Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 24STCV03690, Date: 2025-04-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV03690    Hearing Date: April 1, 2025    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Dobson’s motion to compel further responses is GRANTED. Plaintiff is sanctioned, jointly and severally with counsel, $525.00.

            On 2/13/2024, Plaintiff Jorge Penuelas (Plaintiff) filed suit against Lyft Inc., Ernest Deyon Dobson, Terrell Howard, Hertz Vehicles, LLC, and Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., alleging: (1) negligence; (2) motor vehicle; and (3) negligent retention, supervision and hiring.

            On 2/5/2025, Defendant Ernest Deyon Dobson (Dobson) moved to compel further responses from Plaintiff to Form Interrogatories (Set One). Dobson seeks monetary sanctions in connection with the motion.

Discussion

            Dobson argues that Plaintiff should provide further response to Form Interrogatory No. 6.7:

Has any HEALTH CARE PROVIDER advised that you may require future or additional treatment for any injuries that you attribute to the INCIDENT? If so, for each injury state:

(a) the name and ADDRESS of each HEALTH CARE PROVIDER;

(b) the complaints for which the treatment was advised; and

(c) the nature, duration, and estimated cost of the treatment.

            In addition to objections, Plaintiff has provided the following response and supplemental responses:

Yes. In addition to that detailed in Responding Party’s voluminous medical records, Responding Party requires continuing and future medical care, surgeries, procedures, treatment, therapies, and rehabilitation relating to his identified injuries. Responding Party continues to undergo treatment for injuries suffered as a result of the incident. The nature and cost of his future medical care needs has to be determined (and will be determined) by expert witnesses. As discovery and investigation are continuing, Responding Party reserves the right to amend this response should additional information and/or facts be ascertained.

Yes. In addition to that detailed in Responding Party’s voluminous medical records, Responding Party requires continuing and future medical care, surgeries, procedures, treatment, therapies, and rehabilitation relating to his identified injuries. Responding Party continues to, and will continue to for life, undergo treatment for injuries suffered as a result of the incident, including: 1) monthly visits for his prosthetic and new prosthetics per his prosthetic doctor Steven H. Alpert / Lerman and Sons; 2) physical therapy for his amputation, back and neck per All Care Therapies, Lerman and Sons, and Dr. Farzin Kabaei; 3) pain management for his leg/amputation, back, and neck per All Care Therapies, Lerman and Sons, and Dr. Farzin Kabaei; 4) psychological therapy and counseling per Marlene B. Blanco, LMFT, Lerman and Sons, and Orthopedic Farzin Kabaei, MD; 5) home health aide per IHHS; and 6) all medical care and treatment to be determined by Plaintiff’s retained experts including medications and medical equipment. The cost of each of these will be determined by Plaintiff’s retained experts. The duration for each is for Plaintiff’s life.

            The Court agrees that Plaintiff’s response is not “as complete and straight forward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (CCP § 2030.220(a), (b).) Where the question is specific and explicit, an answer that supplies only a portion of the information sought is improper. It is also improper to provide “deftly worded conclusionary answers designed to evade a series of explicit questions.” (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783.)

            Here, Plaintiff failed to state the address of each healthcare provider who recommended future care, or the estimated cost of future care. Plaintiff needs to state the specific future care recommendations he attributes to his injuries from the accident, because that affects how Defendant values the case, and which experts Defendant will retain.

            Moreover, the reference to medical records is not sufficient. Although Code of Civil Procedure Section 2030.230 allows Plaintiff to refer to documents in response to an interrogatory, Plaintiff needs “to specify the writings from which the answer may be derived or ascertained. This specification shall be in sufficient detail to permit the propounding party to locate and to identify, as readily as the responding party can, the documents from which the answer may be ascertained.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.230 [Emphasis added].) Plaintiff failed to specify which medical records contain responsive information.

            Based on the foregoing, Dobson’s motion to compel further responses is granted. Plaintiff is sanctioned, jointly and severally with counsel, $525.00 ($350/hr x 1.5 hour)

It is so ordered.

Dated:  April    , 2025

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.