Judge: Andrew E. Cooper, Case: 23CHCV00040, Date: 2024-05-15 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F51, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2251.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 23CHCV00040    Hearing Date: May 15, 2024    Dept: F51

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES

Motion filed: 12/12/23

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff John Mirto Jaramillo (“Plaintiff”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Dorothy Reilly (“Defendant”)

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Defendant’s further responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6 and 6.7 within 20 days.

TENTATIVE RULING: The unopposed motion is granted. Defendant is ordered to serve further responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6 and 6.7, within 20 days. The Court imposes sanctions against Defendant and/or her counsel in the amount of $250.00.

BACKGROUND

This is a personal injury action in which Plaintiff alleges that on 1/16/21, he was injured as a result of an automobile collision between the vehicle he was driving and the one driven by Defendant. (Compl. p. 5.)

On 1/6/23, Plaintiff filed his complaint, alleging against Defendant the following causes of action: (1) Motor Vehicle Negligence; and (2) General Negligence. On 6/20/23, Defendant filed her answer.

On 7/21/23, Plaintiff served Defendant with his Form Interrogatories, Set One. (Decl. of Khachatur Chris Ayvazyan ¶ 3.) On 10/9/23, Defendant served her responses thereto. (Id. at ¶ 4.)

On 12/12/23, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel further responses to Form Interrogatory Nos. 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6 and 6.7. No opposition has been filed to date. On 5/6/24, Plaintiff filed a notice of non-opposition.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff seeks to compel additional responses to his first set of Form Interrogatories, specifically Interrogatory Nos. 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6 and 6.7, which seek: “whether Defendant still has any complaints of injury that she attributes to the motor vehicle incident giving rise to this lawsuit (6.3); whether treatment has been received for those injuries (6.4); whether Defendant has taken any medication as a result of the injures (6.5); whether any other medical services necessitated by the injuries (6.6); and whether any future treatment is required for the injuries attributed to the subject motor vehicle incident (6.7).” (Pl.’s Mot 5:3–7.)

A.    Meet and Confer

Plaintiff’s counsel declares that on 10/12/23, he sent Defendant’s counsel a met and confer letter regarding the issues raised in the instant motion. (Ayvazyan Decl. ¶¶ 6–7.) Plaintiff’s counsel followed up on 10/20/23, 10/24/23, 10/25/23, 11/9/23, 11/13/23, 11/20/23, 12/1/23, and 12/12/23, but received no response to the letter. (Ex. 3 to Ayvazyan Decl.) Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that counsel has satisfied the meet of confer requirements under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310, subdivision (b)(2).

B.     Evasive and Incomplete

Defendant responded to the subject interrogatories as follows: “Defendant is not asserting any injury claim in this action, thus details of her medical care are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and inquiry invades her privacy rights.” (Ex. 2 to Pl.’s Mot.) Plaintiff argues that “these interrogatories do not ask whether Defendant is asserting an injury claim. Rather they are asking if Defendant attribute any injury to the incident and what treatment was sought for those injuries.” (Pl.’s Mot. 5:11–13.)

In her response to Form Interrogatory No. 6.2, which asked Defendant to identify bodily injuries attributed to the subject incident, Defendant stated that “she injured her right shoulder, right forearm and her face.” (Ex. 2 to Pl.’s Mot. 7:25–26.) Plaintiff maintains that therefore, “the medical care that Defendant received for injuries caused from this accident are highly relevant to the facts of the case and are reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. The accident that has caused Defendant’s injuries, is the one that has also caused Plaintiff’s injuries, which Defendant is trying to undermine in her contentions.” (Pl.’s Mot. 5:19–22.) The Court agrees, and notes that Defendant has failed to present any opposition to the instant motion.

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds Defendant’s responses to the subject interrogatories as evasive and incomplete. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s further responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 6.3 – 6.7.

C.    Monetary Sanctions

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction … against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290, subd. (c).) Additionally, “the court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030, subd. (a).)

In granting the instant unopposed motion, the Court finds it reasonable to impose $250.00 in monetary sanctions against Defendant and/or her counsel.

CONCLUSION

The unopposed motion is granted. Defendant is ordered to serve further responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6 and 6.7, within 20 days. The Court imposes sanctions against Defendant and/or her counsel in the amount of $250.00.