Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 20STCV35713, Date: 2022-12-08 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV35713 Hearing Date: December 8, 2022 Dept: 68
Michael Silas vs. Dignity Health, et al., Case No. 20STCV35713
Motions to (1) Compel
Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Three; (2) Compel Further Responses and
Actual Production of Documents to Requests for Production, Set Three
[Erroneously Labeled Set Four] and Award Sanctions; and (3) Establish Admissions
and Award Sanctions
Moving Party: Defendant
Roger Fontes, Jr., M.D.
Responding Party: Plaintiff
Michael Silas
BACKGROUND
This case was filed on September
18, 2020. The complaint alleges a slip and fall incident at Mirage Resort and
Casino in Las Vegas. Plaintiff is alleging medical negligence against Defendant
for Defendant’s treatment of Plaintiff’s injuries following the incident. Defendant
filed the three discovery motions at issue on November 9, 2022.
Defendant filed the Motion to
Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Three, pursuant to CCP sections
2030.290 and 2030.010, et seq. These interrogatories were served on
Plaintiff on August 24, 2022, and Plaintiff failed to respond by the September
26, 2022, deadline. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff has shown a pattern of
failing to respond to discovery requests propounded by Defendant.
Defendant
filed the Motion to Compel Further Responses and Actual Production of Documents
to Defendant’s Requests for Production (Numbers 86-108, 110, 112, and 114-124)
pursuant to CCP sections 2023.010, 2023.020, 2031.300, 2031.310, and 2031.320, et
seq., claiming that Plaintiff has failed to provide adequate responses to
the Requests for Production, Set Three and used boilerplate objections. Defendant
served the Requests on Plaintiff on August 25, 2022. Plaintiff served
boilerplate objections on September 28, 2022. Counsel for Defendant sent Plaintiff’s
counsel a meet and confer letter on October 24, 2022, requesting supplemental
responses to the Requests. Defendant has heard nothing from Plaintiff since
filing this motion on November 9, 2022. Defendant seeks sanctions in the amount
of $811.65 against Plaintiff and his attorney of record, Taylor Law Office PC.
Defendant
filed the Motion for an Order Establishing Admissions pursuant to CCP section
2033.010, et seq., as to Requests for Admission, Set Three. Plaintiff
failed to serve timely responses and/or objections. The Requests were served on
Plaintiff on August 24, 2022, and Plaintiff failed to respond by the September
26 deadline. Defendant also asserts that Plaintiff has shown a pattern of
failing to respond to discovery requests propounded by Defendant. Defendant
requests that the Court deemed them all admitted. Defendant seeks sanctions in
the amount of $717.90 against Plaintiff.
No
opposition has been filed by Plaintiff.
ANALYSIS
I. Motion to Compel Responses to Form
Interrogatories, Set Three
CCP section 2030.290 generally provides that
if a party to whom interrogatories have been directed fails to serve a timely
response, that party waives any right to object to the interrogatories, and the
party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling a
response to the interrogatories. CCP section 2030.260(a) provides “within 30
days after service of the interrogatories, the party to whom the
interrogatories are propounded shall serve the original responses to them on
the propounding party…”
Plaintiff
failed to served responses to the interrogatories by the deadline of September
26, 2022. The Court grants Defendant’s motion to compel responses to form
interrogatories, set three. Plaintiff is ordered to provide responses without
objection within ten days of the service of notice of this Order.
II. Motion to Compel Further Responses and
Actual Production of Documents to Defendant’s Requests for Production
a.
Motion
CCP
section 2031.310(a) generally provides that the party demanding an inspection
may move for an order compelling further response to the demand, if the
demanding party deems that any of the following apply to the received
responses: (1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete; (2) A
representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; or
(3) An objection in the responses is without merit or too general.
California courts have reiterated
that discovery provisions are to be liberally construed in favor of disclosure.
In interpreting the former Discovery Act of 1957, the Supreme Court stated, in
the seminal case of Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d
355, 378, that disclosure in discovery exists as “a matter of right unless
statutory public policy considerations clearly prohibit it.” (Id.)
Any
information that “might reasonably assist a party in evaluating that case,
preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement, falls within the definition of
permissible discovery.” (Lipton v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th
1599, 1611.) Admissibility is not the test. Discovery rules are applied
liberally in favor of discovery and “(contrary to popular belief) fishing
expeditions are permissible in some cases.” (Gonzalez v. Superior Court
(1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546 (citing Greyhound, 56 Cal.2d at 385).)
CCP
section 2031.320(a) provides that “if a party filing a response to demand for
inspection under Sections 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240 and 2031.280
thereafter fails to permit the inspection in accordance with that party’s
statement of compliance, the party demanding the inspection may move for an
order compelling compliance.”
Plaintiff
failed to properly respond to Defendant’s reasonable and permissible discovery
requests and failed to meet and confer, a very important aspect of the
obligation of parties under the Discovery statutes. The Court finds that the
objections to Defendant’s requests is without merit.
The
Court grants Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to requests for
production. Plaintiff is ordered to respond within ten days of the hearing on
this motion.
b.
Sanctions
CCP
section 2023.020 provides that “Notwithstanding the outcome of the particular
discovery motion, the court shall impose a monetary sanction ordering that any
party or attorney who fails to confer as required pay the reasonable expenses,
including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” CCP
section 2031.310(h) governs the imposition of sanctions for abuse of the
discovery process relating to requests for production of documents, and it provides
that “[T]he 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[.]” (CCP § 2031.310(h).)
Plaintiff
and Plaintiff’s counsel has failed to meet and confer with Defendant regarding
the insufficiency of Plaintiff’s responses and the objections to the requests
for production.
The
Court awards sanctions in the amount of $811.65 for this motion. The award is against both Plaintiff and his
counsel of Record, Michael S. Traylor. Sanctions
shall be paid within 30 days of the date of service of notice of this Order.
III. Motion for an Order Establishing
Admissions
a.
Motion
“Any party may obtain discovery . . . by a written request
that any other party to the action admit the genuineness of specified
documents, or the truth of specified matters of fact, opinion relating to fact,
or application of law to fact. A request for admission may relate to a matter
that is in controversy between the parties.” (CCP § 2033.010.) “Within 30
days after service of requests for admission, the party to whom the requests
are directed shall serve the original of the response to them on the requesting
party, and a copy of the response on all other parties who have appeared…” (CCP
§ 2033.250(a).)
If a party to whom request for admissions are served fails
to provide a timely response, the party to whom the request was directed waives
any objections, including based on privilege or the work product doctrine. (CCP
§ 2033.280(a).) The requesting party can move for an order that the genuineness
of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the request be
deemed admitted, as well as for monetary sanctions. (CCP § 2033.280(b).) The
court shall issue this order unless the party to whom the request was made
serves a response in substantial compliance prior to the hearing on the motion.
(CCP § 2033.280(c).)
Plaintiff did not respond to Defendant’s RFAs within the
allotted time frame and had still not replied to the RFAs as of the time of the
filing of Defendant’s motion. (Batshoun Decl., ¶ 4.)
Defendant’s request to deem RFAs admitted is GRANTED.
b.
Sanctions
Sanctions are
mandatory against the party, the attorney, or both whose failure to serve a
timely response to the request necessitated the motion to deem request for
admissions as admitted. (CCP § 2033.280(c); see also Cal. Rules of Court
R. 3.1348(a) (the court can award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of
a party seeking to compel discovery even though no opposition was filed, the
opposition was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving
party after the motion was filed).)
Defendant has
requested sanctions in the amount of $717.90 against Plaintiff. Defendant’s
counsel, Christina Batshoun, declares that her billing rate is $187.50 an hour,
for an anticipated 3.5 hours of work on the motion, plus a filing fee of
$61.65, for a total of $717.90. (Batshoun Decl., ¶ 6.)
The Court awards
sanctions in the amount of $717.90 for this motion. The award is against
both Plaintiff and his counsel of Record, Michael S. Traylor. Sanctions shall be paid within 30 days of the
date of service of notice of this Order.
CONCLUSION
The motions
to compel responses to form interrogatories, compel further responses to the
request for production of documents and production of the documents, and to deem
the admissions admitted is GRANTED.
The Court awards sanctions in
the amount of $811.65 and $717.90. All discovery responses are to be made within
10 days of the service of notice of this Order.
The award of sanctions is against both Plaintiff and his counsel of
Record, Michael S. Traylor. Sanctions
shall be paid within 30 days of the date of service of notice of this Order.