Judge: Donald F. Gaffney, Case: "Partners Capital Group, Inc. v. Bautista P.C.", Date: 2022-11-23 Tentative Ruling

TENTATIVE RULING:

Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories

Plaintiff Partners Capital Group, Inc., moves to compel Defendants Arwinnah Bautista, P.C., and Arwinnah Bautista, M.D., to provide responses without objection to Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Special Interrogatories (Set One). For the following reasons, the unopposed motion is DENIED as to Defendant Arwinnah Bautista, P.C., and GRANTED as to Defendant Arwinnah Bautista, M.D.

A party may move for an order compelling responses to discovery at any time “[i]f a party to whom [discovery requests] are directed fails to serve a timely response.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(b).) By failing to serve timely responses, the responding party waives “any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(a).)

As an initial matter, the motion is denied to the extent it seeks relief from Defendant Arwinnah Bautista, P.C. The discovery at issue was directed to only Defendant Arwinnah Bautista, M.D. (“Dr. Bautista”).

Here, Dr. Bautista failed to respond to duly served discovery requests. (Doyle Decl. ¶¶ 2-4, Exs. A-B.)

No later than thirty (30) days from the service of the notice of ruling, Defendant Dr. Bautista shall serve code-compliant, verified responses without objection to Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Special Interrogatories (Set One) propounded by Plaintiff.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendant is granted. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, 2030.290(c).) Defendant Arwinnah Bautista, M.D., is ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $285 to Doyle Schafer McMahon, LLP, within 30 days of the service of the notice of ruling.

Moving Party to give notice.

Motion to Deem Admitted RFAs

Plaintiff Partners Capital Group, Inc., moves to deem as admitted by Defendant Arwinnah Bautista, M.D., Requests for Admission (Set One) propounded by Plaintiff. For the following reasons, the unopposed motion is GRANTED.

Where a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party “may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280(b).) “The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280(c); St. Mary v. Super. Ct. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 778.) By failing to serve timely responses, Responding Party waived “any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280(a).)

Here, Dr. Bautista failed to respond to duly served RFAs. (Doyle Decl. ¶¶ 2-3, Ex. A.)

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendant is granted. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, 2033.280(b).) Defendant Arwinnah Bautista, M.D., is ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $310 to Doyle Schafer McMahon, LLP, within 30 days of the service of the notice of ruling.

Moving Party to give notice.