Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 23SMCV00118, Date: 2023-11-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV00118    Hearing Date: November 30, 2023    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Davis v. Optimum Brain Neurofeedback Center et al., Case No. 23SMCV00118

Hearing Date November 30, 2023

Defendant Kaiser’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents (UNOPPOSED)

Defendant Kaiser served Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents on April 7, 2023. Plaintiff provided untimely responses June 2. Kaiser alleges the responses were deficient, with improper objections and insufficient production. On July 14, at the IDC, the court instructed the parties to resolve the disputes. Kaiser alleges on August 21, Davis’s counsel promised to amend by September 21, 2023. Kaiser alleges Davis did not amend the responses and moves to compel further.

Form Interrogatories

Form interrogatory No. 2.6 requests identifying information of Davis’s employers for the past five years. Davis failed to produce the numbers or addresses. Responses states she was self-employed in various capacities throughout the five-year period. As such, her “employer’s” phone number and address would have been her own. Therefore, her responses to interrogatory no. 2.6 were adequate. DENIED as to form interrogatory no. 2.6.

Form interrogatories nos. 6.4 and 6.5 request information related to medication and treatment by health care providers, including the cost. See Separate Statement pgs. 2-3. Davis responded in part but did not state the cost of the medication or procedures. Id. These figures are relevant. GRANTED. Davis is to supplement responses to interrogatories nos. 6.4 and 6.5, stating the cost of all treatment and medication identified.

Special Interrogatories

Kaiser moves to compel further responses to thirty-four special interrogatories which ask Davis to identify the facts or documents supporting allegations in the complaint. Davis did not answer, objecting each one sought information “equally or more available to the propounding party,” attorney work product, burdensome or harassing and calls for a legal conclusion.

These are allegations made by plaintiff. Plaintiff must state the factual basis for those allegations. This is not work product. GRANTED. Davis to respond without objection. To the extent documents are alleged to be protected as attorney work product, she must provide a privilege log.

Request for Production of Documents

Davis’s responses state she does not possess any non-privileged responsive documents, but she does not state whether she was in possession of documents at one time or whether she never had them. This response violates Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §2031.230. GRANTED. Davis is to supplement responses.

Sanctions

Kaiser alleges Davis’s counsel agreed to supplement the discovery response but failed to do so. Absent opposition, there is no basis for the court to doubt this allegation. Sanctions are warranted for Davis’s failure to act in good faith during discovery. Kaiser requests $2,250.00 in sanctions, five hours of attorney work billed at $450/hr. This amount is reasonable. GRANTED and payable as against plaintiff and counsel, within 30 days.  

All additional responses to be served within 20 days, verified and without objection.