Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 24CHCV00030, Date: 2025-02-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24CHCV00030    Hearing Date: February 3, 2025    Dept: F43

Dept. F43

Date: 02-03-25

Case # 24CHCV00030, Medellin v. Providence Holy Cross Medical Center, et al.

Trial Date: 03-02-26

MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Tarek Bittar, M.D.

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Edgar Medellin

RELIEF REQUESTED

Order compelling Plaintiff to provide complete and verified responses to Defendant’s Requests for Production, Special Interrogatories, and Form Interrogatories, and $1,680.00 in sanctions.

RULING: The motions are moot. The Court awards $930.00 in sanctions.

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiff Edgar Medellin (Plaintiff) filed this medical malpractice suit against defendants Providence Holy Cross Medical Center, Providence Health System Southern California, and Tarek Bittar, M.D. (Defendant) on January 4, 2024.  Plaintiff alleges defendants failed to properly treat injuries Plaintiff sustained in a motor vehicle collision.

On March 21, 2024, Defendant propounded his Demand for Production and Inspection of Documents (RFPs), Special Interrogatories, Set One (SROGs), and Form Interrogatories, Set One (FROGs), on Plaintiff on March 21, 2024.  Responses were due April 23, 2024.  Defendant granted three deadline extensions, but no responses were served as of October 29, 2024.

Defendant filed motions to compel responses to RFPs, SROGs, and FROGs on October 29, 2024.  Plaintiff filed an omnibus opposition on January 21, 2025.  Defendant replied on January 27, 2024.

MEET AND CONFER

A motion to compel interrogatory responses must include a declaration stating facts showing a “reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve the issues mentioned in the motion before filing.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (b)(1), 2016.040.)

On May 31, 2024, Defendant’s counsel of record Bradley C. Clark, Esq., emailed Plaintiff’s counsel inquiring about discovery responses and granted a deadline extension to June 14, 2024.  (Declaration of Bradley C. Clark, Esq., ¶ 5, Exh. B, at p. 2.)  No responses were served by this deadline.

On September 9, 2024, Defendant’s counsel emailed Plaintiff’s counsel inquiring about responses and granted a second deadline extension to September 23, 2024.  (Clark Dec., ¶ 5, Exh. B, at p. 2.)  After not receiving responses by the deadline extension, counsel again exchanged emails on October 9, 2024.  (Clark Dec., ¶ 6, Exh. C.)  During these emails, Plaintiff’s counsel revealed the delay was caused by lead counsel leaving the law firm.  (Clark Dec., Exh. B, at p. 1.)  Defendant granted a third and final extension to October 18, 2024.  (Clark Dec., ¶ 6.)  No responses were served by this date.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Defendant argues the Court should grant his motions and impose sanctions because Plaintiff does not provide a substantial justification for not providing responses by the deadline extensions.  Defendant has attempted to resolve the discovery issues informally.

Plaintiff opposes claiming these motions are moot because Plaintiff served responses to all Defendant’s discovery requests on January 3, 2025 and served verifications on January 13, 2025.  (Declaration of Erik Harper, ¶¶ 6-7.)  The delay in serving responses was caused by staff changes at counsel’s law firm.  The original lead attorney on this case left the firm, and current counsel was assigned to the case in August 2024.  Defendant has not stated the responses are insufficient and refuses to take the motions off calendar.  The Court should not impose sanctions because Plaintiff’s late responses were unintentional.

In reply, Defendant states the motions are not moot and that he is entitled to sanctions.  Without these motions, Plaintiff would never have served responses.  Further, Defendant’s counsel informed Plaintiff’s counsel the responses were deficient, and counsel requested amended and verified answers.  (Reply Declaration of Bradley C. Clark, ¶ 3, Exh. A, at p. 2.)  No amended responses have been received. 

ANALYSIS

A demanding party may move to compel responses to requests for production where the responding party fails to provide any responses.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.300, subd. (b), 2030.290, subd. (b).)  The demanding party must show the requests were properly served, that the time to respond expired, and no response has been served.  (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403-404.)  The responding party must respond separately to each demand by agreeing to comply, stating an inability to comply, or objecting to all or part of the demand.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210, subd. (a).)  The responding party must serve responses within 30 days after the requests for production are served or according to an agreed upon deadline extension.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd. (a)(1)-(3).)

A propounding party may move to compel responses to form interrogatories and special interrogatories where the responding party fails to provide any responses.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).)  The propounding party must show the interrogatories were properly served, that the time to respond expired, and no response has been served.  (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.)  The responding party must serve responses within 30 days after the interrogatories are served or according to an agreed upon deadline extension.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.270.)  Failing to respond within these time limits waives objections.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)

Defendant has shown that he properly served Plaintiff on March 21, 2024.  Plaintiff did not serve responses or responsive documents by the original deadline or any of Defendant’s subsequent deadline extensions, even after Defendant granted another extension following Plaintiff’s explanation about changing counsel.

However, because both parties acknowledge that responses were served on January 3, 2025, these motions are moot.  Defendant may address his issues with Plaintiff’s responses in motions to compel further responses.

Sanctions

Defendant requests $560.00 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and counsel of record for each of his motions ($1,680.00 total).  (Clark Dec., ¶ 8.)  Counsel’s hourly rate is $250.00.  (Ibid.)  The sanctions amount includes (1) 2 hours reviewing and preparing necessary correspondence, research, and drafting each motion - $500.00 and (2) a $60.00 filing fee for each motion.  (Ibid.)  Plaintiff opposes because he has served answers, and the delay in serving answers was not intentional but caused by internal staff changes at Plaintiff’s counsel’s firm.

The Court may impose sanctions against any party who “unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel responses to [inspection demands] 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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).)  “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of the party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though . . . the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).) 

Although Plaintiff served discovery responses on January 3, 2025, the Court still awards sanctions because Plaintiff’s responses were not served until three months after this motion was filed.  Plaintiff’s staffing change does not explain why Plaintiff did not serve responses by October 18th, almost two months after Plaintiff’s new counsel was assigned to Plaintiff’s case.  (See Masimo Corp. v. The Vanderpool Law Firm, Inc. (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 902, 909 fn. 9 [“[F]orcing a party to resort to the court to get discovery is . . . sanctionable behavior.”].)

The Court finds the hourly rate reasonable.  However, because each motion is virtually identical, the Court reduces the sanctions amount for drafting the motions to 1 hour for each motion.

Accordingly, the Court grants awards sanctions in the total reduced amount of  $930.00 ($310.00 per motion): (1) 3 hours for drafting all three motions and preparing a correspondence - $750.00; and (2) $180.00 for the three $60.00 filing fees.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendant Tarek Bittar, M.D.’s motion to compel responses to his Requests for Production is moot.

1.  Plaintiff Edgar Medellin and his counsel of record are ordered to pay Defendant Tarek Bittar, M.D. $930.00 in monetary sanctions.  Plaintiff and his counsel are ordered to pay these sanctions to Defendant Tarek Bittar M.D.’s counsel within twenty (20) days of the date of this order.

Defendant Tarek Bittar M.D. to give notice.