Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 23BBCV00657, Date: 2023-12-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV00657    Hearing Date: December 15, 2023    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

NOTICE:

The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter.  Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) notice of intent to appear is required.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument will be permitted unless a “party notifies 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 notice of intent to appear is received.”  

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

ALLEGATIONS: 

Simone Rachal (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against Granville Management Group, Inc. (“Defendant”) alleging she was injured on Defendant’s property. Plaintiff’s alleges Defendant was aware of and failed to prevent a dangerous condition on the property which subsequently led to her injury.

Defendant now moves to compel further discovery responses to its Requests for Production (“RFPD”) and Interrogatories. Plaintiff opposes and Defendant has filed no reply.

The Court notes that Plaintiff submits no memorandum in opposition to either motion, as is customary per California Rules of Court Rule 8.54. Instead, Plaintiff submits two sets of declarations, each from her counsel Frank Canter. Plaintiff provides no explanation as to why two sets of declarations were filed from the same declarant and attesting to largely the same facts.

ANALYSIS: 

I.            LEGAL STANDARD 

Compel Further 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).) 

Compel Further Response to Interrogatory

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.)

Good Cause

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

Meet and Confer

Upon review, the Court finds the meet and confer requirements to have been satisfied. (Kwong Decl. ¶ 7.)

History

Defendant propounded discovery on Plaintiff on June 5, 2023. (Kwong Decl. ¶ 2.) Plaintiff thereafter granted four extensions to respond, with an ultimate due date of August 29, 2023. (Kwong Decl. ¶¶ 3-6.) Plaintiff served responses on September 5, 2023. (Kwong Decl. ¶ 7.) Defendant states that no further responses were served at the time this motion was filed on November 2, 2023. (Kwong Decl. ¶ 10.) Plaintiff’s counsel states that certain medical records were provided to Defendant after this motion was filed, though he does not specify when. (Canter Decl. ¶ 16.) Plaintiff’s counsel states these medical records were unrelated to the incident which is the gravamen of this case. (Id.)

Good Cause

The Court finds that Defendant has shown good cause to order further production as to each of her RFPD and Form Interrogatories. Each request concerns medical records, insurance information, and general information pertaining to the subject of the incident. These requests are obviously relevant to the determination of Plaintiff’s claims.

RFPD

Plaintiff seeks further responses to its RFPD Nos. 2, 3, 4, 9, 20 and 21.

RFPD Nos. 2-4 requests any and all documents related to medical treatment or medical expenses that were necessitated by this incident. Plaintiff replied that she did not have documents from Dr. Moshen Hamza (“Dr. Hamza”), whom she claims to have been treated by, or from her physical therapy location. (Exh. F, RFPD. Nos. 2-4.) Plaintiff further stated that she was working on obtaining these documents. (Id.)

RFPD No 9 requests all documents which support Plaintiff’s claim for general damages. Plaintiff responded that she was awaiting documentation from Dr. Hamza to support her claims. (Exh. F., RFPD No. 9.)

RFPD No. 20 requests all documents containing facts supporting Plaintiff’s contention that an act or omission of Defendant caused the incident. Plaintiff responded by attaching photographs of the accident scene. (Exh. F., RFPD No. 20.)

REPFD No. 21 requests all documents containing information supporting Plaintiff’s contention that Defendant’s violation of any statute or law was the cause of this incident. Plaintiff replied by recommending that Defendant review the Civil Code, case law, and jury instructions. (Exh. F., RFPD No. 21.)

Defendant maintains that each of these responses is either incomplete or evasive. Defendant argues that Dr. Hamza is the only treating physician claimed by Plaintiff, and no responsive documents have been produced despite Plaintiff’s statement that they would. Further, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s responses to RFPD Nos. 20 and 21 are evasive in that they are not actually responsive to the questions being asked. Defendant argues the photos of the accident scene do not indicate any facts as to Plaintiff’s contention that Defendant was negligent. Defendant similarly argues that Plaintiff’s response to RFPD No. 21 is a complete non-answer.

In opposition Plaintiff’s counsel states Plaintiff was initially unable to obtain the documents from her doctor or her physical therapy location. Plaintiff states her doctor simply refused to produce them. (First Canter Decl. ¶ 6.) Canter states that when he did receive medical records from Plaintiff, none of these documents concerned the incident in this case. (Second Canter Decl. ¶ 11.)

When Plaintiff’s counsel finally received the documents and was in the process of preparing the responses, his office was broken into, and his files were scattered. (First Canter Decl. ¶ 8.) Plaintiff’s counsel states it took him a month to return his office to order. (First Canter Decl. ¶ 9.) Plaintiff’s counsel then states his trust account was in some way defrauded, though he does not endeavor to explain how this caused a delay in discovery responses. (First Canter Decl. ¶ 10.)

The Court finds Plaintiff has failed to comply with her statement of intended compliance as to each request for production. If Plaintiff lacks responsive documents after diligent search, she must issue a response stating as much. None of the points raised in opposition provides a defense to Plaintiff’s non-production. Accordingly, the motion to compel further responses is GRANTED.

Form Interrogatories

Defendant seeks further responses to its Form Interrogatories Nos. 2.6, 4.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.7, 11.1, and 14.1.

Form Interrogatory No. 2.6 requests information regarding Plaintiff’s employment from five years prior to the time of the incident. Plaintiff replied that she was self-employed at 9200 Sunset Blvd., Penthouse Suite, West Hollywood, California in 2023 (Exh. F, Form Interrogatory No. 2.6.) Defendant moves to compel further response because Plaintiff did not specify the nature of her self-employment nor a date range other than a general reference to 2023. Plaintiff provides no argument as to this interrogatory in her opposition.

Form Interrogatory No. 4.1 requests Plaintiff’s insurance information. Plaintiff responded with general information that she was insured via Aetna Health PPO, but did not provide information as to the policy number or the limits of coverage. (Exh. F, Form Interrogatory No. 4.1.) Plaintiff provides no argument as to this interrogatory in her opposition. Plaintiff states the information regarding the health insurance plan was provided to Defendant after the filing of this motion. (Second Canter Decl. ¶ 24.)

Form Interrogatory No. 6.2 requests Plaintiff identify each injury she attributes to the incident and the are of her body its affects. Plaintiff responded by stating “Neck, head and back; swelling in the head in the back.” (Exh. F, Form Interrogatory No. 6.2.) Defendant argues further response must be compelled because this response does not identify any specific injury only the body parts affected. In opposition Plaintiff’s counsel states that answering the interrogatory is impossible without medical records attesting to the specific injuries. (Second Canter Decl. ¶ 20.)

Form Interrogatory No. 6.3 inquires if Plaintiff still has any complaints she attributes to the incident. Plaintiff replied that she has cluster migraines as well as pain in her neck and back. (Exh. F, Form Interrogatory No. 6.3.) Defendant argues that this response does not address questions (b)-(c) of whether the condition is subsiding/becoming worse and what the frequency/duration of the condition is. Plaintiff provides no argument as to this interrogatory in her opposition.

Form Interrogatory No. 6.4 requests the information of any health care provider Plaintiff saw in relation to the incident. Plaintiff identifies Dr. Hamza, though it appears this answer was mistakenly listed under Form Interrogatory No. 6.3. (Exh. F, Form Interrogatory No. 6.3) Plaintiff also identifies Burke Williams, a physical therapy location in Sherman Oaks. (Exh. F, Form Interrogatory No. 6.3). The Court finds the failure to reply to Form Interrogatory 6.4 was a labeling error and that Plaintiff did provide responsive information to this interrogatory.

Form Interrogatory No. 6.7 asks whether any medical provider has advised Plaintiff that she would require future medical treatment for injuries attributable to the incident. Plaintiff responded that Dr. Hamza indicated Plaintiff may need treatment in the future. (Exh. F, Form Interrogatory No. 6.7) Defendant argues this response is incomplete because it does not state the nature of the future treatment indicated. Plaintiff argues in opposition that she cannot make representations as to this potential future treatment because she has no medical records related to the incident from Dr. Hamza. (Second Canter Decl. ¶ 22.) The Court finds Plaintiff’s statement as rendered is incomplete, if Plaintiff lacks information to provide a compliant response she must state as much.

Form Interrogatory No. 11.1 requests Plaintiff list any claims or actions she filed for personal injury within the last 10 years. Plaintiff responded that she was the victim of a criminal attack in 2019 and was involved in a traffic accident in 2022. (Exh. F, Form Interrogatory No. 11.1) Defendant argues that this answer is unresponsive as it does not indicate whether Plaintiff filed any personal injury action in reference to either of these events. Plaintiff’s counsel states Plaintiff failed to provide him with any responsive information to this request. (Second Canter Decl. ¶ 23.)

Form Interrogatory No. 14.1 asks if Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s violation of any law or statute was the cause of Plaintiff’s alleged injury. Plaintiff responded that Defendant, “so negligently, recklessly, willfully and wantonly placed and used the partitions that were not properly secured which was the direct and proximate cause of the injuries to Plaintiff.” ( Exh. F, Form Interrogatory No. 14.1) Defendant argues this answer is nonresponsive by virtue of its failure to reference any statute or law Plaintiff claims to Defendant violated.

The Court finds that Defendant is entitled to further responses to its Form Interrogatories Nos. 2.6, 6.2, 6.3, 6.7, 11.1, and 14.1. Plaintiff has provided subsequent production regarding the insurance information requested in Form Interrogatory No. 4.1. Further, Plaintiff’s response to Form Interrogatory 6.4 was incorrectly included in her response to Form Interrogatory 6.3. As concerns the other Form Interrogatories, Plaintiff has either not provided complete answers or has provided answers which are completely non-responsive.

Accordingly, the motion to compel further response is GRANTED as to Form Interrogatories Nos. 2.6, 6.2, 6.3, 6.7, 11.1, and 14.1 and DENIED as to Form Interrogatories Nos. 4.1 and 6.4.

Sanctions

The court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a 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. (C.C.P. § 2033.290(d), C.C.P. §¿2030.300(d).) Further, it is customary to grant sanctions where a party has filed a motion to compel and the other party fails to file an opposition. (California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348(a).) 

The Court finds Plaintiff’s opposition is without substantial justification. Plaintiff’s opposition is comprised entirely of the declaration of her counsel attesting that Plaintiff has not provided him with the information required to respond to discovery. Plaintiff’s opposition contains no substantive argument as to why further responses should not be compelled.

As such, the Court awards sanctions in the amount of $ 912.00. This amount reflects four hours of attorney work at a rate of $213/hour and the $60 filing fee. (Kwong Decl. ¶ 12.) The Court finds this amount reasonable given the similarity of the two motions filed. Defendant’s estimated two hours in preparing a reply are not accounted for as they filed no reply. Sanctions are awarded against Plaintiff.

--- 

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 

Granville Management Group Inc.’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents came on regularly for hearing on December 15, 2023, 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 FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS IS GRANTED.

THE MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S FORM INTERROGATORIES IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

THE MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES IS GRANTED AS TO FORM INTERROGATORY NOS. 2.6, 6.2, 6.3, 6.7, 11.1, AND 14.1.  

THE MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES IS DENIED AS TO FORM INTERROGATORY NOS. NOS. 4.1 AND 6.4.

SANCTIONS ARE GRANTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $912.00 PLAINTIFF COUNSEL.

FURTHER RESPONSES ARE DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS.

SANCTIONS MUST BE PAID WITHIN 30 DAYS.

UNLESS ALL PARTIES WAIVE NOTICE, DEFENDANT TO GIVE NOTICE.  

IT IS SO ORDERED.  

DATE: December 15, 2023                           _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles