Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 21STCV20803, Date: 2024-03-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV20803    Hearing Date: March 15, 2024    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

BACKGROUND

            Defendant Medcove Urgent Care, APC (“Defendant”) moves to compel responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, propounded on Manuel Lopez, as guardian ad litem for Plaintiffs Brianna Sky Lopez, Bella Rose Lopez, and “Individually and Successor-In-Interest to the Estate of Claudia Lorena Mejia.” Defendant also seeks monetary sanctions. No opposition has been filed.  

LEGAL STANDARD

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290 (b).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product, unless “[t]he party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance” and “[t]he party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290 (a)(1), (a)(2).) The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served and no meet and confer is required when a party does not respond to discovery requests. All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.)  

If a motion to compel responses is filed, the Court shall impose a monetary sanction against the losing party “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 (c).) Further, “[t]he court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).) 

DISCUSSION

As an initial matter, Defendant brings three motions against Manuel Lopez, attaching discovery propounded on Manuel Lopez in various capacities. However, Manuel Lopez is not a plaintiff in this matter. According to the complaint, Manuel Lopez is appearing as guardian ad litem for “Brianna Sky Lopez, Individually and Successor-in-Interest to the Estate of Claudia Lorena Mejia,” and as guardian ad litem for “Bella Rose Lopez, Individually and Successor-in-Interest to the Estate of Claudia Lorena Mejia.” (Complaint at p. 1.) Accordingly, Manuel Lopez is not the proper party upon whom to serve discovery requests, but rather is an individual who can verify responses to discovery propounded on a party. (See generally Regency Health Services, Inc. v. Superior Court (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1496, 1504-05 [“We hold, therefore, that a ward has no general right to evade discovery and that a guardian ad litem has the authority, subject to the court’s ultimate supervision, to verify proper responses to interrogatories on behalf of the ward.”].) Accordingly, the motions to compel are denied as procedurally defective.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, Defendant’s motions to compel responses from Manuel Lopez are denied.

Defendant to provide notice and file a proof of service of such.