Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 22STCV26639, Date: 2024-02-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV26639    Hearing Date: February 16, 2024    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On August 17, 2022, Plaintiff filed this legal malpractice action against Defendants Bobby Babak Saadian and Wilshire Law Firm, PLC. Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint on December 6, 2022, asserting causes of action for (1) legal malpractice, (2) breach of fiduciary duty, and (3) fraud.

            On December 8, 2023, the Court granted Defendant Wilshire Law Firm’s motion to compel further responses to Requests for Admission Nos. 27, 28, 33 and the associated Form Interrogatory No. 17.1. Plaintiff served supplemental responses on December 23, 2023, which Defendant contends are still inadequate.  

            On January 22, 2024, Defendant Wilshire Law Firm filed the instant motion to compel further responses from Plaintiff as to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 as it relates to RFA Nos. 27 and 33. Plaintiff filed her opposition on February 5, 2024.   

LEGAL STANDARD

            Upon receiving responses to its discovery requests, the propounding party may move for an order compelling further responses if the responses are incomplete or evasive, or objections are without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300(a), 2031.310(a), 2033.290(a).)

MEET AND CONFER

A motion to compel further must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration demonstrating an attempt to resolve the matter informally. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300(b)(1), 2031.310(b), 2033.290(b).) The Court finds that Defendant has satisfied the meet and confer requirement. (See Coronel Decl.)

DISCUSSION

RFA No. 27 asks Plaintiff to admit that she took no action to investigate the alleged misconduct until July 2022. Plaintiff denied the request and identified the following information in response to FROG No. 17.1:

(i) Supporting facts: “Plaintiff sought information from the Defendants and their

employees prior to July of 2022 but the Defendants withheld information at that time.”

(ii) Witnesses: “Defendants including their employees and agents whose name are

unknown at this time.”

(iii) Documents: “Plaintiff’s medical records from the underlying case, Defendant’s file.”

(Coronel Decl., Ex. F.)

            Plaintiff has provided responsive information relating to her denial of RFA No. 27. The response explains that Plaintiff took some action to investigate Defendants’ alleged misconduct by seeking information from Defendants and their employees. The witnesses are identified as Defendants and their employees, but Plaintiff cannot specify the names of employees that are unknown to her. Lastly, Plaintiff contends that the medical records and Defendants’ file support her denial. While Defendant believes these facts and documents do not support Plaintiff’s denial, that is not a reason to compel a further response. The merits of the case cannot be litigated on this motion. Defendant can propound supplemental discovery to the extent it seeks more detailed information.

RFA No. 33 asks Plaintiff to admit that she has no evidence that Defendant Saadian breached any duty owed to her. Plaintiff denied the request and identified the following information:

(i) Supporting facts: “Defendant failed to properly communicate and advise the Plaintiff of her rights and the status of the case. Defendant failed to investigate the underlying defendant’s assets…and Defendant failed to properly inform Plaintiff that they did not have malpractice insurance in their contingency agreement. Defendant orchestrated the Plaintiff’s medical care and prioritized the medical providers over the Plaintiff.”

(ii) Witnesses: “Defendants including their employees and agents whose name are unknown at this time.”

(iii) Documents: “Plaintiff’s medical records from the underlying case, Defendant’s file.”

(Coronel Decl., Ex. F.)

            This response similarly provides the information that Plaintiff contends supports her denial. That the facts provided mirror the facts alleged in the complaint is not a reason to compel a further response; those are the facts that Plaintiff contends support her position.  

CONCLUSION

            Defendant Wilshire Law Firm’s motion to compel further responses is DENIED. Sanctions are denied as the parties acted with substantial justification.