Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 20STCV09307, Date: 2022-08-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV09307    Hearing Date: August 16, 2022    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling
Tabatabai v. Regents of the University of California et al., Case No. 20STCV09307
Hearing Date August 16, 2022
Plaintiff Tabatabai’s Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

In this medical malpractice case plaintiff alleges defendant Regents altered medical records. Tabatabai propounded written discovery, including Requests for Admission and Requests for Production of Documents on October 18, 2021. Tabatabai alleges the responses were insufficient and moves to compel further. An IDC was held.

A party propounding written discovery can move for further responses if they contend the responses are incomplete, evasive, inadequate, or include meritless objections. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §2033.290(a), 2031.310(a). An answering party owes a duty to respond in good faith as best he or she can. Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783. Generally, a party responding to requests for admission cannot plead ignorance regarding information which can be obtained from sources under their control. Id.

Requests for Admission
Tabatabai seeks further responses to requests for admission Nos. 11 and 14, which seek admissions that Drs. Espejo and Arbit never provided medical treatment to plaintiff on the Regents’ behalf. Sep. Statement pgs. 2-6. Tabatabai is correct that the Regents’ boilerplate objections are largely meritless. The requests are simply phrased and straightforward, and neither is burdensome.

In their supplemental response, the Regents state they made a “reasonable inquiry” and can neither admit nor deny that Dr. Espejo provided services, but “defendant is not aware of medical treatment being provided to plaintiff” by Dr. Arbist and “it appears certain that this physician did not provide care and treatment to plaintiff during or in connection with the single urgent care visit which is the actual subject of this litigation.” Amended Separate Statement pg. 8. The court previously determined the original responses were code-complaint. Nahra decl. ¶¶2-3. Further, while the court agrees the responses are equivocal, the Regents presented evidence indicating a good faith review of records and answered the RFAs based on that review. Nahra Decl. ¶8, Exhibit B. DENIED.

Requests for Production
Tabatabai requests further production in relation to RFPs 4 and 5, which seek “[c]opies of internal memoranda, inter-hospital memos, facsimiles, e-mail, or other DOCUMENTS or COMMUNICATIONS regarding Plaintiff’s claim,” as well as Documents identifying the total number of patients Dr. Takeuchi treated from 7:00 PM until 9:00 PM on January 4, 2019. Separate Statement pgs. 2-7.

In its supplemental response to RFP No. 4, Regents presented objections, then referred to documents previously produced and to documents already in plaintiff’s possession. Separate Statement pg. 6. Regents responded to request no. 5 by stating that after a diligent search, they were unable to find any responsive documents. Separate Statement pg. 8.

Tabatabai argues the objections are without merit, and the court agrees. In both instances, the Regents provided boilerplate objections, without tailoring them to a specific request. Further, although the Regents raise objections based on privilege, they do not provide a privilege log, rendering those objections without merit.

Nonetheless, there is no basis to conclude the production was insufficient. The Regents produced all documents in their possession that fall within the scope of the requests and do not include third-party, HIPAA protected medical records. Nahra decl. ¶¶7-10. There is no evidence additional responsive documents exist that have not been produced. DENIED.

No sanctions will be awarded.