz; GAL Elise Ganz; Elise Ganz, et al.

Kathryn A. Stebner, Esq.

Stebner Gertler Guadagni & Kawamoto

870 Market St.

Suite 1285

San Francisco, CA 94102

Phone: (800) 610-9641 Fax:

Email: kathryn@sggklaw.com

Representing Audrey Heredia; as Successor in Interest to the; Estate of Carlos Heredia; Amy Fearn; as Successor in Interest to the; Estate of Edith Zack; Helen Ganz; GAL Elise Ganz; Elise Ganz, et al.

Brian S. Umpierre, Esq.

Stebner Gertler Guadagni & Kawamoto

870 Market St.

Suite 1285

San Francisco, CA 94102

Phone: (800) 610-9641 Fax:

Email: brian@sggklaw.com

Ashley L. Allyn, Esq.

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP

3161 Michelson Dr.

Irvine, CA 92612

Phone: (949) 451-3800 Fax: (949) 451-4220

Email: aallyn@gibsondunn.com

Representing Sunrise Senior Living, LLC

Joseph A. Gorman, Esq.

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP

555 Mission St.

Suite 3000

San Francisco, CA 94105

Phone: (415) 393-8200 Fax: (415) 393-8306

Email: JGorman@gibsondunn.com

Representing Sunrise Senior Living, LLC

Michele L. Maryott, Esq.

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP

3161 Michelson Dr.

Irvine, CA 92612

Phone: (949) 451-3800 Fax: (949) 451-4220

Email: mmaryott@gibsondunn.com

Representing Sunrise Senior Living, LLC