Judge: Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case: 23GDCV00613, Date: 2023-12-15 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23GDCV00613 Hearing Date: December 22, 2023 Dept: E
Hearing Date: 12/22/2023 – 8:30am
Case No. 23GDCV00613
Trial Date: UNSET
Case Name: DANE STAGEBERG v. ADVENTIST HEALTH, a California company of unknown
formation; ADVENTIST HEALTH GLENDALE, a company of unknown formation; DOE
SECURITY COMPANY, a California company of unknown formation; DOE SECURITY
GUARD, an individual
TENTATIVE
RULING – COMPEL RESPONSES
Moving Party: Defendant, Jones Lang Lasalle Americas,
Inc. (sued as Doe Security Company)
Responding Party: No Opposition submitted
Moving Papers: Notice/Motion; Proposed Order
Opposition Papers: No Opposition
Reply: Notice of Non-Opposition
Procedural
16/21
Day Lapse (CCP §12c and §1005(b)): Ok
Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, Rule 3.1300): Ok
Correct Address (CCP §1013, §1013a): Ok
RELIEF REQUESTED¿
Defendant, Jones Lang Lasalle Americas, Inc., moves this Court for an order
compelling responses to its Special Interrogatories, Set One, as well as a
request for sanctions in the amount of $560.00 against Plaintiff, Dane
Stageberg and his attorney of record, Joseph Virgilio.
This motion is being made pursuant
to section 2030.290 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. This
motion is based on this notice, the memorandum of points and authorities, the
declaration of Alana C. Martinez, the exhibits attached hereto and served
herewith, the pleadings, records and papers on file herein, and upon such other
evidence as may be presented at the time of the hearing on this motion
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed a Complaint on 03/27/2023 against Adventist Health,
Adventist Health Glendale, Doe Security Company, and Doe Security Guard. The
Complaint alleges five causes of action: (1) Negligence, (2) Negligent
Retention and Supervision, (3) Negligent Retention and Supervision, (4)
Assault, and (5) Battery surrounding allegations that Plaintiff was physically
attacked by Doe Security Company and Doe Security Guard while Plaintiff was at
AH and AHG’s facility while Plaintiff was a patient.
LEGAL STANDARD – COMPEL RESPONSES, INTERROGATORIES
Within 30 days after service of interrogatories, the party to whom the
interrogatories are propounded shall serve the original of the response to them
on the propounding party, unless on motion of the propounding party the court
has shortened the time for response, or unless on motion of the responding
party the court has extended the time for response. (CCP 2030.260(a).)
If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails
to serve a timely response, the party propounding the interrogatories may move
for an order compelling response to the interrogatories. (CCP §2030.290(b).)
“The party to whom the interrogatories are directed
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 under Chapter 4 (commencing
with Section 2018.010). The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this
waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are
satisfied: (1) The party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial
compliance with Sections 2030.210, 2030.220, 2030.230, and 2030.240. (2) The
party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake,
inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (CCP §2030.290(a).)
Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion
to compel responses is not subject to a 45-day time limit, and the propounding
party does not have to demonstrate either good cause or that it satisfied a
“meet and confer” requirement. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v.
Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404
citing Weil and Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The
Rutter Group 2006) ¶¶8:1137 to 8:1144, pp. 8F-59 to 8F-60, ¶¶ 8:1483 to 8:1489,
pp. 8H-29 to hH-30 (Weil & Brown).)
TENTATIVE RULING
On
August 29, 2023, Defendant, Jones Lang Lasalle Americas, Inc.(sued as Does
Security Company), served Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, to
Plaintiff. (Martinez Decl. ¶3.) As of October 20, 2023, when Defendant’s
Counsel, Alana C. Martinez, signed their declaration, Plaintiff had not
provided responses. Since Plaintiff has not responded to this discovery request
within 30 days, Defendant’s motion is granted.
Defendant’s motion to compel responses to Special
Interrogatories, Set No. One, is GRANTED.
Sanctions
Here,
Defendant moves for sanctions in the amount of $560.00 against Plaintiff and
his attorney of record, Joseph Virgilio.
CCP §2030.290
states in relevant part:
The court shall
impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010)
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.
(CCP
§2030.290(c).)
“The 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).)
Defendant’s counsel, explains the sanctions request as
follows:
I have spent one
and a half hours preparing all components of this motion. I anticipate that an
additional one hour will be spent preparing for and attending the hearing on
this motion. My regular and customary billing rate in this matter is $200.00
per hour. Therefore, the total fees the court should award defendant Jones Lang
Lasalle Americas, Inc. is $560.00 including the $60.00 filing fee.
(Martinez Decl.
¶7.)
The issue of sanctions will be taken up at the hearing.