Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 19STCV27215, Date: 2022-09-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV27215    Hearing Date: September 8, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Defendant Prime Healthcare Services – Sherman Oaks, LLC dba Sherman Oaks Hospital (“Defendant”) propounded request for admissions (“RFAs”), set one, on each of Plaintiff Brianna Newton (“Brianna”) and Pollyanna Lisa Newton (“Pollyanna”) on May 17, 2021.  It appropriately met and conferred with Plaintiffs but frustratingly did not receive responses.  Defendant filed motions to deem the subject RFAs admitted against each Brianna and Pollyanna that were denied without prejudice on February 8, 2022, after plaintiffs’ counsel provided what Defendant avers were incomplete and unverified responses the morning of the hearing.  Defendant attests that despite being ordered to meet and confer regarding the responses and a discovery plan, Plaintiffs did not do so.  Further, Defendant avers that to date, Brianna and Pollyanna have failed to provide verified responses to the RFAs.  Defendant therefore seeks an order deeming the RFAs admitted.

However, the Court notes that the responses to the RFAs from Brianna and Pollyanna- attached as Exhibit 11 to each motion- contain a signed verification from the minor plaintiffs’ guardian ad litem.  On May 20, 2022, an application for order for appointment for guardian ad litem was signed and filed appointing Celeste Lillian Abernathy as guardian ad litem for both Brianna and Pollyanna.  Although appointed after the instant motions were filed, Defendant’s evidence shows that Abernathy has already verified the responses to the RFAs on behalf of Brianna and Pollyanna.  A guardian ad litem has the authority and duty, subject to the court's ultimate supervision, to verify responses to discovery on behalf of the real party in interest for whom a guardian ad litem was appointed.  (Regency Health Services v. Superior Court (Settles) (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1496, 1504.)  Defendant does not otherwise articulate why the verifications remain improper. 

Therefore, the Court finds that the motions to deem RFAs admitted are moot in light of the responses served on Defendant prior to the hearing.  (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 776.)

The sole remaining issue is whether to impose sanctions.  Defendant does not, however, seek imposition of sanctions with either motion, and therefore, none are imposed. 

Defendant is ordered to give notice. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 8^th day of February 2022