Judge: Craig Griffin, Case: Vo v. Hatti et al, Date: 2022-12-05 Tentative Ruling
Before the Court at present are five Motions to Compel Further Responses, all filed by Defendant Westminster Radiology Group, LLC (“WRG”), as follows:
(1) as to Plaintiff Thanh Dao Vo (“Plaintiff”), to provide further responses to some of WRG’s Special Interrogatories (“SROGs”), Set Two (“Motion 1”);
(2) as to Cross-Defendant Garden Grove Open MRI Center, Inc. (“GGO”), to provide further responses to some of WRG’s Special Interrogatories, Set One (“Motion 2”);
(3) as to Plaintiff, to provide further responses to some of WRG’s Form Interrogatories (“FROGs”), Set Two (“Motion 3”);
(4) as to GGO, to provide further responses to some of WRG’s FROGs, Set One (Motion 4”); and
(5) as to Plaintiff, to provide further responses to some of WRG’s Requests for Production (“RFPs”), Set Two (“Motion 5”).
Each of the Motions is GRANTED IN PART.
As a preliminary matter, all of the motions here are timely. WRG calculated the original deadline as 8/16/22, which was 45 days from the date of service of the responses. But the responses at issue were served by mail, so the deadline was extended an additional 5 days. (See C.C.P. § 1013(a).) Based on that, the motions are timely, as it is undisputed here that 2 two-week extensions were then granted.
The Court also notes that there have been some disputes concerning the obligation to e-serve. But under C.C.P. § 1010.6(e), all counsel must both provide and accept e-service in this case. Both sides are to file and serve notices as to the e-mail addresses to be used for each forthwith, and are to comply with C.C.P. § 1010.6(e) going forward.
On the merits, for Motion 1, what is at issue are SROG Nos. 52 & 65.
For each, the objections lack merit. Terms used in interrogatories may be defined and then typed in capital letters when used. (See C.C..P § 2030.060(e).) WRG appropriately did so here. (See ROA 345, Ex. B.) In addition, a SROG may properly ask a party to state contentions as to any matter or issue in the case, and the facts, witnesses or writings on which the contentions are based. (See C.C.P. § 2030.010(b).) As for the substantive responses, the SROGs at issue asked Plaintiff to identify all documents that support specific contentions. For No. 52, Plaintiff provided an incomplete response, pointing vaguely to “email communications through Khanh Vo.” Greater specificity is required. For No. 65, the response asserted that “the responding party does not have the personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to the interrogatory.” But that fails to fully respond to whether she so contends, and if so, knows of any supporting documentation. Plaintiff must thus provide a supplemental response for both FROGs.
For Motion 2, the same objections were made, which again lack merit.
The substantive responses to Nos. 28, 30 and 36 are also deficient. While SROG Nos. 28 and 30 asked for facts that support a contention, the responses just assert that there are no supporting documents, which is plainly nonresponsive. SROG No. 36 asks for facts supporting a contention, but was met with a terse answer which did not fully respond. The Motion is therefore GRANTED for SROG Nos. 28, 30 and 36. However, for SROG No. 70, the response asserts that no such contention is made, which is a sufficient response. The Motion as to SROG No. 70 is therefore DENIED.
For Motion 3, Plaintiff’s responses to FROG 50.1(b) and (c) were plainly incomplete, and the responses to FROG 17.1 failed to respond to any of the subparts for the RFA responses which were not admissions. The Motion is therefore GRANTED as to FROG 50.1(b) and (c) and as to FROG 17.1, for RFA Nos. 5-42, 44, 47, 49, 53, 54, 59-61, 63-65, 68-74, 76, 79, and 82-91.
For Motion 4, GGO’s responses for FROG 17.1 were similarly deficient. The Motion is therefore GRANTED for FROG 17.1 as to RFA Nos. 3-9, 14-20, 36-38, 41, 43, 47, 49, 52-57, 59-62, and 64-78.
For Motion 5, Plaintiff’s responses are primarily deficient on their face. For example, RFP No. 15 stated: “Please produce all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention that YOU had a MEMBERSHIP INTEREST in WRG in 2012.” The response, after a number of objections, was: “this responding party is producing tax related documents such as Schedule K-1s.” But under C.C.P. § 2031.220, that is insufficient: the response must state that the party will comply with the particular demand – not just refer to some materials being produced. The same defects exist in the responses to RFP Nos. 16-25, 30, 32-35, 37 -59, 62 – 73, and 75 – 106. In addition, the responses for Nos. 75-106 seem to refer to third party documents, without identifying which are deemed responsive and whether they are also being produced by the responding party. Finally, to the extent any otherwise responsive documents were withheld based on the privilege claims asserted, a privilege log is to be provided. (See C.C.P. § 2031.240(c)(1).) The Motion is therefore GRANTED for RFP Nos. 30, 32-35, 37 -59, 62-73 and 75-106, to require supplementation, a privilege log for any responsive materials otherwise withheld, and production of any other responsive documents. However, for RFP Nos. 60 and 61, the Motion is DENIED. For each, the response states that Plaintiff does not have responsive documents, which is a sufficient response.
For each of these Motions, supplemental verified responses are to be provided within 20 days after service of notice of these rulings.
WRG’s requests for sanctions are GRANTED IN PART. WRG has shown that it is entitled to sanctions here, on all five motions, for the reasons stated above. The Court finds that the hourly rate claimed and the time spent for each motion also appears generally reasonable here. However, as the hearings will be joint, a lesser sum should be awarded for the hearing time. Sanctions are therefore imposed as follows: on Motion 1 - $1,387.50; on Motion 2 - $1,477.50; on Motion 3 - $1,500; on Motion 4 - $1,455; on Motion 5 - $2,490.
Although sanctions were sought against both Plaintiff/GGO and their counsel, as no attorney was identified in accordance with C.C.P. 2023.040, sanctions here can be and are awarded as to the parties only. Sanctions are therefore imposed on Plaintiff alone, on Motions 1, 3 and 5, in the amounts of $1,387.50, $1,500, and $2,490, respectively, and on GGO alone, for Motions 2 and 4, in the amounts of $1,477.50 and $1,455, respectively. All such sanctions are to be paid to WRG, through its counsel of record, within 60 days after service of notice of these rulings.
Counsel for WRG is to give notice of these rulings.