Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 20STCV42444, Date: 2023-03-02 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV42444 Hearing Date: March 2, 2023 Dept: 61
Plaintiff
Gergis R. Ghobrial’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for
Production, Sets One, Two, and Three from Defendant Long Beach Memorial Medical
Center is DENIED..
Defendant to give notice.
I.
MOTIONS
TO COMPEL FURTHER
“Any party may obtain discovery . . . by propounding to any other party to
the action written interrogatories to be answered under oath.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.010(a).) If a
propounding party is not satisfied with the response served by a responding
party, the former may move the court to compel further interrogatory
responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300;
Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v.
Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.) The propounding party must demonstrate that the
responses were incomplete, inadequate or evasive, or that the responding party
asserted objections that are either without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300(a)(1)–(3); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 403.)
“A propounding party may demand a responding
party to produce documents that are in their possession, custody or control.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.010.) A party may likewise conduct discovery by
propounding interrogatories to another party to be answered under oath. (Code
Civ. Proc. § 2030.010, subd. (a).) The responding party must respond to the
production demand either by complying, by representing that the party lacks the
ability to comply, or by objecting to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210.)
The responding party must respond to the interrogatories by answering or
objecting. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.210, subd. (a).) If the responding party
fails to serve timely responses, the propounding party may move for an order
compelling responses to the production demand and interrogatories. (Code Civ.
Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300.)
Plaintiff Gergis Ghobrial (Plaintiff) here
seeks further responses to Requests for Production, Sets One through Three, No.
1–6, 8–27, 31–34, 47, 50–59, 61–90, and 92–103 served upon Defendant Long Beach
Memorial Medical Center (LBMMC). Plaintiff argues that Defendant has responded
to these requests solely with unmeritorious objections.
This motion fails for a number of reasons,
first and foremost being Plaintiff’s mischaracterization of Defendant LBMMC’s discovery
responses. Plaintiff provides what purports to be a separate statement under
Rule 3.1345 of the Rules of Court, but which does not provide the “full request
and the full response” for each of the 80 requests at issue. (CRC Rule 3.1345,
subd. (c).) Plaintiff instead offers a list of the requests, then states that
Defendant responded only with an identical block of objections. (Motion at p.
18.) This would perhaps be sufficient if Defendant had actually responded to
each request with a boilerplate set of objections, but review of Defendant’s
actual responses at issue shows that they in almost every case differed from Plaintiff’s
model response in important ways. Defendant’s responses included objections to
the phrasing of the particular requests (See, e.g., Request No. 1, 10),
objections to the request’s reliance on interrogatories which were also subject
to objections (See Request No. 47), statements of inability to comply (See
Request No. 102 and 103), or, in many cases, statements of partial
compliance. (See Requests No. 14, 16–19, 25, 31, 32, 34, 50, 51, 57, 62,
63, 66, 77, 80–82, 84–90, and 92; Motion Exh. B.) Plaintiff’s motion thus
mischaracterizes the responses that he received, offers no consistent rationale
for the deficiency of any particular response, and states no good cause to
support an order that any further response be provided.
In this respect, Plaintiff’s motion mimics
the meet-and-confer efforts that preceded it. While Plaintiff was represented
by counsel in this action, the parties appear to have conducted thoughtful exchanges
of discovery, including discussions of Defendant’s objections (See Opposition
Exh. K) as well as offers to narrow the scope of documents to be produced. (See
Motion Exh. C at pp. 28–31.) Once Plaintiff’s counsel substituted out of
the case, however, Plaintiff’s correspondence simply declared Defendant’s
responses full of unspecified “deficiencies” and demanded supplemental
production pursuant to an unspecified “agreement” with Plaintiff’s ex-counsel.
(Motion Exh. C at p. 18.) When Defendant invited further conference on what
Plaintiff sought, he provided a list of the requests he deemed deficient, with
no elaboration as to why. (Motion Exh. C at pp. 5–6.) This meet-and-confer
effort was insufficient, and provides a further basis for denying the present
motion.
The motion to compel further is DENIED.