Judge: Andrew E. Cooper, Case: 23CHCV00240, Date: 2024-01-29 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: 23CHCV00240    Hearing Date: January 29, 2024    Dept: F51

MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES

Motions Filed: 11/3/23

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Prosper Benhaim, M.D. (“Defendant”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff James Howard (in pro per) (“Plaintiff”)

NOTICE: OK

RELIEF REQUESTED: Orders compelling Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s first set of Requests for Production of Documents (“RFPs”); Form Interrogatories; Requests for Admission (“RFAs”); and Special Interrogatories. Defendant further requests monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the combined amount of $4,640.00.

TENTATIVE RULING: Unopposed motions are granted. Plaintiff is ordered to provide objection-free responses to Defendant’s first set of discovery requests within 10 days. Defendant’s Requests for Admission, Set One, are deemed admitted. The Court imposes sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $550.00.

BACKGROUND

This is a medical malpractice action in which Plaintiff alleges that on 2/2/22 and 2/9/22, Defendant treated him with a drug that rendered his left hand “badly maimed.” On 1/27/23, Plaintiff filed his complaint against Defendant, alleging a sole cause of action for Medical Malpractice. On 3/8/23, Defendant filed his answer thereto.

On 3/8/23, Defendant served the subject discovery requests on Plaintiff. On 11/3/23, Defendant filed the instant motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses thereto. No oppositions have been filed to date.

ANALYSIS

A propounding party may move for an order compelling a response to a request for production of documents if the responding party fails to serve a timely response within 30 days. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2031.300, subd. (b); 2031.260, subd. (a).) Furthermore, the responding party who fails to serve a timely response “waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product” unless the Court grants it relief upon motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (a).)

A propounding party may move for an order compelling a response to interrogatories if the responding party fails to serve a timely response within 30 days. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290, subd. (b); 2030.260, subd. (a).) Furthermore, the responding party who fails to serve a timely response “waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product” unless the Court grants it relief upon motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290, subd. (a).)

A propounding party may move for an order deeming the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted if the responding party fails to serve a timely response within 30 days. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2033.280, subd. (b); 2033.250, subd. (a).) Furthermore, the responding party who fails to serve a timely response “waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product” unless the Court grants it relief upon motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (a).) “The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Id. at subd. (c).)

Here, as Defendant served the subject discovery requests on Plaintiff by mail on 3/8/23, the last day for Plaintiff to respond was 4/12/23. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1013, subd. (a).) On 6/26/23, Defendant granted Plaintiff a one-month extension to provide responses to the subject discovery requests. (Ex. C to Decl. of Paul M. Corson.) To date, Plaintiff has not provided responses to Defendant’s discovery requests. (Corson Decl. ¶ 8.) The Court notes that Plaintiff has failed to oppose the instant motions. Accordingly, the Court grants the instant unopposed motions to compel Plaintiff to provide responses to the subject discovery requests.

Sanctions 

“It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, 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 motions, the Court finds it reasonable to award Defendant sanctions against Plaintiff, a self-represented litigant, in the total amount of $550.00. 

CONCLUSION 

The unopposed motions are granted. Plaintiff is ordered to provide objection-free responses to Defendant’s first set of discovery requests within 10 days. Defendant’s Requests for Admission, Set One, are deemed admitted. The Court imposes sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $550.00.