Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 22STCV1311, Date: 2024-09-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV1311    Hearing Date: September 20, 2024    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

NOTICE:

The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter.  The Court is guided by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) whereby notice of intent to appear is requested.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument is requested and any party seeking argument should notify all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue.  The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no argument is received.  

Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412.

ALLEGATIONS: 

Anita Aslanyan (Anita), individually and as successor in interest to Razmik Aslanyan (Decedent) (collectively Plaintiffs) bring this action against Providence St. Joseph Health Center (Providence) and THC Orange County, LLC dba Kindred Hospital Los Angeles (THC). Plaintiffs allege that Providence and THC failed to properly care for Decedent, resulting in his death. Plaintiffs state a singular cause of action for professional negligence.

Before the Court are three motions to compel further discovery responses, each brought by THC. THC moves to compel Plaintiff Anita’s further responses to THC’s Special Interrogatories (SPROG) Set Two and Request for the Production of Documents (RFPD) Set Two. THC also moves to compel Decedent’s further responses to RFPD Set Two. Plaintiffs have rendered no opposition to these motions.

ANALYSIS: 

I.                    LEGAL STANDARD 

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories

On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that the responses contain: (1) answers that are evasive or incomplete, (2)¿an unwarranted or insufficiently specific exercise of an option to produce documents in lieu of a substantive response, or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections.  (C.C.P. §¿2030.300(a).) The responding party has the burden of justifying the objections thereto. (Coy v. Sup.Ct. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-21.)

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production

A motion to compel further responses to RFPD 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.  (C.C.P. § 2031.310(c).) 

A motion to compel further production must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand. (See C.C.P. § 2031.310(b)(1).) In Digital Music News LLC v Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216 at 224, the Court defined “good cause” as a showing that there “a disputed fact that is of consequence in the action and the discovery sought will tend in reason to prove or disprove that fact or lead to other evidence that will tend to prove or disprove the fact.”  

If the moving party has shown good cause for the requests for production, the burden is on the objecting party to justify the objections. (Kirkland v. Sup.Ct (2002) 95 Cal. App.4th 92, 98.) 

II.                 MERITS

Decedent Special Interrogatories No. 13 and 14

The SPROG to which THC moves to compel further responses are produced below along with Decedent’s initial response. 

·         Please state with particularity all expenses you incurred as a result of your alleged injuries which you attribute to Kindred Los Angeles (SPROG No. 13.)

o   Objection. Plaintiff objects on the grounds that this interrogatory is overly broad as to time and scope as to be an unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, and is oppressive. To comply with this request would be an undue burden and expense on the Plaintiff. The request is calculated to annoy and harass Plaintiff…. Without waiving said objection, Responding Party responses: Medical expenses incurred at UCLA.

·         Please identify the Kindred Los Angeles staff member you allege did not raise the rails on your bed when the incident occurred. (SPROG No. 14.)

o   Responding Party exercises the option to produce writings and directs Propounding Party to the medical records of Kindred Hospital.

THC argues that the above responses are evasive and incomplete pursuant to C.C.P. § 2030.300(a). THC argues that the answer of “Medical expenses incurred at UCLA” is so vague as to be unresponsive to THC’s request for particular expenses. THC also argues that despite Razmik referring THC to medical records for SPROG No. 14, no such records were ever produced or specifically identified.

The Court concurs that Decedent’s answer to SPROG No. 13 is evasive. Decedent’s response fails to identify what these medical expenses are or to direct THC to any specific documentation in which they are detailed. Further, by virtue of his failure to oppose this motion, Decedent has inherently failed his burden to justify his objections of overbreadth and undue burden. (See C.R.C. Rule 8.54 ["A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion."].)

The Court also agrees that Decedent’s response to SPROG No. 14 is evasive. Decedent does not direct THC’s attention to any specific document which would be responsive to this request. Even if Decedent claims that this information is entirely discoverable from documents held by THC, he must still identify said responsive documents with particularity. Simply directing THC’s attention to all medical records THC possesses is insufficient.

Accordingly, the motion to compel further responses to SPROG Nos. 13 and 14 is GRANTED.

Anita RFPD Nos. 27, 28, 29, and 30 & Decedent RFPD Nos. 28, 29, and 30 

The RFPD to which THC moves to compel further responses are produced below along with Anita’s initial response. 

·         Produce any and all writings identified in your response to Form Interrogatories, Set Two, propounded by Kindred Los Angeles. (RFPD No. 27.)

o   Responding Party directs propounding party to the productions in response to Request for Production of Documents, Set One.

·         Produce any and all writings identified in your response to Special interrogatories, Set Two, propounded by Kindred Los Angeles. (RFPD No. 28.)

o   Responding Party directs propounding party to the productions in response to Request for Production of Documents, Set One.

·         Produce all writings received by you, or anyone acting on your behalf, to any medical professionals concerning decedent’s admission to Kindred Los Angeles. (RFPD No. 29)

o   The request as phrased is unintelligible.

·         Please produce all writings evidencing Decedent’s Medicare and/or Medi-Cal liens. (RFPD No. 30)

o   After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Responding Party is unable to produce said records, but believes that DHCS and MediCare may have documents responsive to said request

The Court notes that RFPD Nos. 28, 29, and 30 as to Decedent are identical to RFPD Nos. 27, 28, and 29 as to Anita. The responses of both Decedent and Anita to these RFPD are identical.

As concerns RFPD Nos. 27 and 28, THC argues that Plaintiffs have produced no writings in response to either RFPD Set One or RFPD Set Two. (Mot. p. 2.) THC represents that Plaintiffs produced no documents in response to discovery as of yet, instead producing three videos. The Court agrees Plaintiffs’ response directing THC to documents which have not been produced is insufficient.

Concerning RFPD No. 29, Plaintiffs’ objection that the question is unintelligible may have been valid, but the Court would be speculating as to in what manner. The Plaintiff failed to file any opposition, and the Court declines to advocate Plaintiff’s position in light of C.R.C. Rule 8.54 ["A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion."].

As concerns RFPD No. 30, the Court agrees with THC that this response is not code compliant. With regard to document requests, a response expressing an inability to comply shall state that a diligent search and reasonable inquiry was made to locate the items, and the reason for an inability to comply, including that the item never existed, was lost or stolen, was destroyed, or is not in respondent's possession, along with the identity and address of anyone believed to have the document. (C.C.P. §2031.230.) Here, Anita’s response is entirely devoid of the reason for their inability to comply.

Accordingly, the motions to compel further responses to RFPD Set Two are GRANTED.

Sanctions

As concerns motions to compel, the law only requires sanctions in the event that a party unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response. (C.C.P. § 2033.290(d), C.C.P. §¿2030.300(d).) As such, any monetary sanctions granted are within the discretionary power of the Court as per C.C.P. § 2030.290. Additionally, it is customary to grant sanctions where a party has filed a motion to compel, and the other party fails to file an opposition. (C.R.C. Rule 3.1348(a).) 

Here, THC has submitted three motions to compel further responses while Plaintiffs have provided no opposition. As such, the Court awards sanctions in the amount of $1,255.00. This amount reflects five hours of attorney work at a rate of $215 per hour, plus $180 in filing fees for the three motions. (Janssen Decl. ¶ 8.) Sanctions are granted as against Plaintiff, as Plaintiff’s counsel was relieved prior to the filing of these motions. Given the similar nature of the motions and the fact that they were unopposed, the Court finds this amount is reasonable to compensate THC for bringing these motions.

--- 

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records. 

ORDER 

THC Orange County, LLC dba Kindred Hospital Los Angeles’ Motions to Compel Further Responses came on regularly for hearing on September 20, 2024, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows: 

THE MOTION TO COMPEL ANITA ASLANYAN’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPROG NOS. 13 AND 14 IS GRANTED.

THE MOTION TO COMPEL ANITA ASLANYAN’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO RFPD NOS. 27-30 IS GRANTED.

THE MOTION TO COMPEL RAZMIK ASLANYAN’S FURTHER RESPONSE TO RFPD NOS. 28-30 IS GRANTED.

FURTHER PRODUCTION TO OCCUR WITHIN 30 DAYS.

SANCTIONS ARE GRANTED AS AGAINST PLAINTIFF (SELF REPRESENTED) IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,255.  SANCTIONS PAYABLE WITHIN 30 DAYS.

UNLESS ALL PARTIES WAIVE NOTICE, DEFENDANT THC TO GIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE:  September 20, 2024                          _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles