Judge David A. Rosen, Case Number: 22STCV01592, Date: 2023-05-19 Tentative Ruling

Judge: David A. Rosen, Case: 22STCV01592, Date: 2023-05-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV01592 Hearing Date: May 19, 2023 Dept: E

Hearing Date: 05/19/2023 – 10:00am
Case No: 22STCV01592
Trial Date: 07/17/2023
Case Name: JOSE MORELOS, decedent, by and through his successor-in-interest, GLORY RANGEL and GLORY RANGEL, individually v. COMFORT CARE ASSISTED LIVING, INC, EMMA POGOSIAN, NORTH HOLLYWOOD HOSPICE INC. dba SWEET TOUCH HOSPICE, and DOES 1-40, inclusive

2 -TENTATIVE RULINGS ON MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

MOTION 1

Moving Party: Plaintiffs, Jose Morelos, decedent, by and through his successor-in-interest, Glory Rangel and Glory Rangel, Individually

Responding Party: Defendant, Comfort Care Assisted Living, Inc. (Comfort Care)

Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC Rule 3.1300): Ok
16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP 1005(b)): Ok
Correct Address (CCP §1013, §1013a, §1013b): No/Yes – The instant motion was served by email. The email address that Plaintiffs served Defendant at was “vkhojayan@yklaw.us”. The Court’s file lists Defendant’s counsel’s email address as “vahe@kglawapc.com”. While the email address that Plaintiffs served does not appear to be the email address that the Court has on file for Defendant’s counsel, Defendant’s counsel submitted an Opposition; therefore, it appears as if Defendant received the instant motion. Further, in Defendant’s Opposition, Defendant’s counsel lists his email address in the top left corner of the Opposition as “vkhojayan@yklaw.us” which is the email address that Plaintiffs served.

Moving Papers: Notice/Motion; Separate Statement; Hutchins Declaration; Proposed Order

Opposition Papers: Opposition

Reply Papers: No Reply submitted

RELIEF REQUESTED
Plaintiffs, Jose Morelos, decedent, by and through his successor-in-interest, Glory Rangel and Glory Rangel, individually, move the Court for an order compelling Defendant COMFORT CARE ASSISTED LIVING, INC (hereinafter, “COMFORT CARE ASSISTED LIVING”) to serve further verified responses to Requests for Production, Set One, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310.

Plaintiffs also move for an order compelling Defendant and its attorneys, YK LAW, LLP, jointly and severally, to pay sanctions to Plaintiff in the amount of $2,760.00, which represents reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs associated with preparing this motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310(h).

This motion is made on the grounds that COMFORT CARE ASSISTED LIVING provided insufficient and evasive responses to Requests for Production Nos. 2-3, 9, 11, 15, 17- 18, 20-21, 23, 28-30, 32, and 35-36

BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs filed a Complaint on 01/13/2022 alleging three causes of action – (1) Elder Abuse and Neglect (Welfare & Institutions Code §15600, et seq.), (2) Negligence, and (3) Wrongful Death – against Defendants.

This action is about the alleged neglect and wrongful death of Jose Morelos at Comfort Care Assisted Living, a Residential Care Facility for the Elderly, where Jose Morelos resided from January 17, 2020, to December 20, 2020.

Plaintiffs allege that Comfort Care Assisted Living Inc is the entity which holds the license to operate the facility, and Emma Pogosian is the owner and CEO/CFO/Secretary of Comfort Care Assisted Living Inc.

Plaintiffs allege that over the course of Mr. Morelos’s residency, Comfort Care staff members failed to properly care for Mr. Morelos in a manner that caused him to develop several injuries that he was unable to recover from and eventually Mr. Morelos died on January 23, 2021.

On September 16, 2022, Plaintiffs served Request for Production, Set One, on Defendant Comfort Care. On November 4, 2022, Defendant Comfort Care served responses. This motion pertains to compelling further responses to the Request for Production, Set One, on Defendant Comfort Care.

45-Day Requirement
Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further response to the demand. (CCP §2031.310(c).)

On November 4, 2022, Defendant served their responses to Request for Production, Set One. (Hutchins Decl. ¶3.) Hutchins alleges that Mr. Khojayan agreed to extend Joanna Hutchins’ deadline to file a motion to compel as to these responses up to February 17, 2023. (Hutchins Decl. ¶9.) The instant motion was filed on 2/17/2023 and is thus timely.

Meet and Confer
“The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (CCP §2031.310(b)(2).)

Moving party met and conferred. (Hutchins Decl. ¶7, Ex. H.)

LEGAL STANDARD – COMPEL FURTHER – REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

Under CCP § 2017.010, “any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action..., if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” The Section specifically provides that “[d]iscovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action,” and that discovery “may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any document, electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property.”

CCP § 2031.310(a) provides that a party demanding a document inspection may move for an order compelling further responses to the demand if the demanding party deems that:

“(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete.

(2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.

(3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.”

Under CCP § 2031.310 (b)(1), “The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.”

The burden is on the moving party to show both relevance to the subject matter and specific facts justifying discovery. (Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117. Once good cause is established by the moving party, the burden then shifts to the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure. (See Hartbrodt v. Burke (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 168, 172-174.)

ANALYSIS
Preliminary Matter
Any motion involving the content of a discovery request or the responses to such a request must be accompanied by a separate statement. The motions that require a separate statement include a motion: to compel further responses to a demand for inspection of documents or tangible things. (Cal. Rules. of Court, Rule 3.1345(a)(1).)

Here, Defendant did not provide a separate statement in opposition to this motion.

RPD 2-3

Request for Production No. 2

A complete copy of the business file of PLAINTIFF from the FACILITY.

Response to Request for Production No. 2

Objection: seeks information protected by attorney client privilege, confidentiality or

otherwise protected by Defendant’s right to privacy. Without waiving and subject to the

objection, Defendant will produce responsive nonprivileged, documents in its custody,

possession and control.

Request for Production No. 3

A complete copy of billing records of billing file of PLAINTIFF from the FACILITY.

Response to Request for Production No. 3

Objection: seeks information protected by attorney client privilege, confidentiality or otherwise protected by Defendant’s right to privacy. Without waiving and subject to the objection, Defendant will produce responsive nonprivileged, documents in its custody, possession and control.

Defendant’s reasons a further response should not be compelled for 2-3
Plaintiff’s Requests Nos.2 and 3 sought billing records of Mr. Morelos’ stay. Defendant

produced responsive documents to Plaintiff on January 24, 2023. It was produced via email

with a compressed folder titled billings attached to it. Defendant has committed to produce

additional documents as they become available but thus far has not discovered additional

documents that are subject to production. Thus, as far as requests for production Nos. 2 and 3

are concerned, Defendants have produced all responsive documents to these requests.

Defendant did not withhold any documents on account of privilege and simply made the

objections to preserve them.

TENTATIVE RULING RPD 2-3
Although Plaintiffs’ separate statement did not demonstrate good cause as to these two requests, Plaintiffs’ notice of motion indicated good cause. Plaintiffs stated the instant records are relevant to evaluate the expenses Plaintiffs incurred for settlement purposes. The Court finds this reason a sufficient demonstration of good cause.

Further, Defendant did not provide a code compliant response.

If Defendant is stating it will comply in full, it did not comply with 2031.220.

Further, if Defendant is objecting, or objecting in part, Defendant did not comply with 2031.240(a)-(c).

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to Request for Production, Set One, Nos. 2-3 is GRANTED. Defendant to provide full, code-compliant responses, under oath, hereto, along with the discoverable documents within 20 days. Objections are waived.

RPD 9, 11, 36
Request for Production No. 9

All DOCUMENTS reflecting any communications (including but not limited to, phone, facsimile, text messages, or emails) with EMMA POGOSIAN regarding PLAINTIFF.

Request for Production No. 11

Any DOCUMENTS reflecting any communication (including but not limited to, phone, facsimile, text messages, or emails) with PLAINTIFF’s physician regarding PLAINTIFF.

Request for Production No. 36

All DOCUMENTS reflecting any communications with the Department of Social Services (hereinafter DSS) regarding PLAINTIFF.

Response to Request for Production No. 9, 11, 36

Defendant’s reasons a further response should not be compelled for 9, 11, 36
These requests seek communications between Defendants and Plaintiff. Defendant has produced two various documents, contracts and admission disclosures as responsive documents to the requests. Other than the ones produced Defendant does not have any further responsive documents to produce. This fact was explained to Plaintiff’s counsel during the meet and confer process, yet Plaintiff still moved forward with the motion including these requests. Defendants reiterate that they have produced all responsive documents to the requests and there are no more documents to produce.

Defendants did not withhold documents and produced all they had that was responsive to this request.

TENTATIVE RULING RPD 9, 11, 36
Plaintiffs demonstrated good cause as to 36 by explaining in the separate statement that the information is relevant because it would tend to show what was known and communicated about Mr. Morelos’s condition at the time by and between Ms. Pogosian and her staff at Comfort Care.

As to 9 and 11, Plaintiffs did not explain the good cause requirement in the separate statement, but Plaintiffs explained their basis for good cause in the motion. Plaintiffs sufficiently demonstrated good cause by stating that the communications would show what was known and communicated about Mr. Morelos’s condition at the time, and whether the facility violated state regulations by failing to notify Plaintiff’s family members and physician of any changes of condition.

Further, Defendant did not provide code compliant responses.

If Defendant is stating it will comply in full, it did not comply with 2031.220.

Further, if Defendant is objecting, or objecting in part, Defendant did not comply with 2031.240(a)-(c).

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to Request for Production, Set One, Nos. 9, 11, and 36 is GRANTED. Defendant to provide full, code-compliant responses, under oath, hereto, along with the discoverable documents within 20 days. Objections are waived.

RPD 15

Request for Production No. 15

All DOCUMENTS which describe or set forth the RELATIONSHIP of EMMA POGOSIAN to COMFORT CARE ASSISTED LIVING, INC. during the period of PLAINTIFF’s residency at the FACILITY. RELATIONSHIP refers to the connection or association between the two entities, including but not limited to relationship by contract (such as seller/buyer) or by common ownership and control (such as parent/subsidiary.

Response to Request for Production No. 15

Defendant’s reason a further response should not be compelled for 15
Request No. 15 asked for documents concerning the relationship between the corporation and its owner. Defendant has produced corporate documents from the secretary of state showing that Defendant officer and owner is Emma Pogosian. Such production was made on January 24, 2023 after the initial meet and confer, and other than the documents produced, Defendants do not have any additional documents to produce in this case.

Tentative Ruling RPD 15
Plaintiffs sufficiently demonstrated good cause for the instant request in the separate statement and motion.

Further, Defendant did not provide a code compliant response.

If Defendant is stating it will comply in full, it did not comply with 2031.220.

Further, if Defendant is objecting, or objecting in part, Defendant did not comply with 2031.240(a)-(c).

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to Request for Production, Set One, No. 15 is GRANTED. Defendant to provide full, code-compliant responses, under oath, hereto, along with the discoverable documents within 20 days. Objections are waived.

RPDs 17-18, 20-21, 28-30, and 32

Request for Production No. 17

The Job Description of Administrator in effect at the FACILITY during the period of PLAINTIFF’s residency.

Request for Production No. 18

The Job Description of Assistant Administrator in effect at the FACILITY during the period of PLAINTIFF’s residency.

Request for Production No. 20

The Job Description of Caregivers in effect at the FACILITY during the period of PLAINTIFF’s residency.

Request for Production No. 21

The Job Description of Direct Care Staff in effect at the FACILITY during the period of PLAINTIFF’s residency.

Request for Production No. 28

All DOCUMENTS which reflect or memorialize the FACILITY’s policies, practices and procedures for accepting, transferring, and discharging a resident in effect during PLAINTIFF’s residency.

Request for Production No. 29

All DOCUMENTS which reflect or memorialize the FACILITY’s policies, practices and procedures relating to staff responsibilities for recognition, appraisal and evaluation of a resident’s change of condition in effect during PLAINTIFF’s residency.

Request for Production No. 30

All DOCUMENTS which reflect or memorialize the FACILITY’s policies, practices, and procedures for reporting a resident’s change of condition in effect during PLAINTIFF’s residency.

Request for Production No. 32

All DOCUMENTS which reflect or memorialize the FACILITY’s policies, practices and procedures relating to staff responsibilities for providing written incident reports to the Department of Social Services, pursuant to Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations section 87211, in effect during PLAINTIFF’s residency.

Response to Request for Production Nos 17-18, 20-21, 28-30, and 32

Defendant’s reason a further response should not be compelled for 17-8, 20-21, 28-30, and 32
These requests ask for job description of certain employees. Again, Defendant did not withhold any documents on account of privilege and produced all that it had in it custody possession and control. Additional documents were produced prior to the filing of this opposition. Defendant understands and agrees that it will produce additional documents as soon as it discovers them.

TENATIVE RULING RPD 17-18, 20-21, 28-30, and 32
Plaintiffs sufficiently described why it has demonstrated good cause for the instant request in the separate statement and motion.

Further, Defendant did not provide code compliant responses.

If Defendant is stating it will comply in full, it did not comply with 2031.220.

Further, if Defendant is objecting, or objecting in part, Defendant did not comply with 2031.240(a)-(c).

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to Request for Production, Set One, Nos 17-18, 20-21, 28-30, and 32 is GRANTED. Defendant to provide full, code-compliant responses, under oath, hereto, along with the discoverable documents within 20 days. Objections are waived.

Request for Production No. 23

The FACILITY’s staff schedules for the time period from January 17, 2020, to December 20, 2020.

Response to Request for Production No. 23

Defendant’s reason a further response should not be compelled for 23
Requests No. 23 seeks staff schedules of Defendant’s staff. Defendant has not been able to locate the documents with staff schedules yet, although it does not refuse to produce the same. Defendant understands and aggress to produce said documents as soon as they become available. However, to date, it has not been able to locate said documents.

TENTATIVE RULING RPD 23
Plaintiffs demonstrated good cause for the instant request in their Separate Statement and motion.

Further, Defendant did not provide a code compliant response.

If Defendant is stating it will comply in full, it did not comply with 2031.220.

Further, if Defendant is objecting, or objecting in part, Defendant did not comply with 2031.240(a)-(c).

If Defendant is stating that it lacks the ability to comply, Defendant did not comply with 2031.230.

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to Request for Production, Set One, No. 23 is GRANTED. Defendant to provide full, code-compliant responses, under oath, hereto, along with the discoverable documents within 20 days. Objections are waived.

Request for Production No. 35

The organizational chart and any other DOCUMENTS reflecting COMFORT CARE ASSISTED LIVING’s organizational structure during the time period of PLAINTIFF’s residency.

Response to Request for Production No. 35

Defendant’s reason a further response should not be compelled for 35
Defendant has already produced documents responsive to these requests and marked them as KLI0063-00290. Defendants’ position is that there are no other document in her possession custody and control that are responsive to these requests. Defendant agrees that there might very well be additional responsive documents that are in possession of production companies that produced the show and Plaintiff is free to request them.

TENTATIVE RULING RPD 35
Plaintiffs demonstrated good cause in their Separate Statement and motion.

Further, Defendant did not provide a code compliant response.

If Defendant is stating it will comply in full, it did not comply with 2031.220.

Further, if Defendant is objecting, or objecting in part, Defendant did not comply with 2031.240(a)-(c).

If Defendant is stating that it lacks the ability to comply, Defendant did not comply with 2031.230.

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to Request for Production, Set One, No. 35 is GRANTED. Defendant to provide full, code-compliant responses, under oath, hereto, along with the discoverable documents within 20 days. Objections are waived.

SANCTIONS
Except as provided in subdivision (j), the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (CCP §2031.310(h).)

Plaintiffs request Comfort Care Assisted Living and its attorneys, YK Law LLP jointly and severally pay sanctions to Plaintiffs in the amount of $2,760.00.

Plaintiffs’ counsel, Joanna A. Hutchins, bases her sanctions request on the following: $450 for her hourly rate; 3 hours preparing the moving papers; 2 hours from participating in the meet and confer process relating to this motion including drafting and reviewing meet and confer letters and participating in teleconferences and in-person meet and confer meetings; 0.5 hours reviewing the Opposition and drafting a reply; 0.5 preparing for and attending the hearing on the motion; and $60 for the filing fee.

Defendant argues that sanctions are not warranted because it has been cooperating with Plaintiff on discovery up until the moment Plaintiff filed this motion. Defendant also argues it has not withheld any production of any document, has produced volumes of documents to Plaintiff, and it will continue to do so.

The Court awards reasonable discovery sanctions of $1,860.00 to Plaintiff, payable by Defendant within 30 days.

MOTION 2

Moving Party: Plaintiffs, Jose Morelos, decedent, by and through his successor-in-interest, Glory Rangel and Glory Rangel, individually

Responding Party: Defendant, Comfort Care Assisted Living Inc. (Comfort Care)

Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC Rule 3.1300): Ok
16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP 1005(b)): Ok
Proper Address: No/Yes – The instant motion was served by email. The email address that Plaintiffs served Defendant at was “vkhojayan@yklaw.us”. The Court’s file lists Defendant’s counsel’s email address as “vahe@kglawapc.com”. While the email address that Plaintiffs served does not appear to be the email address that the Court has on file for Defendant’s counsel, Defendant’s counsel submitted an Opposition; therefore, it appears as if Defendant received the instant motion. Further, in Defendant’s Opposition, Defendant’s counsel lists his email address in the top left corner of the Opposition as “vkhojayan@yklaw.us” which is the email address that Plaintiffs served.

Moving Papers: Motion; Proposed Order; Hutchins Declaration

Opposition Papers: Opposition

Reply Papers: No Reply submitted

RELIEF REQUESTED
Plaintiffs move the Court for an order compelling Defendant, Comfort Care Assisted Living, Inc., to serve further verified responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, pursuant to CCP §2030.300.

Plaintiff also moves for an order compelling Defendant and its attorneys, YK LAW, LLP, jointly and severally, to pay sanctions to Plaintiffs in the amount of $2,760, which represents reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs associated with preparing this motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300(d).

This motion is made on the grounds that Defendant COMFORT CARE ASSISTED LIVING provided insufficient responses to Special Interrogatory Nos. 14, 15, and 18.

ANALYSIS
45-Day Requirement
“Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response to the interrogatories.” (CCP §2030.300(c).)

On November 4, 2022, Defendant served their responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One. (Hutchins Decl. ¶3.) Hutchins alleges that Mr. Khojayan agreed to extend Joanna Hutchins’ deadline to file a motion to compel as to these responses up to February 17, 2023. (Hutchins Decl. ¶9.) The instant motion was filed on 2/17/2023 and is thus timely.

Meet and Confer
“A motion under subdivision (a) shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (CCP §2030.300(b)(1).)

Here, the meet moving party met and conferred. (Hutchins Decl. ¶7 Ex. H.)

LEGAL STANDARD - COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES
On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply:

(1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete.

(2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate.

(3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.

(CCP §2030.300(a).

If a timely motion to compel has been filed, the¿burden is on the responding party¿to justify any objection or failure fully to answer.¿(Coy v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220–221 [addressing a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories]; see also¿Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court¿(2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)

Furthermore, to the extent there is any doubt in whether these records should be discoverable, California’s liberal approach to discovery provides that doubt should be resolved in favor of permitting discovery. (Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 161, 173.)

The party to whom interrogatories have been propounded shall respond in writing under oath separately to each interrogatory by any of the following:

(1) An answer containing the information sought to be discovered.

(2) An exercise of the party’s option to produce writings.

(3) An objection to the particular interrogatory.

(CCP §2030.210(a).)

DISCUSSION
Preliminary Matter
“Any motion involving the content of a discovery request or the responses to such a request must be accompanied by a separate statement. The motions that require a separate statement include a motion: to compel further responses to interrogatories.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345(a)(2).)

Here, moving party did not provide a separate statement, but the Court notes that in the Hutchins Declaration together with the motion itself, the substance of what should have been a separate statement could be deciphered. Further, Opposition did not provide a separate statement. The Court will choose not to exalt form over substance.

SROG 14

Please IDENTIFY all PERSONS who notified PLAINTIFF’s physician of any change in condition during the period of PLAINTIFF’s residency at the FACILITY.

RESPONSE to SROG 14

Mainly, the administrator Roza Gazanyan, possibly some staff members.

SROG 15

Please IDENTIFY all PERSONS who notified PLAINTIFF’s family of any change in condition during the period of PLAINTIFF’s residency at the FACILITY.

RESPONSE to SROG 15

Mainly, the administrator Roza Gazanyan, possibly some staff members.

Defendant’s argument why further responses should not be compelled for SROGs 14-15

This answer is based on defendant’s knowledge. Defendant knows that the former administrator is the person who notified Mr. Morelos’ physicians, but is not sure if any other staff members did so. Therefore, Defendant answered the way it did. It is noteworthy that the former administrator is no longer employed with the defendant, and defendants’ persons most knowledgeable do not have firsthand knowledge to provide further detailed responses.

Nothing in this response is evasive, and there should be no order to compel further response, as Defendant simply cannot provide one.

TENTATIVE RULING SROGs 14-15
Defendant’s response is evasive, vague, and incomplete. For example, in the reason not to compel further responses, Defendant argues how the former administrator notified Mr. Morelos’ physicians, but it is not sure if any other staff members did so. That clarification is not provided in Defendant’s response. Further, Defendant provided other information in the Opposition to the motion that was not provided in the responses.

Under CCP §2030.220:

(a) Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.

(b) If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.

(c) If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party.

Defendant is ordered to provide further, verified, code compliant responses, without objections, to SROGs 14-15, within 20 days.

SROG 18

Please IDENIFY the date of each reappraisal that was conducted with regards to PLAINTIFF during his residency at the FACILITY.

RESPONSE to SROG 18

To the best of respondent’s knowledge readmissions were conducted within one month of admission, and possibly afterwards. Responding party is unable to respond at this time, discovery is ongoing and the respondent will supplement this response when more facts become available.

Defendant’s argument why further responses should not be compelled for SROG 18

Defendant answered to the best of its knowledge and based on the information that was available to it. Defendant’s response is not evasive but based on the facts available to it at this time. As explained above, defendant’s former administrator who was present during Plaintiff’s admission is no longer employed by the Defendant. Therefore, Defendant has to answer based on the limited information available to it at the time. There is no more detail that Defendant can provide to this response.

TENTATIVE RULING SROG 18

The Motion as to SROG 18 is denied without prejudice.

SANCTIONS
“The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (CCP §2030.300(d).)

Plaintiffs’ counsel requests sanctions in the amount of $2,760.00.

Plaintiffs’ counsel bases this request on the following: $450 for her hourly rate; 3 hours for preparing the moving papers; 2 hours for the time spent meeting and conferring; 0.5 hours spent reviewing Opposition and drafting a Reply; 0.5 hours preparing for and attending the hearing; and $60 for the filing fee.

In Opposition, Defendant argues sanctions are not warranted because it responded and that it cannot provide any further responses more than it already did. Defendant argues the responses were not evasive and the responses were based on the information available to Defendant.

The Court awards no sanctions on this motion as it would be unjust to do so.