Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse

August 16, 2022

19STCV43794 

Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set One) filed by Defendants Shahrouz Dadfarin and Byung Cheol Yoo

 

The motion is granted.

Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses without objections to Defendants’ Request for Production of Documents (Set One) within 30 days after the date of this order.

Moving party is ordered to provide notice and to file proof of service of such notice within five court days after the date of this order.

The present case arises from the following facts and circumstances.  On December 7, 2018, Julian Harding (“Plaintiff”) presented to the Emergency Department at Cha Hollywood Medical Center (“Defendant CHMC”) and was seen by Shahrouz Dadfarin, M.D. (“Defendant Dadfarin”) and Byung Cheol Yoo, N.P. (“Defendant Yoo”).  Plaintiff complained of extremity weakness, numbness, and difficulty with ambulation.  Defendant Dadfarin and Defendant Cheol diagnosed Plaintiff with musculoskeletal pain, and discharged Plaintiff.  Over a month later, Plaintiff present to Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, and was diagnosed with an intracranial dural arteriovenous fistula with perimedullary spinal venous drainage, and underwent an angiography and embolization. Plaintiff alleges Defendant Dadfarin and Defendant Yoo negligently cared and treated Plaintiff when a patient at Defendant CHMC and caused Plaintiff’s medical condition to not be timely diagnosed and treated. 

 

On December 5, 2019, Plaintiff initiated the present action by filing a Complaint against Defendant CHMC, Defendant Dadfarin, Defendant Yoo, and Does 1 through 100. Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges a single cause of action for “Negligence”. 

 

On March 10, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel was relieved as counsel of record for Plaintiff. Plaintiff is presently representing himself. 

 

On July 12, 2022, Defendants Shahrouz Dadfarin and Byung Cheol Yoo filed the instant motion to compel responses to their requests for production from Plaintiff.

Moving Defendants served Request for Production of Documents (Set One) in September 2021. To date, no response has been served.

None.

Where there has been no timely response to a demand for the production of documents, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (b).) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300, subd. (a).) Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded. There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses and the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion. 

Moving Defendants seek to compel responses to their Request for Production of Documents (Set One) from Plaintiff.

Here, Moving Defendants are entitled to orders compelling Plaintiff’s responses to RFPs. Moving Defendants’ request is supported by a declaration from their counsel. Defendants propounded their Request for Production on September 15, 2021 with responses due on October 18, 2021. (Schofield Decl., ¶ 2, Exhibit A.) On January 25, 2022, Moving Defendants granted Plaintiff an extension to respond to March 24, 2022. (Schofield Decl., ¶ 3.) Plaintiff has been pro se since February 25, 2022. On March 4, 2022, Moving Defendants advised Plaintiff of the deadline of March 24, 2022. (Schofield Decl., ¶ 5, Exhibit B.) On April 4, 2022, Moving Defendants provided Plaintiff another extension, until April 18, 2022. . (Schofield Decl., ¶ 6, Exhibit C.) Moving Defendants have not received any response to their letters, nor have they received any responses to their discovery requests. (Id., ¶7.) Accordingly, Moving Defendants’ motion to compel responses to RFPs is granted.