Judge: Deirdre Hill, Case: 21STCV20535, Date: 2023-01-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV20535    Hearing Date: January 31, 2023    Dept: M

Hearing Date:                         January 31, 2023

Moving Parties:                      Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Responding Party:                  None

(1)   Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One

(2)   Motion to Compel Responses to Demand for Production of Documents, Set One

            The court considered the moving papers.  No opposition was filed.

RULING

            The motions are GRANTED.

            Plaintiff Micah Session is ordered to respond without objections to defendant Los Angeles County MTA’s Form Interrogatories, Set One within 20 days.

Plaintiff Micah Session is ordered (1) to serve on defendant a verified response without objections to defendant’s Demand for Production of Documents, Set One, and (2) to produce all documents and things in plaintiff’s possession, custody, or control, which are responsive to defendant’s demand, within 20 days.

            Plaintiff Micah Session and his attorneys of record are ordered to pay sanctions to defendant LA County MTA in the amount of $1,320, in total for both motions, within 30 days.

BACKGROUND

On June 1, 2021, plaintiffs Brenda Session, Lowdean Session, and Micah Session filed a complaint against Memorial Hospital of Gardena and Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority for (1) wrongful death, (2) governmental negligence, and (3) medical malpractice.

            On May 31, 2022, the court (PI Hub) denied defendant Gardena Hospital, L.P. dba Memorial Hospital of Gardena’s motion to transfer PI case to IC court.

            On June 23, 2022, the court (PI Hub) sustained Gardena Hospital’s demurrer with leave to amend and denied the motion to strike.

            On July 18, 2022, plaintiffs filed a FAC for (1) negligence and (2) medical malpractice.

            On July 25, 2022, defendant Gardena Hospital filed a stipulation to strike mention of punitive damages and attorney’s fees from FAC and an order was entered on July 26, 2022.

            On September 13, 2022, the court sustained Gardena Hospital’s demurrer without leave to amend as to plaintiffs Brenda and Lowdean Session on the ground that as parents, they lack standing and the 2^nd cause of action for medical malpractice as alleged by them.

            On October 10, 2022, Gardena Hospital filed a notice of stay of proceedings as to a voluntary bankruptcy petition filed by Pipeline Health System, LLC and 32 affiliated companies.

            On October 25, 2022, the case was transferred to Dept. M.

            On January 17, 2023, the court granted defendant LA County MTA’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to plaintiffs Brenda and Lowdean Session.

LEGAL AUTHORITY

Interrogatories

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction.  CCP §2030.290(b).  The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served.  All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served.  Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal. App. 3d 902, 905-906.

Request for Production of Documents

Where there has been no timely response to a CCP §2031.010 demand, the demanding party must seek an order compelling a response.  CCP §2031.300.  Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product.  Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded.  There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses.  Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion.  Where the motion seeks only a response to the inspection demand, no showing of “good cause” is required.  Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial, 8:1487.

DISCUSSION

Defendant Los Angeles County MTA requests that the court compel plaintiff Micah Session to respond to defendant’s form interrogatories, set one and demand for production of documents, set one served on June 15, 2022.

Defendant contends that responses were due by July 19, 2022.  On August 15, 2022, defense counsel sent a meet and confer letter to plaintiff’s counsel, requesting the overdue responses and giving an additional seven days to respond.  As of the filing date of the motions on September 8, 2022, defense counsel had not received responses.      

            There is no opposition.

            The court finds that defendant properly served discovery requests and that plaintiff failed to serve responses and to produce documents.

            The motion is GRANTED.

Sanctions

Under CCP § 2023.030(a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. . . . If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction 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.”  Under CCP § 2023.010, an example of the misuse of the discovery process is “(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.” 

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”  CCP §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c).

Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348(a) states:  “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” 

Defendant LA County MTA requests sanctions in the amount of $1,260 against plaintiff Micah Session and his counsel, Law Offices of Milton C. Grimes and Gibson & Hughes for each motion.  The court finds that $1,320 ($400 x 3 hrs.; $120 filing fee) is a reasonable amount to be imposed against plaintiff and plaintiff’s attorneys in total for both motions.

Moving defendant is ordered to give notice of ruling.