Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 21STCV13995, Date: 2023-10-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV13995    Hearing Date: October 12, 2023    Dept: 68

DEFENDANT SUPERIOR CENTER CONCEPTS, INC (SUED AND SERVED AS DOE 1)’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

NOTICE:                   PROPER

BACKGROUND:     On April 13, 2021, Plaintiff Rosa Lucio (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against Defendants Superior Grocers, Inc. and Does 1-100, inclusive (collectively “Defendants”).  The Complaint alleges that on or about June 21, 2020, Plaintiff slipped and fell on Defendants’ premise, causing her injury.

On September 1, 2023, Defendant Super Center Concepts, Inc. (sued and served as Doe 1) (“Super Center”) filed a Motion for an Order Compelling Plaintiff’s Further Responses to Requests for Admissions (Set One).  On September 5, 2023, Super Cener filed two Motions for Orders Compelling Plaintiff’s Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set Two) and Requests for Production (Set Three).

TIMELINE:

MOVING PARTY argues:  Super Center argues that on April 7, 2023, it served via electronic mail requests for production of documents, special interrogatories, form interrogatories, and requests for admissions upon Plaintiff.  The original deadline for responses was on May 9, 2023, and extended by agreement to May 24, 2023. 

On May 24, 2023, Plaintiff served responses via electronic mail which consisted of objections only.  Plaintiff served substantive responses on June 12, 2023.  After reviewing Plaintiff’s responses, Super Center found them to be incomplete and evasive.  Super Center sent Plaintiff a meet and confer letter on July 19, 2023, specifically addressing each deficient response and why a further response was necessary.  Super Center also requested supplemental responses or an agreement to meet and confer on or before July 26, 2023. 

On July 25, 2023, Super Center sent Plaintiff’s counsel another meet and confer via email advising there had been no responses and asking for an immediate response, otherwise law and motion would be necessary.  Plaintiff’s attorney contacted Super Center shortly after the email and agreed to supplement responses on August 14, 2023 and extending Super Center’s motion to compel deadline for September 1, 2023. 

On August 14, 2023, Plaintiff emailed Super Center’s counsel requesting a four-week extension to the deadline to serve supplemental responses.  Super Center agreed to extend the deadline upon Plaintiff’s agreement to continue Super Center’s deadline to file motions to compel, amongst several other discovery requests.  Plaintiff’s counsel’s managing attorney, Jonathan M. Kashani, declined the agreement and advised he would “stand firm on his client’s code complaint responses”, reneging the prior agreement in total.

On August 18, 2023, Super Center emailed Mr. Kashani agreeing to participate in an Informal Discovery Conference on mutual discovery issues between both parties, including Plaintiff’s responses to this instant discovery issue.  Mr. Kashani would not agree.  Although Plaintiff’s counsel ultimately agreed to a meet and confer, it was not productive.

Super Center argues it is entitled to complete and substantive responses to prepare its defense and its interest in the action.  Super Center further argues Plaintiff’s failure to provide responses to Super Center’s requests constitutes a misuse of the discovery process.  Super Center requests this Court to compel Plaintiff’s complete responses to Super Center’s requests and monetary sanctions in the total amount of $3,300.

RESPONDING PARTY argues: Plaintiff argues that Super Center failed to schedule an IDC before filing the instant motions, as required by this Court.  Plaintiff also argues Super Center’s Motions fail because they do not contain a Separate Statement of the disputed discovery requests nor the reason why further responses should be ordered.  

IN REPLY, MOVING PARTY argues:  In response, Super Center argues that it served Separate Statements with the Court electronically and to Plaintiff via email.  Super Center also argues that it called this Department’s clerk twice to set IDCs but was told this case had too many IDCs, and as such, none would be necessary to file the Motions to Compel.  Additionally, Super Center argues Plaintiff’s counsel refused to participate in an IDC after being asked to do so but now uses the lack of an IDC as a defense.   Finally, Plaintiff’s failure to provide any evidence, legal authority, or argument refuting Super Center’s argument set forth in the Motions to Compel is a concession and requires the Motions be granted ordering further responses to discovery to be served.

ANALYSIS

Legal Standard 

Any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.)¿ Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action.¿ (Ibid.)¿ Courts have given the words “subject matter” a broad definition that is not limited to only admissible evidence.¿ (Jessen v. Hartford Casualty Ins. Co. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 698, 711.)¿ Accordingly, information is relevant for discovery purposes if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement.¿ (Id. at pgs. 711–712.)¿ Admissibility is not the test and information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence.¿ (Gonzalez v. Super. Ct. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.)¿ These rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery and “fishing expeditions” are permissible in some cases.¿ (Ibid.)¿ 

Special Interrogatories  

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220, subdivision (a) requires that “[e]ach answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, a party may move to compel further responses to a form interrogatory if the other party’s answer is “evasive or incomplete.” The responding party has the burden of justifying the objections to the form and special interrogatories. (Coy v. Super. Ct. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.) 

Production of Documents 

If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling response to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300(b); see Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403-404.) However, when responses are served, the proper motion is a motion to compel further responses, which is governed by Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.300 and 2031.310.  

A motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection or production of documents may be brought based on: (1) incomplete statements of compliance; (2) inadequate, evasive, or incomplete claims of inability to comply; or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(c).) A motion to compel further responses must set forth specific facts showing “good cause” justifying the discovery sought by the demand and must be accompanied by a declaration showing a “reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve the issues outside of court. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040, 2031.310(b)(2).) Absent a claim of privilege or attorney work product, the moving party meets its burden of showing good cause by a fact-specific showing of relevance. (See Kirkland v. Super. Ct. (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.) If the moving party has shown good cause for the requests for production, the burden is on the objecting party to justify the objections. (Ibid.)

Requests for Admissions 

On receipt of a response to requests for admission the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that an objection to an RFA is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290(a)(2).) 

Procedural Issues 

Timeliness 

Motions to compel further responses to interrogatories, request for production of documents, and requests for admission must be brought within 45 days of service of the verified response, supplemental verified response, or on a date to which the propounding and responding parties have agreed to in writing; otherwise, the propounding party waives the right to compel further responses. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (c); 2031.310, subd. (c); 2033.290, subd. (c).)

Super Center filed the Motion to Compel Further Responses to the Request for Admission on September 1, 2023.  Super Center filed the Motion to Compel Further Responses to the Request for Production and Special Interrogatories on September 5, 2023.  Plaintiff served Super Center with substantive response on June 12, 2023.  After Plaintiff and Super Center agreed to an extension for discovery responses now due on August 14, 2023, they also agreed to extend the Motion to Compel deadline for September 1, 2023.  (Motions, Exh. F.)   On August 14, 2023, Plaintiff asked Super Center for another extension to serve responses.  Super Center agreed to extend the deadline on the condition that any potential deadlines for Motions to Comply be extended from September 1, 2023 to September 15, 2023.  Plaintiff declined the agreement, agreed to participate in an IDC, and granted a one-week extension for Defendant to file its Motion to Compel following an IDC with the Court.  Since Plaintiff granted Super Center only a one-week extension for filing Motions to Compel, Super Center’s deadline was September 8, 2023.  Thus, the Motions were timely filed.

Meet and Confer 

The moving party must demonstrate a “reasonable and good faith attempt” at an informal resolution of each issue presented. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040, 2031.310(b)(2).) Here, Super Center’s counsel sent two meet and confer letters to Plaintiff’s counsel via electronic mail on July 19, 2023 and July 25, 2023. (Motions, Exhs E, F.)  Therefore, the moving party has satisfied the meet and confer requirement. 

Separate Statement 

Motions to compel further responses must always be accompanied by a separate statement containing the requests and the responses, verbatim, as well as reasons why a further response is warranted. (California Rule of Court, rule 3.1345(a).) The separate statement must also be complete in itself; no extrinsic materials may be incorporated by reference. (California Rule of Court, rule 3.1345(c).) 

Here, Plaintiff included separate statements for the motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories, motion to compel further responses to request for production of documents, and motion to compel further responses to requests for admissions.

Merits 

Special Interrogatories

Request Numbers 38-40, 48 ask about Plaintiff’s reduction of medical bills and the whereabouts of Plaintiff’s daughter, Stephanie Lucio, who worked at Global Lien Doctors, LLC, and assisted in coordinating the lien administrator’s treatment of her mother and the associated billing.  Super Center argues this information is relevant because Plaintiff’s counsel’s policies for referring clients to preferred providers who initially produce high-cost invoices on a lien basis and later accepts a smaller percentage for final payment are essential for determining the damages actual incurred by Plaintiff.   Based on this, the Court finds that the information sought is likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  The Court grants the motion to compel further responses.

Request Number 49 asks Plaintiff to identify persons who have knowledge about her agreement with GRS funding.  Super Center argues that by answering “unknown staff at GRS Funding”, Plaintiff is refusing to provide highly relevant information because Plaintiff is concealing the identities of these lien providers’ employees whom the Plaintiff’s attorneys deal with a on a day-to-day basis and whom counsel has developed profitable relationships with.  (Separate Statement, pg. 8.)  Based on this, the Court finds that the information sought is reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  The Court grants the motion to compel further responses.

Request Number 61 asks what Healthcare Providers were referred through Global Lien Doctors, LLC.  Super Center argues Plaintiff has had numerous interactions with personnel employed by Global Lien Doctors, LLC, regarding lien agreements, reductions in actual medical costs, payments, negotiations, in addition to Plaintiff’s daughter working at this facility.  (Separate Statement, pg. 9.)  Further, Super Center argues this information is relevant as a matter of law because it is essential in determining the damages actually incurred by Plaintiff.  (Ibid.)  Based on this, the Court finds that the information sought is reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  The Court grans the motion to compel further responses. 

Requests for Production of Documents 

Requests Nos. 27-46 seek writings relating to the treatment, monies owed, and financial agreements relating to the incident.  Super Center cannot distinguish Plaintiff’s responses to their requests and is further unable to list the deficiencies with the documents under each specified request number.  (Separate Statement, pg. 2.)  Super Center states various issues regarding Plaintiff’s responses.  First, Plaintiff’s emails in response to Super Center’s RPD cannot be read in their entirety and appear to be photocopies of the actual emails themselves.  (Ibid.)  Second, Plaintiff produced 3,345 pages of documents in response to Super Center’s RPD without complying with the requirement to identify the specific request numbers to which the documents respond.  (Separate Statement, pg. 3.)  Additionally, Super Center argues Plaintiff’s responses do not comply with CCP § 2031.280(a), requiring documents to be identified with the specific request number to which the documents respond.  (Separate Statement, pg. 4.)  Finally, Super Center argues these responses are essential for determining the damages actually incurred by Plaintiff.  (Ibid.)  The Court finds the requests to be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  Thus, it grants the request.

Requests Nos. 30, 38, 39 ask Plaintiff to produce all writings relating to the reductions in medical billings including correspondence.  Super Center argues that although Plaintiff claims she does not have it in her possession, Plaintiff’s medical liens and costs have been reduced and even admits that at least one lien medical provider, Global Lien Doctors, LLC, has disclosed reductions in medical billings.  (Separate Statement, pg. 45.)  The Court finds the requests to be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  Thus, the Court grants the request. 

Requests for Admissions 

Request number 1 asks Plaintiff to admit she has not produced all communications between her and her Lien-Physicians to date.  Super Center argues Plaintiff’s counsel contradicts their response because it answers with a denial but then admits they have not provided these documents in response to Form Interrogatory, Set Two, 17.1.  (Separate Statement, pg. 2.)  Like the special interrogatories about this subject, Plaintiff should respond.

Request number 2 asks Plaintiff to admit she has not produced all Lien agreements between her and her Lien Physicians to date.  Like the special interrogatories about this subject, Plaintiff should respond.

Request number 5 asking Plaintiff to admit she had injuries to her legs prior to the incident.  Plaintiff should respond.

Request number 39 asks Plaintiff to admit that the healthcare providers she sought since the incident have not charged her for any medical treatment.  Like the special interrogatories about this subject, Plaintiff should respond.

Sanctions:

Super Center requests sanctions in the total amount of $3,300 against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel. 

“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, 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (d).)

Here, the Court finds sanctions in the amount of $3,300 reasonable given Super Center’s meet and confer efforts, preparation and drafting of motions to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for Production, Set One.

CONCLUSION:

Based on the foregoing:

(1)   the court GRANTS Super Center’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to their Request for Admissions, Set One, Request for Production of Documents, Set Three, and Special Interrogatories, Set Two.

(2)   The Court grants monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in connection with the motions in the amount of $3,300.  Payment due to Defendant’s counsel within 30 days.