Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 24STCV17564, Date: 2025-02-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV17564    Hearing Date: February 21, 2025    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On July 15, 2024, Plaintiffs Lola Thompson and Anthony Thompson filed this action against Defendants Windsor Hayward Estates, LLC and Windsor Haysac Holdings, LLC, alleging (1) elder abuse, (2) negligence, (3) violation of resident’s rights, and (4) wrongful death. The complaint is based on the alleged mistreatment of Plaintiff and Decedent Lola Thompson at a skilled nursing facility operated by Defendants.

            On January 13, 2025, Plaintiffs filed the instant two motions to compel further responses from Defendant Windsor Hayward Estates, LLC as to interrogatories and requests for production. Defendant has not filed an opposition.

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 Plaintiffs have satisfied the meet and confer requirement. (See Avedian Decl.)

DISCUSSION

I. Interrogatories

            A party “is entitled to demand answers to its interrogatories, as a matter of right . . . [and] the burden of justifying any objection and failure to respond remains at all times with the party resisting an interrogatory.” (Williams v. Sup. Ct. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541.)

            Defendant asserted identical objections to each form and special interrogatory at issue: “vague and ambiguous; overly broad; unduly burdensome; patient safety work product privilege; attorney-client and/or attorney work product privileges; Evidence Code section 1157; and irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to relevant or admissible evidence.”

            Defendant does not articulate any basis for these objections. Thus, further responses are warranted.

II. Requests for Production

            The party seeking production of documents bears the initial burden of showing good cause through a fact-specific showing of relevance. (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.) Once this showing is made, the burden shifts to the responding party to justify any objections. (Ibid.)

            Plaintiffs’ motion and separate statement demonstrate good cause for the documents sought. Defendant asserted the same objections to each RFP, identical to the ones it asserted in response to the interrogatories. Defendant does not articulate any basis for these objections. Thus, further responses are warranted.

III. Sanctions

            Sanctions are warranted as Defendant interposed identical boilerplate objections to every discovery request at issue, and none of the objections are substantially justified. Plaintiffs’ counsel reasonably claims an hourly rate of $400. (See Avedian Decl. ¶ 6.) However, given the simplicity of the motions, the Court reduces the reasonable hours spent to 4 hours total for both motions. Plaintiffs also incurred $120 in filing fees. (Ibid.) Thus, the Court awards a total of $1,720. 

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiffs’ motions to compel further responses are GRANTED. Defendant shall produce supplemental responses to the subject interrogatories and requests for production within 20 days of this order. The Court sanctions Defendant in the amount of $1,720, to be paid within 30 days of this order.