Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 21STCV27254, Date: 2024-01-26 Tentative Ruling
IMPORTANT
Communicating with the Court Staff re the Tentative Ruling
1. Please notify the courtroom staff by email not later than 3:30 p.m. on the day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion. The email address is BurDeptB@lacourt.org.
2. If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify the other side whether you will or will not appear at the hearing. You must include the other parties on the email by "cc."
3. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the Subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions.
4. Include the words "SUBMISSION BUT WILL APPEAR" if you submit but one or both parties will nevertheless appear.
5. PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT ALL COMMUNICATIONS WITH COURT STAFF DEAL ONLY WITH SCHEDULING AND ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS AND DO NOT DISCUSS THE MERITS OF ANY CASE.
Case Number: 21STCV27254 Hearing Date: January 26, 2024 Dept: B
MOTIONS
TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
Los Angeles Superior Court
Case # 21STCV27254
|
MP: |
Beverly Hills New Life Medical Group,
LLC (Defendant) |
|
RP: |
None |
The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) notice of intent to appear is required. Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument will be permitted unless a “party notifies all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue. The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no notice of intent to appear is received.”
Notice
may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818)
260-8412.
ALLEGATIONS:
Yuqin Liu (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against Beverly Hills New Life Medical Group, LLC (“Defendant”). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant negligently administered derma filler injections which resulted in personal injury.
Before the Court are two motions brought by Defendant. Defendant moves to compel further responses to its Form Interrogatories Set One and Special Interrogatories Set One. Plaintiff has filed no opposition to these motions.
ANALYSIS:
I.
LEGAL
STANDARD
On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that the responses contain: (1) answers that are evasive or incomplete, (2)¿an unwarranted or insufficiently specific exercise of an option to produce documents in lieu of a substantive response, or (3) unmerited or overly generalized objections. (C.C.P. §¿2030.300(a).) The responding party has the burden of justifying the objections thereto. (Coy v. Sup.Ct. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-21.)
II.
MERITS
Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff’s further response to its Form Interrogatories Set One and Special Interrogatories Set One. Upon review, the Court finds the meet and confer efforts sufficient. (Palin Decl. ¶ 13, Exh. 3.)
Defendant propounded its interrogatories on Plaintiff on August 7, 2023. (Palin Decl. ¶ 2.) Plaintiff thereafter requested, and Defendant’s counsel granted, an extension to reply to September 15, 2023. (Plain Decl. ¶ 5.) Further extension was requested to allow Plaintiff’s new counsel, Peter Deng (“Deng”), to appear in the matter. (Palin Decl. ¶ 6.) Defendant emailed all outstanding discovery requests to Deng on September 16, 2023 and emailed a reminder that responses were due on September 29, 2023. (Palin Decl. ¶¶ 7-8.) Having received no responses, Defendant filed a motion to compel scheduled to be heard November 16, 2023. (Palin Decl. ¶ 11.) Plaintiff served her responses to both Form and Special Interrogatories on October 23, 2023. (Palin Decl. ¶ 12.)
Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s responses to both interrogatories contain improper objections. Defendant argues that, per C.C.P. § 2030.290 (a), Plaintiff waived objections by failure to render timely responses. Accordingly, Defendant argues Plaintiff’s objections to various Form and Special Interrogatories are improper. (See Form Interrogatory Nos. 2.3-2.8, 2.13-2.14, 6.2, 7.1-7.3, 11.1-12.7; Special Interrogatory Nos. 3-50.)
Defendant further argues that several of the Form Interrogatory responses are incomplete because Plaintiff has failed to fully identify where she lived in contravention of her deposition testimony. (Palin Decl. ¶ 15.) Defendant also states that many of the responses contain nonsensical responses referencing a slip and fall accident which is not the subject of this case. (See Form Interrogatory Nos. 6.3, 12.1, 20.1) Further, while Plaintiff’s response to Form Interrogatories Nos. 6.2, 6.4-6.7, and 12.6 state Plaintiff’s medical records are attached as Exhibit 1, no such records were attached. (Palin Decl. Exh. 2.) Similarly, Plaintiff references Exhibit 2 in her response to Form Interrogatory No. 12.4 but no such exhibit was attached. (Palin Decl. Exh. 2.)
The Court notes that Plaintiff has filed no opposition to this motion. A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion. (C.R.C. Rule 8.54(c).) Further, on a motion to compel further response Plaintiff has the burden to justify her objections thereto. Here, Plaintiff has failed to oppose this motion and failed to justify her objections.
Given the foregoing,
Defendant’s unopposed motions to compel further responses to its Form
Interrogatories Set One and Special Interrogatories Set One are GRANTED.
Sanctions
As concerns motions to compel, the law only requires sanctions in the event that a party unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further responses. (C.C.P. § 2033.290(d), C.C.P. §¿2030.300(d).) As such, any monetary sanctions granted are within the discretionary power of the Court as per C.C.P. § 2030.290. As per C.C.P. § 2023.010(d), failure to respond constitutes a misuse of the discovery process. Additionally, it is customary to grant sanctions where a party has filed a motion to compel, and the other party fails to file an opposition. (C.R.C. Rule 3.1348(a).)
Here, Defendant has filed two motions to compel further responses, neither of which were opposed by Plaintiff. Given the relative simplicity of the motions and their similar nature, the Court considers sanctions collectively rather than with respect to each motion.
The Court awards sanctions in the amount of $859. This amount reflects 3.4 hours of attorney work at a rate of $235 per hour, plus the $60 filing fee. (Mantovani Decl. ¶¶ 2-4.) This amount does not include the anticipated time in reviewing the opposition and replying, as each motion was unopposed. This amount also does not include the $15 LA CourtConnect fee as Defendant’s counsel is not obligated to appear remotely.---
RULING:
In the
event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed
order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the
following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and
entered into the court’s records.
ORDER
Beverly Hills New
Life Medical Group, LLC’s Motion to Compel Further Responses came on regularly for hearing on January 26, 2024, with
appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the
court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as
follows:
DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTEROGATORIES AND SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES SET ONE IS GRANTED. FURTHER PRODUCTION IS DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS.
THE COURT
AWARD SANCTIONS AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF IN THE AMOUNT OF $859 WHICH SHALL BE PAID
TO DEFENDANT WITHIN 30 DAYS.
BEVERLY HILLS
NEW LIFE MEDICAL GROUP, LLC TO GIVE NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF, PLAINTIFF TO GIVE
NOTICE TO ALL OTHER PARTIES.
IT IS SO
ORDERED.
DATE: January
26, 2024 _______________________________
Yolanda Orozco,
Judge
Superior Court of California
County of
Los Angeles