Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 23BBCV01035, Date: 2024-03-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV01035    Hearing Date: March 22, 2024    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY 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: 

Gibraltar Convalescent Hospital (Plaintiff) brings this action against Lucille Mary Schermerhorn (Defendant). Plaintiff alleges Defendant owes approximately $153,742.24 for skilled nursing care that was rendered to Defendant’s late husband (Decedent).

Before the Court are four motions to compel further discovery responses brought by Defendant. Defendant seeks to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to each of their Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents (RFPD), and Request for Admissions (RFA). Defendant has rendered no opposition.

ANALYSIS: 

I.            LEGAL STANDARD 

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories

After receiving responses to interrogatories, the propounding party may seek an order compelling further responses if 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 RFPD

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.) 

Motion to Compel Further Responses on RFA

On receipt of a response to requests for admission, the party requesting admissions may move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems that either or both of the following apply: (1) an answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete or (2) an objection to a particular request is without merit or too general. (C.C.P. § 2033.290(a).)

II.            MERITS

Discovery Timeline

On November 3, 2023, Plaintiff propounded all discovery via mail service on Defendant’s counsel. (Wilson Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. A.) On December 1, 2023, Plaintiff granted Defendant’s counsel an extension on responses to December 18. (Wilson Decl. ¶ 5, Exh. B.) On December 20, 2023, Defendant rendered replies to each discovery request. (Wilson Decl. ¶ 6, Exh. C.) Verification of these responses was not received until December 27 as it was mailed separately. (Wilson Decl. ¶ 9, Exh. E.) Plaintiff’s counsel has attempted to meet and confer with Defendant’s counsel regarding the inadequacy of the responses but has received no reply. (Wilson Decl. ¶¶ 8, 10, Exh. D.)

Form Interrogatories

Plaintiff seeks further responses to its Form Interrogatories Nos. 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 15.1, 17.1, 50.1, 50.1, 50.1, 50.1, 50.1, 50.2, 50.3, 50.4, 50.5, and 50.6. For the majority of these Form Interrogatories, Defendant responded simply “Objection Irrelevant”. (See Mot. Exh. C.) Some of the Form Interrogatories are objected to instead on the basis of work product privilege or as unduly burdensome. (See FROG Nos. 15.1 & 17.1) Neither the work product nor the unduly burdensome objections are accompanied by an explanation. Plaintiff asserts that these objections are without merit. By virtue of failing to oppose the motion, Defendant has provided no argument to the contrary. As such, Defendant has failed to carry her burden of justifying the objections.

Accordingly, the motion to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories is GRANTED.

Special Interrogatories

Plaintiff seeks further responses to its Special Interrogatories Nos. 1.1-5. As with Defendant’s responses to Form Interrogatories, these responses consist entirely of objections. Plaintiff objects on grounds of privacy (SPROG No. 1), overbroad and unduly burdensome (SPROG Nos. 2-3), and that the requests are premature (SPROG Nos. 4-5). None of these objections are accompanied by an explanation and Defendant has rendered no opposition. As such, Defendant has failed to carry her burden of justifying the objections. Failure to file an opposition to the motion indicates the other parties' acquiescence that the motion is meritorious. CRC Rule 8.54(c).

Accordingly, the motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories is GRANTED.

RFPD

Plaintiff seeks further responses to its RFPD Nos. 3-9. The Court finds good cause for further production. Each of the documents requested is directly related to this litigation. The documents in question are Medi-Cal applications, correspondence between the parties, and any documents that support Defendant’s contention that the debt was paid in full. Defendant rendered objection only responses to these RFPD, objection on grounds of privacy concerns of Plaintiff or Decedent. None of these objections are accompanied by an explanation and Defendant has rendered no opposition. As such, Defendant has failed to carry her burden of justifying the objections.  As stated above, failure to file an opposition to the motion indicates the other parties' acquiescence that the motion is meritorious. CRC Rule 8.54(c).

Accordingly, the motion to compel further responses to RFPD is GRANTED.

RFA

Plaintiff seeks further responses to its RFA Nos. 1-28. Defendant rendered objection only responses to these RFA, objection on grounds of privacy concerns of Plaintiff or Decedent. Each objection was accompanied by the following statement:

without waiving the objection answering party lacks information and belief sufficient to determine the truth or falsity of the request despite a reasonable inquiry into the matter and therefore denies

Plaintiff argues that C.C.P. § 2033.220 allows a responding party to either deny an RFA or state an inability to deny, but it does not allow a party to do both. The Court agrees that Defendant’s response is incomplete by virtue of both stating an inability to respond and yet responding regardless. Additionally, Defendant has rendered no opposition in defense of her objections. Failure to file an opposition to the motion indicates the other parties' acquiescence that the motion is meritorious. CRC Rule 8.54(c).

Accordingly, the motion to compel further responses to RFA is 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. As per C.C.P. § 2023.010(d), failure to respond constitutes a misuse of the discovery process. 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, Plaintiff has submitted four motions to compel further responses while Defendant has provided no response. As such, the Court awards sanctions in the amount of $1,018.50. This amount reflects 2.7 hours of attorney work in preparing this motion at a rate of $355 per hour, plus the $60 filing fee. (Alami Decl. ¶ 9.)  This amount does not include the time spent preparing a reply, as no opposition was filed, nor time required to appear for argument as no argument was requested and the motions were unopposed. The Court finds this amount of sanctions appropriate to compensate for the cost of all four motions, given their relative lack of complexity and similar nature.  

--- 

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 

Gibraltar Convalescent Hospital’s Motion to Compel Further Responses came on regularly for hearing on March 22, 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 FURTHER PRODUCTION TO FORM INTERROGATORIES NOS. 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 15.1, 17.1, 50.1, 50.1, 50.1, 50.1, 50.1, 50.2, 50.3, 50.4, 50.5, and 50.6 IS GRANTED.

THE MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES NOS. 1.1-5 IS GRANTED.

THE MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO RFPD NOS. 3-9 IS GRANTED.

THE MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO RFA NOS. 1-28 IS GRANTED.

FURTHER PRODUCTION IS ORDERED TO OCCUR WITHIN 30 DAYS.

SANCTIONS ARE AWARDED FOR PLAINTIFF AS AGAINST DEFENDANT AND DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,018.50.  SANCTIONS ARE PAYABLE WITHIN 30 DAYS.

THE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR MARCH 22, 2024, IS CONTINUED TO JUNE 27, 2024 AT 9:00 AM.

UNLESS ALL PARTIES WAIVE NOTICE, PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.  

DATE: March 22, 2024                            _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles