Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 22STCV07502, Date: 2023-02-01 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV07502 Hearing Date: February 1, 2023 Dept: X
Tentative Ruling
Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X
HEARING DATE: February 1, 2023 TRIAL DATE: No date set.
CASE: RADIK KHACHATRYAN, an individual, v. ADVENTIST HEALTH GLENDALE A CA HOSPITAL OR ADVENTIST HEALTH, et al; DOCTOR SAM F DANESHVARI’s administrative team, a medical office in LA, California; and DOES 1 through 25.
CASE NOS.: 22STCV07179 (lead case); 22STCV07502 (related case)
DISCOVERY MOTIONS
MOVING PARTY: Defendant Glendale Adventist Medical Center dba Adventist Health Glendale and Sam D. Daneshvari, M.D.
RESPONDING PARTY: No response filed.
SERVICE: Adventist Health Glendale’s motions filed September 28, 2022
Dr. Daneshvari’s motions filed November 15, 2022 and November 17, 2022
RELIEF REQUESTED
Defendants separately move for an order compelling a response to their discovery requests and for an order deeming the truth of the matters asserted in their requests for admissions admitted.
BACKGROUND
This case arises out of Plaintiff Radik Khachatryan’s (“Plaintiff”) claim for medical malpractice against Glendale Adventist Medical Center (“AHG”) and Dr. Daneshvari. Plaintiff alleges that his mother, Sesil Aleksanyan, was admitted to AGH in February 2021, after contracting COVID-19. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to properly provide his mother with the food necessary to meet her special diet and prevented him from seeing his mother. Plaintiff alleges that based on Defendants’ negligent care, his mother passed away while admitted to AGH.
Plaintiff has filed two separate cases regarding the same underlying facts. The first case – case number 22STCV07179 (“lead case”) – was filed on February 28, 2022, with a first amended complaint filed on August 19, 2022. The second case – case number 22STCV07502 (“related case”) was filed on February 25, 2022, with a first amended complaint filed on October 17, 2022. Both actions involve the same Plaintiff and the same Defendants.
TENTATIVE RULING
AGH’s motion to compel a response to its requests to produce documents, special interrogatories, and form interrogatories is GRANTED.
Dr. Daneshvari’s motion to compel a response to his requests to produce documents, special interrogatories, and form interrogatories is GRANTED.
AGH’s motion to deem the truth of the matter asserted in its RFA’s admitted is GRANTED.
Dr. Daneshvari’s motion to deem the truth of the matter asserted in his RFA’s admitted is GRANTED.
Plaintiff is ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $250
LEGAL STANDARD
If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling a response to the interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc. section 2030.290, subd. (b).) The same applies to a party that fails to respond to a request for document production. (Code Civ. Proc. section 2031.300, subd. (b).)
Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (b), provides that if a party fails to respond to a request for admission, “[t]he requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted”.
DISCUSSION
The motions at issue involve two separate sets of discovery requests served on Plaintiff by AGH and Dr. Daneshvari.
On or about July 12, 2022, AGH served requests for the production of documents, special interrogatories, form interrogatories, and requests for admissions. (Martino Decl. ¶ 3.) AGH provides that after various extensions, AGH requested that Plaintiff provide responses by September 26, 2022. (Id. ¶ 11.)
Dr. Daneshvari served Plaintiff with his requests for the production of documents, special interrogatories, form interrogatories, and requests for admissions. (Sulentor Decl. ¶ 3.) Plaintiff has failed to respond to Dr. Daneshvari’s discovery requests. (Id. ¶ 9.)
Both Defendants have established that they served Plaintiff with discovery requests, but Plaintiff failed to respond. Defendants’ motions to compel a discovery response are granted. Defendants’ motions to deem the truth of the matters asserted in their requests for admissions admitted is granted.
Sanctions
Dr. Daneshvari requests sanctions for the present motions; AGH moves no such request. However, Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (c), provides that “[i]t is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanctions . . . on the party or attorney or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.”
Here, because Plaintiff’s actions mandated the present motions and sanctions are mandatory for the motions to deem admitted, Plaintiff is ordered to pay $250 to Dr. Daneshvari.
CONCLUSION
AGH’s motion to compel a response to its requests to produce documents, special interrogatories, and form interrogatories is GRANTED.
Dr. Daneshvari’s motion to compel a response to his requests to produce documents, special interrogatories, and form interrogatories is GRANTED.
AGH’s motion to deem the truth of the matter asserted in its RFA’s admitted is GRANTED.
Dr. Daneshvari’s motion to deem the truth of the matter asserted in his RFA’s admitted is GRANTED.
Plaintiff is ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $250 to Dr. Daneshvari within 30 days of notice of this ruling.
Dated: February 1, 2023 ___________________________________
Joel L. Lofton
Judge of the Superior Court
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court indicating their
intention to submit. Parties intending to appear are strongly encouraged to appear remotely. alhdeptx@lacourt.org