Judge Deirdre Hill, Case 21STCV33519 2022-08-12 Tentative Ruling

ALERT

Due to Coronavirus, please consider appearing by phone for Department M cases.

Department M strongly encourages the use of LA CourtConnect* for ALL hearings, without need for prior approval, unless live testimony by a witness is required.

The contact information for LA CourtConnect* is:

https://lacourt.portalscloud.com/VCourt/

*Parties with a fee waiver on file may be eligible to appear at no/reduced cost

Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One)

On September 10, 2021, plaintiff Tony Talbert filed a complaint. The operative pleading is the First Amended Complaint and asserts causes of action for (1) dental malpractice, (2) lack of informed consent, (3) battery, (4) intentional misrepresentation, (5) negligent misrepresentation, and (6) concealment against several defendants, including defendant Rachal Liverman, D.D.S.

Defendant now moves the court to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 14.

45-Day Rule: This motion must be served within 45 days after service of the response in question (extended if served by mail, overnight delivery, or fax; see CCP § 1013); otherwise, the demanding party waives the right to compel any further response to the CCP §2031.010 demand. CCP §§2031.310(c), 2016.050; see Sperber v. Robinson (1994) 26 Cal. App. 4th 736, 745. The 45-day time limit is mandatory and jurisdictional. Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal. App. 4th 1403, 1410. The parties, however, can also agree in writing on a specific later date by which to file the motion to compel. CCP §2031.310(c).

Meet-and-Confer Requirement: The motion to compel further responses must be accompanied by a declaration showing “a reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve the issues outside of court (so-called “meet and confer”). CCP §§2016.040, 2031.310(b)(2).

Separate Statement: Any motion involving the content of a discovery request or the responses to such a request shall be accompanied by a separate statement. This includes a motion to compel further responses to demand for inspection of documents or tangible things. CRC Rule 3.1020(a)(3).

CCP §2030.300 states: “(a) 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. . . . (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (b) A motion under subdivision (a) shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040. (c) 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. . . .”

Defendant now moves the court to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 14.

As a preliminary matter, the court notes that the meet and confer requirement has been satisfied. See Keyes Decl. In addition, the court notes that there is no requirement to participate in an IDC as argued by Plaintiff.

Interrogatory No. 4: asks Plaintiff to set forth the dates that he alleges Defendant committed malpractice. Plaintiff responded that by stating “not applicable” because Plaintiff is not asserting a cause of action for malpractice against Defendant. The court finds that Plaintiff’s response deficient and incomplete. Based on Plaintiff’s response, it is unclear why Plaintiff is withholding a response. If Plaintiff is not asserting any claims for malpractice against Defendant, then he can simply state as much. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered to provide a further response to this interrogatory.

Interrogatory No. 5-6: ask Plaintiff to identify all medical doctors who have examined him and treated him in the last five years, and all hospitalizations in the last ten years. These interrogatories also asks for the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of each doctor/hospital, the dates related to treatment, the reason for treatment, and a description of the treatment. Plaintiff responded by stating, among other things, that these interrogatories are compound and not limited to injuries claimed to be suffered by Plaintiff.

As a preliminary matter, the court finds that the interrogatories are not compound. While the interrogatories seek additional information relating to Plaintiff’s medical treatment, it relates to the same subject matter. CCP § 2030.060(f) provides “[n]o specially prepared interrogatory shall contain subparts, or a compound, conjunctive, or disjunctive question.” CCP § 2030.060(f). Where an interrogatory covers two (2) discrete matters in a single question, an objection on the grounds of compound and disjunctive may be sustained. Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2021 Update) ¶ 8:978. However, the court finds that this interrogatory is overbroad, as it is not limited to the same injuries, which Plaintiff claimed to have suffered as a result of the alleged malpractice. Accordingly, the court orders Plaintiff to provide a further response, but that response will be limited to the same/similar injuries that Plaintiff claims to have suffered as a result of the alleged malpractice and to five years before the alleged malpractice.

Interrogatory No. 7-8: asks Plaintiff to identify all doctors who treated him for any reason and hospitalizations following the alleged malpractice, and for information related to that treatment. Plaintiff responded by asserting similar objections as interrogatories Nos. 5-6. For the same reasons as stated above, the court finds that further response are appropriate; however, the responses are limited to treatment for injuries that are the same/similar to the injuries Plaintiff claimed to have suffered as a result of the alleged malpractice. The court notes that Plaintiff’s contention that these interrogatories seeks attorney work-product is misguided. This interrogatory does not seek work-product, but only the underlying facts related to Plaintiff’s treatment.

Interrogatory No. 14: asks Plaintiff to describe any record or copy of any record pertaining to any issue in this case that Plaintiff or anyone acting on his behalf obtained from Defendant, and information relating to those records. Plaintiff objected to the interrogatory on the grounds that it is compound, vague ambiguous, and unintelligible. For similar reasons as stated above, the court finds that this interrogatory is not compound, as it seeks information on the same subject matter. However, the court finds that the interrogatory is vague and ambiguous. Here, it is unclear as to what records Plaintiff is seeking information, and his general request for all information as to “any issue in this case” leaves Plaintiff to speculate what documents may or may not relate to “any issue in this case.” Accordingly, the court denies Defendant’s request for a further response to this interrogatory.