Judge: Colin Leis, Case: BC700483, Date: 2024-02-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC700483    Hearing Date: February 8, 2024    Dept: 74

Nasser Sedaghat, et al. v. Tarzana Health and Rehabilitation Center, et al.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery Requests

The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

            This action arises from a wrongful death.

            On April 2, 2018, Nasser Sedaghat, by and through his heirs and successors in interest, filed a complaint against Defendant Tarzana Health and Rehabilitation Center and Kamran Kamrava.

            On September 5, 2023, Plaintiff David Sedaghat (Plaintiff) propounded special interrogatories (set one) on SSC Tarzana Operating Company, LP (dba Tarzana Health and Rehabilitation Center) and SAVASeniorCare Administrative Services, LLC (Defendants).

            On September 6, 2023, Plaintiff propounded requests for production of documents (set one) on Defendants.

            On September 10, 2023, Plaintiff propounded special interrogatories (set two) on Defendants. Plaintiff also propounded requests for production of documents (set two) on Defendants.

            Defendants responded to the discovery on October 23, 2023.

            On December 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed this motion to compel further discovery.

DISCUSSION

            The court denies Plaintiff’s motion for several reasons. First, Plaintiff’s single motion includes multiple sets of discovery. Second, Plaintiff’s meet-and-confer declaration does not show a reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution; for example, Plaintiff’s emails that he attaches as exhibits do not identify for Defendants by set and number which discovery responses are deficient. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040; Sedaghat Decl., ¶¶ 6-7; Ex. 1; Ex. 2.) Third, Plaintiff’s motion does not include a separate statement which California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, subdivision (a) requires.

            The court denies Plaintiff’s request for sanctions because the motion was deficient, because Defendants’ opposition was substantially justified, and because the law does not award attorney’s fees as discovery sanctions to a self-represented party.

CONCLUSION

                The court denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel further discovery.

                Defendants shall give notice.