Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 22STCV01451, Date: 2023-03-22 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV01451 Hearing Date: March 22, 2023 Dept: 68
Kinte Hogan, as Personal Representative of the Estate of
Cathy Blevins, vs. Kindred Hospital South Bay, et al., Case No. 22STCV01451
(1) Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Special
Interrogatories, Set No. One
(2) Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Form
Interrogatories, Set No. One
(3) Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Request for
Production of Documents, Set No. One
Propounded by Defendant Long Beach Memorial Medical
Center
Plaintiff filed this wrongful death action against Defendant
on January 13, 2022. On August 8, 2022, Defendant served (1) Special
Interrogatories, (2) Form Interrogatories, and (3) Requests for Production of
Documents on Plaintiff.
Responses were due by September 12, 2022. On September 23,
2022 counsel for Defendant wrote to Plaintiff (at the time he was self-represented)
and notified him of his failure to have served timely responses. Responses were requested by October 3, 2022.
On December 12, 2022 Plaintiff’s counsel, Crystal Morgan,
served her “Entry of Appearance” on counsel for Defendant Long Beach Memorial Medical
Center. [Plaintiff may wish to formally clarify whether counsel
has substituted in as counsel in place of Plaintiff, or is merely associated
with Plaintiff as co-counsel for a self -represented party.] On January 24, 2023, the 3 discovery motions
before the Court were served on both Plaintiff and his attorney, Crystal
Morgan.
Plaintiff has still not provided discovery responses.
(Motion at p. 3.) No opposition was filed
until March 20, 2023.
[The Court has read the tardy Opposition. (See C.C.P. § 1005 – all opposition papers
shall be filed 9 court days prior to the hearing.) The Court would also point out that Plaintiff’s
counsel is in error in believing that a meet and confer must take place when
there is a failure to timely respond to discovery. (See C.C.P. § 2030.290, 2031.300.) The obligation to meet and confer arises if there
were responses that are deemed deficient.
(See C.C.P. §
2030.300(b)(1), 2031.310(b)(2).)]
The late opposition claims that responses have now been
provided. The parties should update the
court on this issue.
Analysis
I.
Form Interrogatories, Special
Interrogatories, and Requests to Produce.
The propounding party may move for an order compelling
responses and monetary sanctions if a party to whom the interrogatories are
directed fails to respond. (CCP §§ 2030.290, 2030.300; Sinaiko Healthcare
Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th
390, 404.) Responses to interrogatories are due within thirty days from the
date of service of the interrogatories. (CCP §§ 2030.260(a), 2016.050.) The
responding party waives any objections to the interrogatories by failing to
serve responses in a timely manner. (CCP § 2030.290(a).)
A propounding party may move to compel responses to requests
for production of documents where the responding party fails to provide
responses. (CCP § 2031.300.) The responding party must provide responses within
thirty days after the demand is served. (CCP § 2031.030(c)(2) & (3).) The
responding party waives all objections, including privilege and work product,
by failing to timely respond to requests for production of documents. (CCP § 2031.300.)
Plaintiff has failed to respond to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories,
Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One and Request to Produce, Set One. Defendant’s
motion to compel responses to all of these discovery requests is GRANTED.
Sanctions
Code of Civil Procedure §128.5 provides for sanctions to be imposed
against a party for "bad faith. . . tactics that are frivolous or solely
intended to cause unnecessary delay." In addition, CCP § 2030.290 states
that the Court shall impose a monetary sanction under Sections 2023.010 et seq.
against any party, person or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a
motion to compel. Section 2023.010(d) defines “misuses of the discovery
process” to include: “failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method
of discovery.” Section 2023.030 authorizes the Court to impose monetary
sanctions on parties and their attorneys for misuses of the discovery process. The same is true for failing to respond to a
request for production.
Defendant seeks $460.00 in sanctions against Plaintiff for
Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories. That
amount is for $400.00 (2 hours to prepare the motion at $200.00 an hour) and
the $60.00 filing fee. (Hovesepian Decl., ¶ 7.)
Defendants seeks $1,060.00 in sanctions
against Plaintiff for Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Defendant’s Form
Interrogatories. That is for $1,000.00 (3 hours preparing this motion and 2
hours attending the hearing on this motion and the hearing on the Special
Interrogatories motion, plus the $60.00 filing fee at $200.00 an hour).
(Hovesepian Decl., ¶ 7.)
Defendants seeks $1,060.00 in sanctions against Plaintiff
for Plaintiff’s failure to respond to Defendant’s Requests for Production. That
is for $1,000.00 (3 hours preparing this motion and 2 hours attending the
hearing on this motion, plus the $60.00 filing fee at $200.00 an hour).
(Hovesepian Decl., ¶ 7.)
The Court shall award sanctions totaling $1,000 for fees and
$180 for costs of filing the 3 motions, for a total of $1,180.
ORDER
3. Defendant’s
motion to compel responses to Defendant’s Requests for Production is GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s responses are due with 20 days of the service of this order.
4. Defendant
Long Beach Memorial Medical Center is awarded sanctions on the motions against
Plaintiff Kinte Hogan in the amount of $1,180.00. Sanctions shall be paid to
counsel for Defendant Long Beach Memorial Medical Center within 45 days of
service of this order.