Judge: Jill Feeney, Case: 20STCV02388, Date: 2023-04-05 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV02388 Hearing Date: April 5, 2023 Dept: 30
Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse
April 5, 2023
20STCV02388
Motions to Compel Compliance with Court Order filed by Defendant Kris Kim
DECISION
Both motions are denied.
Sanctions in the amount of $4,120 payable to DOCs is imposed jointly and severally on Defendant Kris Kim and Defendant’s counsel of record. Sanctions are payable within five court days after the date of this order.
Moving party to provide notice.
Summary
Moving Arguments
Defendant seeks to compel the billing person most knowledgeable (“billing PMK”) from Plaintiff’s medical providers, DOCS Surgical Hospital (“DOCS”) and GRS Funding (“GRS”) to comply with the Court’s January 20, 2023 order to appear for further deposition and produce further documents. Defendant also argues that she obtained documents that have never been produced showing that the lien for Plaintiff’s surgery was sold/agreed to before the surgery actually occurred.
Opposing Arguments
GRS and DOCS both argue that they did comply with the Court’s order and that Defendant seeks information which is beyond the scope of the Court’s order.
Reply Arguments
Defendant argues information about whether Plaintiff’s medical bills were prenegotiated by her medical insurers is relevant to whether Defendant can exclude the amount Plaintiff was billed for medical expenses.
Legal Standard
“If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document, electronically stored information,¿or tangible thing under the deponent's control that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production.” (Code Civ. Proc., section 2025.480(a); see Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1015 n. 3 [the only proper basis to instruct a deponent to not answer a question is an objection based upon a privilege or manifestly irrelevant questions or questions designed only to harass.]) “If the court determines that the answer or production sought is subject to discovery, it shall order that the answer be given or the production be made on the resumption of the deposition.” (Code Civ. Proc., section 2025.480(i).)¿Failure to obey an order may be considered contempt of court and could subject a party to the action to issue, evidentiary, or terminating sanctions as well as monetary sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., section 2025.480(k).) “This motion shall be made no later than 60 days after the completion of the record of the deposition, and shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration.”¿(Code Civ. Proc., section 2025.480(b).)
Notice of motions to compel answers must be personally served on nonparty deponents unless the nonparty deponent agrees to accept service by mail or electronic notice. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1346.) A certified copy of the deposition transcript must be lodged with the Court at least 5 days before the hearing on the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., section 2025.480, subd. (h). The motion must be supported by a separate statement and a declaration. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, subd. (a) and (c).)
Any matter that is relevant to the subject matter and not privileged is discoverable if it is itself admissible or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Code Civ. Proc., section 2017.010.) A party’s contention may be the subject of discovery, but not the legal reasoning or theory behind the contention. (Sav-On Drugs, Inc. v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 1, 2.) Although the opinion and conclusion of a witness or party may serve no useful purpose and may be inadmissible, in the absence of other factors, it would be improper to deny the right to disclosure. (Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court In and For Merced County (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 393.)
The Court shall impose sanctions on the party that unsuccessfully makes or opposes the motion unless it finds that the losing party acted with substantial justification or other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., section 2025.450, subd. (g)(1), 2025.480, subd. (j).
Discussion
On January 20, 2023, the Court ordered Plaintiff’s medical providers to appear for deposition and produce documents establishing (1) the date Plaintiff’s lien was sold, (2) the amount paid for the lien by GRS, and (3) any provision of the agreement indicating whether or not Plaintiff is still liable for the full amount of the lien.
Defendant’s separate statements show that Defendant sought additional information, including why documents were not produced earlier, information about negotiations over the lien purchase price, whether the providers produced all documents that comply with the Court’s order, and why the providers did not produce documents signed by both providers.
The evidence shows that DOCS and GRS complied with the Court’s January 20, 2023 order. Defendant seeks information that exceeds the scope of the Court’s order. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is denied.
With respect to sanctions, sanctions are mandatory against any party that unsuccessfully makes a motion to compel further answers at deposition under Code Civ. Proc., section 2025.480, subd. (j). Here, Defendant’s motion was unsuccessful. DOCS requests $8,652 in sanctions for 16.8 hours of attorney time at a rate of $515 per hour. (Fleming Decl., ¶17.) However, this demand is excessive. The Court awards DOCS $4,120 in sanctions for 8 hours of attorney time. GRS did not request sanctions.
